defaultdotxbe

Form 1s regularly take longer than 88 days as it is, so clearly the time to run the background check is only a portion of that. I doubt the load the background check system will be any higher than it is now as they process any new Form 1s

Air rifles are specifically exempted from being considered "assault weapons"

They would still be banned by features, its not like they can list every single AR model by name.

Feinstein's bill, IIRC, borrowed heavily from Cook County's ban (which may itself be cribbed from somewhere else) but none of that really means anything, it doesn't make the law any more or less valid. The immunity is still in effect, but it's not total as Biden et al. would have you believe, it has exemptions so lawsuits can still get filed and the plaintiff has to show they fall into one of those exemptions.

Looks to me like it only bans 50 BMG and not other 50 caliber cartridges, even for rifles.

SCOTUS might be worried that the trickle effect would mean we'd all go out and buy new machine guns after they strike down the NFA. But since SCOTUS themselves would be the gatekeeper of that trickle I don't think they'd be convinced by the logic.

I can see the possible path for banning all lowers is as follows There exists, somewhere, an archetypal AR lower that is stamped "AR-15," which is explicitly banned in J(ii)(II) At this point it is not exempted as it is not operated manually, its just a stripped lower. That lower, by itself, with no other attachment or feature, is banned by name. Any and all other AR lowers are "copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles" of that stripped lower They are also banned, since as a stripped lower they share the capabilities of the archetypal stripped lower. In this interpretation an already-assembled bolt action AR would possibly be allowed, but the stripped lower to start such a project would not. But it could hinge on whether a stripped lower, that has never been assembled, is a "rifle" or a "pistol" to match the text of sections (J) or (K) ("All of the following rifles" and "All of the following pistols"). We don't know the answer to that. Yes the federal standard is that it is neither a rifle or a pistol until it's assembled, but that's as it pertains to federal law, this is IL law so the courts could interpret differently, particularly since it also bans a combination of parts that could be assembled into an "assault weapon" so if you already own a grandfathered AR you could use those parts with a new stripped lower to assemble a new, non-grandfathered, AR. The same would apply to a bolt-action AR you already own, unless you register the lower.

Caetano was unanimous, so unless you honestly think Kagen and Sotomayor will vote to strike down AWBs then you necessarily acknowledge that at least some of the justices will apply a different standard to rifles than they did to tasers, which leaves room for a decision to uphold the bans if two on the conservative side take that route as well. I agree if decisions were consistent the logic made sense it would be a slam dunk, but if government played by those rules we wouldn't be here in the first place.

A few specific pistols with detachable stocks are exempted as C&R firearms, the Fiala is one of them. https://www.atf.gov/file/128116/download

It's a step in the right direction. I wouldn't go so far as to read into it that SCOTUS wants to overturn AWBs, but more that they want litigants to reframe their arguments in the light of Bruen and polish them in the lower courts before coming to the big stage. I think we are in the best position to get them struck down, better than we have been since CA put the first one in the books in the late 80s, but it's far from a certainty. Roberts doesn't like to rock to the boat so I'm sure he'll vote to uphold. I'm sure it will be a 5-4 decision, but I don't know which way it will go.

For further comparison, look at when they had the House and Senate during the last 2 years of the Obama administration. How many times did they repeal the ACA then, knowing Obama would veto? Then when Trump had his pen all ready to go...nothing.

They haven't even deemed them illegal, the rule explicitly states braces are not banned, only certain configurations of braced pistol are deemed SBRs rather than pistols. So they want you to destroy something that is still legal, but they hope you'll be intimidated into destroying it anyway.

If you convert a registered SBR to a pistol configuration its still an SBR, and still legal so long as its registered (you have to notify the ATF of any change to OAL though) At that point it will be a "weapon made from a rifle." You can petition to have it removed from the NFA registry if its in a non-NFA configuration and you don't plan to go back to an SBR, but this is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and my from understanding almost never approved.

The ATF has never applied the concept of constructive possession in the manner you're stating though. There is "collection of parts" language in the NFA, but it doesn't apply to SBRs (only machine guns, suppressors, and destructive devices) And if they are applying it to SBRs (despite not having the legal authority to do so) it expands a lot farther than just the braces. Read through their worksheet, you can turn a legal braced pistol into an SBR by swapping out the optic. Are they making you destroy all your scopes too? It says I can replace the barrel with one that's 16 inches, but I don't have to destroy the short barrel? Why do they trust me not to put that back on? I think they are just trying to strong-arm people into destroying their property when they have no legal authority to do so.

The rule specifically says they aren't banning braces, but also says I have to destroy my brace if I remove it from my pistol rather than registering or putting on a longer barrel? How does that make sense, why should I have to destroy something that isn't being banned?

My interpretation is that it's only for those passing through. The law says the firearm must be legal where you are coming from, and at your destination (which mirrors the concept in federal transport laws) but if I am going to a range in IL then my firearm is *not* legal at my destination because IL just banned them.

Any SKS, sans the original fixed magazine, can accept the "duckbill" mags. You only need milling and parts if you want to use AK mags. And the SKS has what I would assume the law considers a barrel shroud.

All depends on what they consider "readily modifiable" (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine I've seen it argued that SKS count as detachable because you don't actually have to "modify" anything, just disassemble and reassemble without the magazine in place. Also, less often, that Garands are "readily modifiable" because someone modified one to accept 20-round BAR mags. Needless to say, courts will have a lot to sort out even beyond the outright constitutionality of the ban.

Only if the criminalized act is the buying, but they are criminalizing possession as well. Just like how you were able to legally buy them before, but you can't legally buy them after the ban, you were able to legally possess them before the ban but can't legally possess them after the ban.

Even that wouldn't technically be ex post facto I don't think, but I would think it would be actionable for other reasons (and I don't actually know when any of the bans kick in, I haven't kept up on the details of Illinois bills since escaping the state lol) Ex post facto would like if they did what California's original ban did and only banned buying/selling/manufacturing magazines, and then went around to anyone who had a magazine and charged under the law for buying a mag, despite them having bought it before the ban was enacted. An ex post facto ban on possession would be like you had a magazine in the past, then police saw an old picture on Facebook with the mag and charged you with possession, even though you had sold the mag before the ban was enacted.

Technically no, since possession is an ongoing thing. You possessed the magazine before it was banned, but you also continued to possess it after the ban. It might be actionable if there is no grace period given (like 30 days to sell, destroy, turn in, permanently modify, etc before the full ban kicks in)

I guess it would apply to someone who had a FOID, bought a gun, and then let the FOID expire. Or someone who moved from out of state with guns and never got a FOID.

This never happens under Chevron, quite the opposite in fact. The Chevron defense essentially says the court can't find an agency misinterpreted a statute, because agency's power to interpret the statute supersedes the court's interpretation

I already explained my position here, basically it means the mere presence of a firearm isn't sufficient evidence for the state to deduce how it got there (which pretty much should go without saying, but here I am having to say it anyway) Plus there are plenty of ways for the firearm to be there without an intentional crime being committed: Family member had a FOID and passed away. Firearm was purchased very long ago before FOID was a thing. Person moved from out of state with the gun and never got a FOID. Give me some time and I can probably think of more As for ammo, almost any state in the union will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID

Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy. The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing. Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone. My understanding is the opposite, severability doctrine is the standard and only an inseverability clause would actually necessitate the striking of the entire law (although its sometimes done anyway, when no part of the law is found to be effectively severable) A recent example are the SCOTUS rulings on the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, where they only struck portions of the laws As for getting the gun to your house, basically it means that prosecutors would need specific evidence of how you obtained the gun, simply possessing it isn't sufficient evidence to prove a crime