Jump to content

Illinois Dems Target "Assault Weapons", Age of Gun Owners


mauserme

Recommended Posts

On 12/7/2022 at 3:50 PM, EdDinIL said:

So, we wouldn't be instant felons, but felon wannabes for 300 days (stated in the bill) unless we comply, and because of that time period ex post facto wouldn't apply.

 

Illinois, logical?  Maybe us, but I'm not sure I trust the state to be logical with regards to the 2A, especially if commie mommies start stalking gun ranges on day 301 looking to report potential violations.

 

 

 

I thought the mag limit is enacted at the moment of bill signing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 4:14 PM, techgeek said:

 

I thought the mag limit is enacted at the moment of bill signing?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 4:36 PM, justanoldman said:

This is my understanding as well. The 300 days is for the registration of the scary black gun's only. The magazines are ban immediately.

A magazine ban is essentially a gun ban and don't think it will hold up in court. Can't use the gun if the magazine is illegal and most guns don't come with low capacity 10 round magazines. Also they are punishing and turning into felons millions of gun owners for the action of one criminal and for something they bought legally and is Constitutionally protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 4:22 PM, defaultdotxbe said:

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.

Ex post facto is if they prosecute and penalize you for something you previously bought legally. It's also entrapment because they approved it and said it was ok to buy but now you're a criminal. Can't change the rules of the game after the fact, is immoral and wrong on so many levels and big time Unconstitutional to persecute people for legally bought items and for exercising their Constitutional right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 5:22 PM, 357 said:

Ex post facto is if they prosecute and penalize you for something you previously bought legally. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem in relying only on the Supreme Court was demonstrated loudly in the recent supreme court overturning of Roe v. Wade.  Should Biden/any democrat be elected in 2024 and the democrats keep at least 50 seats in the senate, there is always a chance that two or more of the current conservative justices would need to be replaced.  We are always hanging by a thread on the lives of one or more 70+ year olds.  The two oldest currently are Alito and Thomas at 72 and 74 respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 6:48 PM, defaultdotxbe said:

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.

That's what I'm saying, everything they're doing is ex post facto and illegal. Also conspiring and getting paid by Bloomberg and Soros to take away people's freedoms and Constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 7:39 PM, 357 said:

That's what I'm saying, everything they're doing is ex post facto and illegal. Also conspiring and getting paid by Bloomberg and Soros to take away people's freedoms and Constitutional rights.

100% agree and the real horse ____ part is that we get to live with the infringements while the mess works its way threw the courts on its way to the smack down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 4:36 PM, justanoldman said:

This is my understanding as well. The 300 days is for the registration of the scary black gun's only. The magazines are ban immediately.

The magazine ban itself has to be massively unconstitutional. You have all kinds of people that are perfectly legal becoming felons INSTANTLY with zero chance of complying with the law ( if they wanted to ) as soon as the pile of blubber signs his name. The freedom haters are probably hoping to get people scared into getting rid of lawfully owned things before hand. BTW, really great public servant who pulls ____ like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-jb-pritzker-assault-weapon-ban-proposal-20221208-w6a3wri4izhm5hrz6fyjosnyhm-story.html

 

I think the Governor sent an important message when he said:

 

Pritzker, in his first public comments on (HB5855) since it was filed last week, said he wants the legislation to be passed by the state House and Senate and placed on his desk to be signed into law before the Fourth of July 2023.

...

“I favor the legislation that he’s put forward,” Pritzker said of Morgan’s bill, while the governor added the caveat that “the legislative process can be a grinding one that requires a lengthier look at each piece” of a proposal.

...

“Whether it happens during the lame-duck session, which I know is the expectation, or it happens during regular session … it’s important that we do it as fast as possible, there’s no doubt,” Pritzker said at an unrelated event in Chicago. “But I just want to be clear that our aim is to get it done in the first half of the year.”

...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same article:

 

“Senate President Harmon looks forward to working with Gov. Pritzker to continue to build upon their successful efforts to protect Illinoisans from gun violence, end this horrific string of mass shootings, and set a national example of how it can be done,” Harmon’s spokesman, John Patterson, said in a statement. Patterson added that Harmon’s office has not been involved in detailed negotiations on the legislation but expects to thoroughly review it with members of the Senate Democratic caucus.

 

and

 

Regarding Morgan’s proposal, Durkin said in a statement Wednesday: “I’m keeping an open mind, but will wait until the final product is made available before I reach a conclusion.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2022 at 7:24 AM, solareclipse2 said:

This smells like a backhanded way of them knowing this can't and shouldn't pass. 

They’re gonna make it look bi-partisan. Focus should also be on the Republicans (RINOs) and making it known that they should NOT touch this bill. Any R that waters this bill down is not a friend IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2022 at 6:13 AM, mauserme said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-jb-pritzker-assault-weapon-ban-proposal-20221208-w6a3wri4izhm5hrz6fyjosnyhm-story.html

 

I think the Governor sent an important message when he said:

 

Pritzker, in his first public comments on (HB5855) since it was filed last week, said he wants the legislation to be passed by the state House and Senate and placed on his desk to be signed into law before the Fourth of July 2023.

.......

 

 

 

 

I wonder if something's happening politically (like maybe an announcement of some sort), that he would designate the fourth of July?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2022 at 8:55 AM, Matt B said:

I wouldn’t overthink it. He wants it signed before the one year anniversary of Highland Park.

Especially with Bob Morgan involved, this is likely the correct answer.

 

I hope those testifying in person at the subject matter hearing point out how the Bruen decision should block this, because then we'll likely see some reps flat-out deny the validity of that decision.  They all seem to be skating adroitly around the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd's YT Vids are up to date with his latest thoughts for anyone interested. I knew I should have moved when I wanted to. Oh well, too late now. I'm in it for the long run with you fine IC people. The real irony here, they want to basically prevent all of us law abiding citizens who have submitted to in- depth background checks in order to get our permission slips (FOID/CCL) from being able to defend ourselves. That's just great, because with The Safe-T Act taking effect Jan 1, things should be just fine in Illinois. I've never been a druggie, but I think this is what a bad LSD trip must be like, just living day to day in Illinois in the present time. SMH

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2022 at 9:49 AM, EdDinIL said:

Especially with Bob Morgan involved, this is likely the correct answer.

 

I hope those testifying in person at the subject matter hearing point out how the Bruen decision should block this, because then we'll likely see some reps flat-out deny the validity of that decision.  They all seem to be skating adroitly around the issue.

 

Todd V's strategy is best strategy. 

We aren't even at the first hearing yet, and Jabba's comments on the bill are what is referred to as tempering expectations. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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