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

[mauserme]

Slipping in as No Position doesn't help us, though.  We want opposition, not indifference.

[solareclipse2]

It's entirely possible those people are shills or just don't know what they're doing but I can safely say I opposed the bill. 

[techgeek]

Of course my house rep was one of the first to sign on as a co-sponsor.  Not that I voted for the guy!  Wonder if the bozo even knows that tens of thousands of his constituents will be felons.

[Flynn]

On 12/1/2022 at 7:50 PM, Retiredguns said:

Grandfathering?

 

I say focus on an injuction baring all enforcment of the unconstititonal law before it even goes into effect, with Bruen gone are the days of compromising away the right, we should not even entertain compromise anymore, go for the jugular and end the unconstitional laws entirely.

[techgeek]

On 12/5/2022 at 1:43 AM, 357 said:

Things bought legally by more than 2 million law abiding Illinois residents which they want to turn into felons for possessing even an "assault" shotgun but the real criminals that are doing the shootings can have AR-15 with 100 round drum magazines no problem and don't even get charged and get a slap on the wrist under the SAFE-T ACT AKA protect and embolden the criminals Act. They are disarming law abiding people and giving the criminals the upper hand which will exponentially increase crime but they don't care about crime and it's about control as always.

 

ETA this is entrapment too and Ex Post Facto law and Unconstitutional.

 

Ex Post Facto isn't a good argument to stand on IMO.  It has already been perverted in legal interpretations so that it carried no weight.

 

2nd and 14th Amendment.  Common use.  All we can hope for is a federal bail-out on this one!  

[steveTA84]

On 12/5/2022 at 6:55 PM, Flynn said:

 

I say focus on an injuction baring all enforcment of the unconstititonal law before it even goes into effect, with Bruen gone are the days of compromising away the right, we should not even entertain compromise anymore, go for the jugular and end the unconstitional laws entirely.

This. And the judge must get reminded what Bruen changes (no more arguments regarding “expert opinions” or “feelings” or “muh public safety” interest balancing). Here’s a judge even out of CA

 

[steveTA84]

A reminder for everyone. In court, it will be up to the state of IL to prove that criminalizing the possession of magazines and “unregistered” lawfully purchased firearms is of historical tradition. It is not. Back when the 2A was ratified, there were multi-shot weapons that were not illegal for civilians. Heck, Joe Schmoe could own artillery and mortars (I posted an ordinance regarding that a few pages back). If the plaintiffs stick to the basics and don’t try and do stupid things like trying to convince the judge that they’re just “modern sporting rifles” (that terminology plays into the antis) and makes it a consistent point that the state has to prove (which they do now) that widespread registration and bans of common weapons were in practice in/around 1791 in a state, then I see no way for the state to win, as there simply wasn’t anything on the books and the “founding fathers” didn’t care what people had. There is no way this bill Morgan introduced, even if amended heavily, is constitutional. Just gonna take a lawyer that makes Bruen the centerpiece of the argument (which will leave the state in the wind)

[steveTA84]

Yeah and also right here. Magazine fed rifles/shotguns and pistols are what is common now, and remember, back when the 2A was ratified, people could own with no issues whatever the military had  

[Tvandermyde]

Steve -- I am well aware of New Yorks reset. Any litigation I am involved in will key on on No interest balancing, the burden is on them, and the other core tenenats of Heller. Go watch my videos about how Gpac gets the whole thing wrong

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 12/5/2022 at 8:13 PM, Tvandermyde said:

Steve -- I am well aware of New Yorks reset. Any litigation I am involved in will key on on No interest balancing, the burden is on them, and the other core tenenats of Heller. Go watch my videos about how Gpac gets the whole thing wrong

 

 

Oh I wasn’t referring to you, and I did watch the videos   

 

 

[Flynn]

On 12/5/2022 at 7:42 PM, steveTA84 said:

that widespread registration and bans of common weapons were in practice in/around 1791 in a state, then I see no way for the state to win, as there simply wasn’t anything on the books and the “founding fathers” didn’t care what people had.

 

One thing on this, the Bruen ruling sort of left open also weighing in the reconstruction era (personally I think that was in regards to States being bound to honor civil rights not that any reconstruction era racist laws should be honored as history and tradition) but we know that since the state will not be able to find any formation era laws they will turn to the few reconstruction era ones, but what is intereting there is almost all reconstruction era gun laws were rooted in nothing short or blatant and pure racism aimed at the free slaved, so they should have no weight, IMO.

[steveTA84]

On 12/5/2022 at 8:36 PM, Flynn said:

but what is intereting there is almost all reconstruction era gun laws were rooted in nothing short or blatant and pure racism aimed at the free slaved, so they should have no weight, IMO.

Correct. Current litigation in other states has the anti-gun side pointing to discrimination against blacks, Catholics and native Americans to argue in favor of their stuff. Problem is, the 1964 civil rights act kills the constitutionality of those arguments, but they still push them Anyways 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

I think what everyone is trying to say is that the lawyer that brings the challenge before the court must be well versed in gun control history and the new standard of review set by Bruen.  And most importantly, that lawyer must be able to articulate those points clearly, unlike some recent hearings in which I thought the attorney couldn't string two sentences together.

 

  

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 12/5/2022 at 9:41 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I think what everyone is trying to say is that the lawyer that brings the challenge before the court must be well versed in gun control history and the new standard of review set by Bruen.  And most importantly, that lawyer must be able to articulate those points clearly, unlike some recent hearings in which I thought the attorney couldn't string two sentences together.

 

  

 

 

Bingo 

[howie]

Done x 2

[steveTA84]

Not that it matters much, but as predicted 

[Flynn]

On 12/5/2022 at 11:16 PM, steveTA84 said:

Not that it matters much, but as predicted 

 

That fact that a clearly unconstituional law has that many proponents is sad and shows that the courts are the only way to safeguard your civil rights in Illinois!

[357]

The data says only 455 people a year are killed with rifles AKA "assault" weapons. More people are killed from hands, fists and feet.

 

"The only reason a government would want to disarm the people is because they intend to do something people would oppose."

Anonymous

 

https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/30/fbi-data-deaths-hands-fists-feet-versus-rifles/9960682002

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Flynn]

On 12/6/2022 at 12:31 AM, 357 said:

The data says only 455 people a year are killed with rifles AKA "assault" weapons. More people are killed from hands, fists and feet.

 

"The only reason a government would want to disarm the people is because they intend to do something people would oppose."

Anonymous

 

https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/30/fbi-data-deaths-hands-fists-feet-versus-rifles/9960682002

 

It was always a weak means-end argument by the government, but the courts went with it, now it's an invalid and moot argument that courts can't (at least not following precedent) go along with, even though many still want to.

 

As I have said elsewhere, even our side needs to drop the means-end argument countering, I know it hard as it's been driven into us for decades that it was valid, but as hard as it might be when the government continues to use that argument, instead of countering it like we used to, we instead now simply need to shut that argument down as invalid and moot, don't dilute it anymore saying that means-end doesn't rise to the level to justify the infringment, means-end is now entirely moot on the premise.  It doesn't matter if the law is claimed to save 1,000,000 children, that is no longer a valid argument for gun control of any type.

[Sol-Invictus]

Absolutely, when ever they bring up the number of deaths. Simply say that is not relevant. It is illegal to ban affordable self protecting devices period!  Why do you want to make young black inner city single mother criminals for wanting to protect their babies? What kind of sicko are you? Are you planning on passing a law allowing slavery next? 

[Sol-Invictus]

When asked why I need any particular firearm I like to respond by saying, to prevent gun confiscation so the democrats cab not pass laws to bring back their tradition of slavery, internment, or Jim crow. If someone says there are lots of black democrats I say. Well it was a black African that brought slavery here and fought to have their black slaves imported. It was previously against the law. Why would black democrats not try to enslave black Africans again? That is why I need my firearm. Are you a racist you endorses slavery?

[dukemason]

Why doesn’t this bill apply the same restrictions to law enforcement in Illinois? Why do Chicago Democrats want this disparity?

[djmarkla]

On 12/6/2022 at 7:38 AM, dukemason said:

Why doesn’t this bill apply the same restrictions to law enforcement in Illinois? Why do Chicago Democrats want this disparity?

They are government controlled. That is what any tyrant wants when they are government.

[dukemason]

On 12/6/2022 at 7:43 AM, djmarkla said:

They are government controlled. That is what any tyrant wants when they are government.

I guess it was a rhetorical question. But citizens that are untrusting of law enforcement should be reminded they are being treated differently.  

[steveTA84]

On 12/6/2022 at 8:14 AM, dukemason said:

I guess it was a rhetorical question. But citizens that are untrusting of law enforcement should be reminded they are being treated differently.  

Someone with good “propaganda” (though truthful)  skills can have a field day with things like “they say that weapons of war and hi-capacity magazines don’t belong on the streets. Ask yourself then, why is law enforcement exempt? Who are they waging war on under the orders of politicians? The answer is YOU”

 

It’s the truth too. Amazing how the Dems feel differently about militarizing the police when it’s for things they want like gun control enforcement against the populace, ain’t it?.....

[G214me]

On 12/5/2022 at 11:48 PM, Flynn said:

 

That fact that a clearly unconstituional law has that many proponents is sad and shows that the courts are the only way to safeguard your civil rights in Illinois!

That's a great point. To me what's even sadder is that with all the FOID card holders and gun owners in this state and with the amount of people buying guns in such numbers that Illinois far exceeds many other states, we only have a few thousand names on the opponent list. 

[steveTA84]

On 12/6/2022 at 9:25 AM, G214me said:

That's a great point. To me what's even sadder is that with all the FOID card holders and gun owners in this state and with the amount of people buying guns in such numbers that Illinois far exceeds many other states, we only have a few thousand names on the opponent list. 

An unintended effect is going to be these new gun owners that don’t partake in politics much waking up one day and realizing they can’t buy mags and certain guns and that they are magically a felon because some north shore limousine commie introduced a bill, got it passed, and it was signed by the trust fund baby Governor 

[G214me]

On 12/5/2022 at 7:42 PM, steveTA84 said:

A reminder for everyone. In court, it will be up to the state of IL to prove that criminalizing the possession of magazines and “unregistered” lawfully purchased firearms is of historical tradition. It is not. Back when the 2A was ratified, there were multi-shot weapons that were not illegal for civilians. Heck, Joe Schmoe could own artillery and mortars (I posted an ordinance regarding that a few pages back). If the plaintiffs stick to the basics and don’t try and do stupid things like trying to convince the judge that they’re just “modern sporting rifles” (that terminology plays into the antis) and makes it a consistent point that the state has to prove (which they do now) that widespread registration and bans of common weapons were in practice in/around 1791 in a state, then I see no way for the state to win, as there simply wasn’t anything on the books and the “founding fathers” didn’t care what people had. There is no way this bill Morgan introduced, even if amended heavily, is constitutional. Just gonna take a lawyer that makes Bruen the centerpiece of the argument (which will leave the state in the wind)

As usual you are 100% correct. I think the anti freedom loons know their bill is garbage and will get knocked down in court easily but they also know that getting the lawsuits together, getting the court dates planned out, and then getting appeals going after that will take time. In that time gun stores will suffer and maybe go under, Illinois manufacturers like Rock River, Springfield Armory, DSA, and others will be flat out screwed when they can't make anything.

 

I think they also hope that law abiding citizens will get scared and get rid of magazines that hold over 10 rounds, gun parts they may have, get rid of so called "assault weapons" they posses, and maybe even register things they want to keep so that no matter when this is struck down ( and it will be ) they have a list of who has what even to a small degree. We will win but the damage on the way will be pretty bad. I think that may be the real goal, giving us a big hit before THEY lose in the end.

[EdDinIL]

On 12/6/2022 at 9:33 AM, steveTA84 said:

An unintended effect is going to be these new gun owners that don’t partake in politics much waking up one day and realizing they can’t buy mags and certain guns and that they are magically a felon because some north shore limousine commie introduced a bill, got it passed, and it was signed by the trust fund baby Governor 

How many of those new gun owners will willingly register their existing firearms, secure in the false belief that the state is looking out for them?

[steveTA84]

On 12/6/2022 at 9:44 AM, EdDinIL said:

How many of those new gun owners will willingly register their existing firearms, secure in the false belief that the state is looking out for them?

Well, they need to be educated that what the state is doing is illegal under the federal 1986 FOPA