Jump to content

SB 2510 gaining traction. Will “assault” rifles be banned soon?


vk60187
 Share

Recommended Posts

Assault weapon is a term invented by the NY Times. 

Assault rifle comes from the German 'Sturmgewehr' which means storm rifle, and would require the full automatic ability. 

 

AR-15 rifles do not meet this standard. They just look scary to some people. 

 

But then again, the opposition has always played fast and loose with the language, haven't they? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 3:59 PM, EdDinIL said:

That bill is currently in Assignments, but it just got a bunch of new co-sponsors.  

 

Looks like Todd V already brought it up:

 

https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80051-special-session-semi-auto-ban/

 

Yep you are correct, unfortunately I couldn’t delete my post after noticing that the subject is already being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 5:00 PM, steveTA84 said:

ou will not lose anything unless you submit. Stop letting these people have power over you

I’m near Chicago.  The cops here will not be so understanding as the police down state.  I believe my only options would be to either move to a different state or register.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 6:57 PM, vk60187 said:

I’m near Chicago.  The cops here will not be so understanding as the police down state.  I believe my only options would be to either move to a different state or register.

I would wait for an injunction, then make donations to what ever organization/s take the case to court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 4:41 PM, Nanook said:

But then again, the opposition has always played fast and loose with the language, haven't they? 

 

Yep, they love their buzz words and phrases when it fits their narrative, just look at Biden today, a ex-world leader (an ally to the US and even Trump) is assassinated in an act of terrorism and Biden can't resist tossing up their current agenda 'gun violence' buzzword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 11:23 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

I just spent a few minutes looking at the new co-sponsors for these bills. None of the senators, and only one representative, is from downstate (East St. Louis, which is a solid Democrat area).

 

 

 

If you had to wager, do you think the bill would pass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are always difficult to read at this point in an election year.  They would love to tie Senator Bailey to a vote on this bill because his support for the Second Amendment is unwavering, and that won't play well in Chicago.

 

That doesn't mean it can't pass, just that there are more things to consider than creating new law.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 1:14 PM, vk60187 said:

If you had to wager, do you think the bill would pass?

 

I don't have the expertise to give you a good answer. There haven't been (yet) any downstate Dem senators co-sponsor the Senate bill. And only one representative on the House bill.

 

If the Republicans hang together and all vote "no", the Democrats still have the numbers to pass with a super majority. But it might cost them some of the few downstate seats they have. If they don't care, they can pass whatever they want to.

 

If they do pass anything, I feel confident (as an interested observer) saying it'll be challenged in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 2:06 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

...

 

If they do pass anything, I feel confident (as an interested observer) saying it'll be challenged in court.

 

I am confident that will be the case.  It will be another opportunity for Illinois to contribute another McDonald, Ezell, Shepard/Moore, etc to our cause.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 2:10 PM, mauserme said:

 

I am confident that will be the case.  It will be another opportunity for Illinois to contribute another McDonald, Ezell, Shepard/Moore, etc to our cause.

 

 

Problem is, the IL Supreme Court already ruled assault weapons ban of Deerfield constitutional. 
 

https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/courts/2021/11/19/illinois-supreme-court-upholds-deerfield-ban-assault-weapons/8685350002/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 5:53 PM, vk60187 said:

Problem is, the IL Supreme Court already ruled assault weapons ban of Deerfield constitutional. 
 

https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/courts/2021/11/19/illinois-supreme-court-upholds-deerfield-ban-assault-weapons/8685350002/

 

Remember, this would likely be decided in federal court.

There are knowledgeable people on this forum that believe with the recent SCOTUS ruling against New York state, we would be well positioned to prevail against a statewide AWB.

Might take a while, or maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 6:28 PM, springfield shooter said:

Remember, this would likely be decided in federal court.

There are knowledgeable people on this forum that believe with the recent SCOTUS ruling against New York state, we would be well positioned to prevail against a statewide AWB.

Might take a while, or maybe not.

I hope you are right, but I also hope the AWB doesn't pass at all.  Not sure whom we should call or write.  i'm near Chicago, so there is a high probability that my representatives will be gun grabbers.  But what can I do about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 5:53 PM, vk60187 said:

Problem is, the IL Supreme Court already ruled assault weapons ban of Deerfield constitutional. 
 

https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/courts/2021/11/19/illinois-supreme-court-upholds-deerfield-ban-assault-weapons/8685350002/

True, but that was pre-Bruen..   So for all practical purposed that case is now debunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 7:08 PM, vk60187 said:

I hope you are right, but I also hope the AWB doesn't pass at all.  Not sure whom we should call or write.  i'm near Chicago, so there is a high probability that my representatives will be gun grabbers.  But what can I do about that?

 

Yep, it would be better to bottle it up if we can and we'll be on it with alerts and calls to action if and when that time comes.

 

The thing is, if they're hoping for some sort of lesser of two evils negotiation, we're living in a higher than strict scrutiny world now.  They would be foolish to count on intermediate scrutiny going forward.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 8:23 PM, mauserme said:

 

Yep, it would be better to bottle it up if we can and we'll be on it with alerts and calls to action if and when that time comes.

 

The thing is, if they're hoping for some sort of lesser of two evils negotiation, we're living in a higher than strict scrutiny world now.  They would be foolish to count on intermediate scrutiny going forward.

 

 

I think the real question is the Senate, where the Democrats have a 6-seat supermajority. What I wonder is how many of those six seats are held by downstate, central, and/or rural state senators who would face a difficult re-election bid because of the issue, particularly given the likelihood that both 2022 and 2024 will be highly favorable years for the Republicans.

 

The question for them then becomes, "is it worth the political risk to pass a bill that'll be challenged in court almost immediately in a post-Bruen environment, particularly if it could cost the Democratic Party its supermajority in the State Senate? Especially over something that may not ultimately withstand constitutional scrutiny?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 9:42 PM, MrTriple said:

I think the real question is the Senate, where the Democrats have a 6-seat supermajority. What I wonder is how many of those six seats are held by downstate, central, and/or rural state senators who would face a difficult re-election bid because of the issue, particularly given the likelihood that both 2022 and 2024 will be highly favorable years for the Republicans.

 

The question for them then becomes, "is it worth the political risk to pass a bill that'll be challenged in court almost immediately in a post-Bruen environment, particularly if it could cost the Democratic Party its supermajority in the State Senate? Especially over something that may not ultimately withstand constitutional scrutiny?"

 

Per the map linked to below, they currently hold 5 seats from Bloomington/Peoria (the 46th District) south.

 

https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/map-of-illinois-state-senate-districts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 9:58 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

Per the map linked to below, they currently hold 5 seats from Bloomington/Peoria (the 46th District) south.

 

https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/map-of-illinois-state-senate-districts

So it looks like the six are Rockford; Peoria/North Bloomington; Champaign/Danville/Rantoul; Springfield; a broad area east of Edwardsville and north of Belleville; and Belleville/East St. Louis.

 

So that then begs the question of how they currently lean (on paper), how they'll lean in the 2022/2024 environment, and any potential shifts one way or another over the decade.

 

I'm not going to be able to do an analysis at the moment, but I would quickly note that the Democrats still have more room to fall in rural America, Illinois being no exception. That could have an impact on how these Senate districts lean politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 10:21 PM, MrTriple said:

So it looks like the six are Rockford; Peoria/North Bloomington; Champaign/Danville/Rantoul; Springfield; a broad area east of Edwardsville and north of Belleville; and Belleville/East St. Louis.

 

So that then begs the question of how they currently lean (on paper), how they'll lean in the 2022/2024 environment, and any potential shifts one way or another over the decade.

 

I'm not going to be able to do an analysis at the moment, but I would quickly note that the Democrats still have more room to fall in rural America, Illinois being no exception. That could have an impact on how these Senate districts lean politically.


The GOP has the benefit of what I like to call a nationalized local election and it is coming in a mid-term cycle that has almost always costs the majority party their majority.    

This means that Biden's policies will be voted on at a local level.  The Texas special election that flipped a US House seat that had been blue for over 100 years is a good indicator of just how big an election can be when nation wide issues top the concerns of the voters.  In the Texas election, Flores flipped a historic blue seat that Biden won by 5pts, and she won it by 6. That is a huge swing.  Go across the country and spot the GOP +11 on each race and there could be a wave the likes of which have never been seen.   

Normally I worry about what the democrats will do in a lame duck session.  I'm more worried because they know they are going to get wiped the F out, and they are going to move earlier to get bills passed now, because they can see they'll be much weaker after November.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...