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

[crufflesmuth]

On 12/7/2022 at 2:46 PM, mauserme said:

Expanding on your thinking, even non-gun owners could be stopped while in the vicinity of a range on the mere chance that they may own a firearm illegally.

 

Or we could just dial  it back a bit and look at this logically.

 

 

 

Logically, yes - that's overkill and bordering on hyperbole - it remains a possibility, none the less.

[defaultdotxbe]

On 12/7/2022 at 11:18 AM, Capt_Destro said:

Isnt the magazine portion ex post facto?

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)

[EdDinIL]

On 12/7/2022 at 3:38 PM, defaultdotxbe said:

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)

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.

 

On 12/7/2022 at 2:46 PM, mauserme said:

Expanding on your thinking, even non-gun owners could be stopped while in the vicinity of a range on the mere chance that they may own a firearm illegally.

 

Or we could just dial  it back a bit and look at this logically.

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.

 

 

[techgeek]

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?

[defaultdotxbe]

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.

[justanoldman]

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

 

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

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.

[357]

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.

[357]

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.

[Flynn]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:04 PM, 357 said:

A magazine ban is essentially a gun ban and don't think it will hold up in court. 

 

Agree, and when the Supreme Courts finally has enough and spells it out to them that gun accessories, component parts and ammo are protected by the 2nd as well, their heads will spin.

[defaultdotxbe]

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.

[gunuser17]

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.

[357]

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.

[G214me]

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.

[G214me]

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.

[mauserme]

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.”

...

 

 

 

[mauserme]

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.”

 

 

[steveTA84]

Oh gee. Pritzker and the dems are gonna look reasonable by letting Durkin water it down.....

[solareclipse2]

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

[steveTA84]

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

Edited December 8, 2022 at 01:32 PM by steveTA84

[mauserme]

On 12/8/2022 at 7:30 AM, steveTA84 said:

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. 

 

We've been doing that since the beginning of Spring Session, and not just the RINOs.

 

 

[springfield shooter]

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?

[springfield shooter]

On 12/8/2022 at 7:32 AM, mauserme said:

 

We've been doing that since the beginning of Spring Session, and not just the RINOs.

 

 

 

"Don't give an inch."  Strong Vincent, 07/02/1863

[steveTA84]

On 12/8/2022 at 7:56 AM, springfield shooter said:

 

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

I wouldn’t doubt that TBH. A gun ban on Independence Day is very Democrat

Edited December 8, 2022 at 02:13 PM by steveTA84

[springfield shooter]

On 12/8/2022 at 8:13 AM, steveTA84 said:

I wouldn’t doubt that TBH. A gun ban on Independence Day is very Democrat

 

I was thinking more along the lines of possibly announcing a run for higher office. As in the Oval Office.

[Matt B]

On 12/8/2022 at 7:56 AM, springfield shooter said:

 

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

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

[springfield shooter]

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.

 

Here's hoping it doesn't happen.

Edited December 8, 2022 at 03:39 PM by springfield shooter

[EdDinIL]

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.

[JDW]

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

[Matt B]

People can talk about running to another state, but remember that we are one senator and a few house seats away from a national AWB. May as well stay and fight on the front lines to try to get all AWBs ruled unconstitutional. There is no hiding from these even in red states.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

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.