Register or Relocate

[cybermgk]

On 1/6/2023 at 8:13 PM, lilguy said:

Soo, if this passes, and we can't discuss whats next. Why continue with this or any gun site going forward. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUe>

 

It's just some of suggesting, that you not personally discuss what you might or might not do to comply or not comply to this law, if/when it becomes such.  MANY people antagonistic to us, you, the 2A, lurk on these pages INCLUDING some Law enforcement that may not care about what is and isn't Constitutional.

 

But, hey, do what you want.

[DoYouFeelLucky]

Here in IA we are all buying bigger safes to hold all the guns you are going to bring us.

 

[soundguy]

On 1/6/2023 at 5:44 PM, crufflesmuth said:

 

No, the 12 round carve out is for the Fudd's with an FN Hi-Power. 

 

Fudds?

 

The Browning High Power holds, and has always held, 13 rounds in the original magazines since 1935 and 15 rounds in the newer MecGar magazines the clones from Girsan and Springfield have been shipping. They are both plentiful and rather inexpensive, as are the 10 round magazines FN/Browning was shipping during the AWB. A 15 round magazine is the current standard.

 

The NEW FN USA HIGH POWER, which is not a Browning High Power, holds 17 rounds in the standard magazines.

 

Fudds?

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

[Quiet Observer]

On 1/6/2023 at 8:46 PM, cybermgk said:

QUe>

 

It's just some of suggesting, that you not personally discuss what you might or might not do to comply or not comply to this law, if/when it becomes such.  MANY people antagonistic to us, you, the 2A, lurk on these pages INCLUDING some Law enforcement that may not care about what is and isn't Constitutional.

 

But, hey, do what you want.

Like we are going to come up with some super clever idea, of which the anti-2As cannot conceive. 

[Quiet Observer]

How is the bill, if passed in whatever form, going to fly in the sanctuary counties? 

[lilguy]

The bill as it stands at the moment allows for registration of subject guns.

Is one allowed to keep at least one standard mag for those guns?

[Upholder]

On 1/6/2023 at 9:44 PM, lilguy said:

The bill as it stands at the moment allows for registration of subject guns.

Is one allowed to keep at least one standard mag for those guns?

 

In a word, no.   ALL magazines that hold more than 12 rounds are outlawed.  The only exception is attached tubular magazines for .22lr.

[cybermgk]

On 1/6/2023 at 9:38 PM, Quiet Observer said:

Like we are going to come up with some super clever idea, of which the anti-2As cannot conceive. 

Not even the point.  It's potential evidence against you if prosecuted among many other things.

 

But, hey be stupid, no skin off my back.

[JDW]

@Upholder thank you for the explanation on what looks like it's going to become law. I tried to read through all that stuff, but could not get through it. My head hurt after a while. Thanks for all the updates last night and all the work you've put in here. Much appreciated.

[deerhuntre]

We've started planning our permanent departure from Illinois.  It's truly a shame what the democrats have done over the last many years to destroy what would have been a wonderful, culture-rich place to live, prosper and enjoy.

[deerhuntre]

On 1/6/2023 at 2:10 PM, Capt_Destro said:

I hate that we cant share things on our own forum.

 

 

 Maybe we need a paid, private (sub)forum where membership requires personal vetting, where we can discuss topics freely?

[spaceman spiff]

I will be relocating, I'm an LEO in one of the border states and we will be welcoming IL refugees with open arms.

[soundguy]

On 1/7/2023 at 12:17 AM, deerhuntre said:

 Maybe we need a paid, private (sub)forum where membership requires personal vetting, where we can discuss topics freely?

 

I think that's called randomly meeting your buddies at some random location and sharing discrete information. If a discussion involves computers or other electronic devices it is probably not really private.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

[djmarkla]

If you have to Hide, bury, move, or have a " boating accident " you have already lost your rights.

[djmarkla]

"Okay you 6 home invaders, wait right here while I go to Iowa to get my rifle" 

[RedWrangler]

One of the Chicago news readers mentioned '... magazines in excess of 15 rounds...'.  Anybody else hear that?  (It was before the 15th round of voting for Speaker, so I don't think that 15 was necessarily on his mind.)

 

Kind of reminds my of the 'we'll have to pass it before we can read it' O'Bama healthcare bill... 

[mauserme]

On 1/6/2023 at 8:13 PM, lilguy said:

Soo, if this passes, and we can't discuss whats next. Why continue with this or any gun site going forward. 

 

 

In our Code of Conduct we ask members to refrain from advocating for or promoting illegal activity.  That's only prudent for the future of the forum and for the legal well being of members who's conscience and circumstances lead them in directions that differ from the hopes of the anti-gun folks in this state.

 

That's not to say we can't speak of the low compliance rates in other states that have tried to ban firearms.

 

That's not to say we can't recognize that Illinois would likely enjoy a similarly low compliance rate.

 

That's not to say we can't speak of the large number of counties in which laws like those proposed will not be enforced.

 

That's not to say we can't speak of the inevitable law suit(s) that will follow, if a ban is passed into law, almost immediately.

 

That's not to say we can't discuss products that might help avoid the effects of such bans.

 

It's true, through, that if a ban becomes law posts saying something like "I won't comply and you shouldn't either" will likely be short lived.

 

 

[FLMOPE]

At this time is there any information on the carve outs to this bill?

 

Law enforcement, armed security etc?

[mousegun6]

I was up until midnight last night reading the 90 some pages of the court reporting in the New Jersey concealed carry law where they are trying to limit being able to carry in almost all specific locations. It struck me, after hearing the New Jersey lawyer, that these laws and the methods that are used to pass them, are a display of the complete contempt that these legislatures have for the constitution and their citizens. New York, New Jersey, and soon Illinois will do whatever they can to pass the agenda of the billionaire that they work for, without any regard for what is just or fair or reasonable. The Illinois system of creating a shell bill and inserting another whole bill as an amendment at the last minute and voting at 1 a.m. in a lame-duck session shows complete contempt for the citizens that they claim to represent. They are not our representatives any longer. They are working for someone else and they will stop at nothing to remain in power and enjoy the perks and prestige they think they deserve. A few good men and women remain in the legislature and I was happy to see them stand and fight against this bill. I thank them for actually representing us, the people.

 

That said, I need to react to the implementation of this bill, in whatever form the final bill takes. I am going to remain a "law-abiding" citizen whatever it takes. I have no intention of breaking the law and do not see that as abandoning my principles as far as the 2nd Amendment goes. I will fight against this or any other bill that deprives people of their rights but I will not become a lawless criminal in the process. I have a social contract with my fellow citizens that says I will conduct myself in a lawful and respectful manner. This law or any other that I disagree with does not remove my obligation to my fellow citizens and that obligation is what holds the society together. Too many people have abandoned that obligation and that is why we have so many problems in our society.

 

I have purchased mag blocks from MAG BLOCKS.COM to modify my magazines to make them legal under the new law. I have had some questions during the process and I have reached out to their customer service department and they have been very responsive and helpful.

 

In summary, the democrats who passed this bill in the house should be ashamed of themselves and I hope the senate will reconsider the issue with an eye toward preserving individual rights and freedom.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/6/2023 at 9:40 PM, Quiet Observer said:

How is the bill, if passed in whatever form, going to fly in the sanctuary counties? 

 

I talked with a few downstate people yesterday.  They continue to wrongly believe that nothing will change for them because they live in one of the sanctuary counties.  They believe they'll still be able to buy what they want and no limits on mags.  They think this is only going to apply to those of us living in the blue counties because their county passed a law years ago that said no new gun control.  I pointed out that those were just county resolutions like the current resolutions that are being passed.  

I'm wondering if the sanctuary county stuff hurt us.  


 

[mousegun6]

On 1/7/2023 at 1:28 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I talked with a few downstate people yesterday.  They continue to wrongly believe that nothing will change for them because they live in one of the sanctuary counties.  They believe they'll still be able to buy what they want and no limits on mags.  They think this is only going to apply to those of us living in the blue counties because their county passed a law years ago that said no new gun control.  I pointed out that those were just county resolutions like the current resolutions that are being passed.  

I'm wondering if the sanctuary county stuff hurt us.  


 

I don't live in a sanctuary county but I wish I did. If this law is passed I think it will be impossible to buy a magazine or gun that is listed as banned, either online or locally. The sanctuary counties may choose to ignore the law and not enforce the law but who knows for sure? We can speculate but that is a fool's errand. I plan that any police officer finding me in possession of an illegal gun or magazine would arrest me, anywhere in Illinois, sanctuary county or not. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

As far as the sanctuary counties hurting us, I don't think they have hurt us because they have sent a message to the democrats in Springfield that they have gone too far. However, I wouldn't bet they will make much difference in this case. Enforcement may be uneven in Illinois, as it is today with most every law on the books. Plan accordingly.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:08 PM, mousegun6 said:

I don't live in a sanctuary county but I wish I did. If this law is passed I think it will be impossible to buy a magazine or gun that is listed as banned, either online or locally. The sanctuary counties may choose to ignore the law and not enforce the law but who knows for sure? We can speculate but that is a fool's errand. I plan that any police officer finding me in possession of an illegal gun or magazine would arrest me, anywhere in Illinois, sanctuary county or not. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

As far as the sanctuary counties hurting us, I don't think they have hurt us because they have sent a message to the democrats in Springfield that they have gone too far. However, I wouldn't bet they will make much difference in this case. Enforcement may be uneven in Illinois, as it is today with most every law on the books. Plan accordingly.

 

 

My point was I think the sanctuary county movement that started years ago may have made people apathetic towards gun control politicians and policies. Most people only care about things if they believe it is going to affect them.  I quote... "We're safe here, why should we care about the laws that are only going to affect Chicago and its neighbors?"  

I listened to the Greg Bishop radio show on Thursday and Friday and a lot of those callers were completely confused.  They still think they get to keep their mags. Some thought they get to keep a limited number of mags - 2 or 3 for each gun they own.  Shotguns are all okay.  There was a lot of ignorance and some were shocked that it seems likely to get signed into law.   



 

[mousegun6]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:51 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

 

My point was I think the sanctuary county movement that started years ago may have made people apathetic towards gun control politicians and policies. Most people only care about things if they believe it is going to affect them.  I quote... "We're safe here, why should we care about the laws that are only going to affect Chicago and its neighbors?"  

I listened to the Greg Bishop radio show on Thursday and Friday and a lot of those callers were completely confused.  They still think they get to keep their mags. Some thought they get to keep a limited number of mags - 2 or 3 for each gun they own.  Shotguns are all okay.  There was a lot of ignorance and some were shocked that it seems likely to get signed into law.   



 

I would agree with you. Complacency has grown because of the sanctuary movement. It may be put to the test and the state may be out to prove that they are still in charge. Trying to predict what Springfield will do next is a loosing battle. We can only hope they actually try and represent the good people of this state in a way that does not infringe on our constitutional rights.

[Tip]

Is it complacency or simply outright confusion.

Not everybody has the time, inclination, or, perhaps, even the wherewithal to wade through tens to hundreds of pages of ever changing legislative mumbo-jumbo to try and parse what it says, doesn’t say, might say or even excludes or doesn’t exclude.

 

Realistically, folks aren’t necessary complacent, the simply DON’T KNOW what’s in there, what it’s impact is and what is or isn’t covered or excluded. And there’s really no place to turn to obtain reliable, accurate information. They certainly won’t get it from the MSM (e.g. 10 rounds, 12 rounds, 15 rounds…)

 

In fact, if one were to query what might pass as subject matter experts one would likely get about as many conflicting answers as experts queried.

 

Look at this site, it might reasonably be considered a reliable, expert source for discerning the details of this proposed legislation yet we have many on here who will not discuss details, and, in fact, many actively attempt to shut down discussion of details for fear of “helping” the other side.

 

You want to try and beat down what you’re calling complacency — start with figuring out a way of providing accurate, reliable information. I’d bet if you eliminate a lot of the confusion you’ll eliminate not all but at least some of that “complacency” you speak of.

 

 

[tricolor]

On 1/7/2023 at 3:10 PM, mousegun6 said:

I would agree with you. Complacency has grown because of the sanctuary movement. It may be put to the test and the state may be out to prove that they are still in charge. Trying to predict what Springfield will do next is a loosing battle. We can only hope they actually try and represent the good people of this state in a way that does not infringe on our constitutional rights.

 

Totally agree - how many people are sitting this out thinking that it won't matter because they live in a sanctuary county.  People are going to be in for a shock when they drive down the highway into another county or when they get stopped by the State Police...

 

 

[tricolor]

On 1/7/2023 at 4:34 PM, Tip said:

Look at this site, it might reasonably be considered a reliable, expert source for discerning the details of this proposed legislation yet we have many on here who will not discuss details, and, in fact, many actively attempt to shut down discussion of details for fear of “helping” the other side.

 

You want to try and beat down what you’re calling complacency — start with figuring out a way of providing accurate, reliable information. I’d bet if you eliminate a lot of the confusion you’ll eliminate not all but at least some of that “complacency” you speak of.

 

 

 

Normally I'd agree with you, but in this instance I think that playing our cards close to our chest is the only way forward.  Don't forget that we are on a litigation footing here. 

 

Don't think that Bloomberg et al are going to not get some return on their investment.  They produced a commercial and have been broadcasting it in support of this legislation, for cripes sake.  This is not the typical legislative sausage making process here, the outcome is already decided.  Bloomberg's bill has come due, and these politicians know which side of the bread is buttered. 

 

We cannot give them ammunition to use against us, we must allow them to make every possible mistake. Unfortunately, that is going to mean that we cannot openly discuss the legislation.

[mousegun6]

Perhaps complacency is not the word that I should have used for gun owners but it fits the general population when it comes to keeping an eye on legislation that may affect them and until it does affect them they don't worry about it. I agree that a big part of the problem with understanding this legislation, or any other, is the deliberate attempt by the legislature to make it hard to understand and the slip-shod way they go about producing legislation that is copied and pasted from other anti-gun legislation in other states. Then they change the bill at the last minute and move it to a shell bill and vote on it under some name that has nothing to do with the legislative intention. It's called fraud, and they are really good at it. Our chubby governor stayed up late for the show in the house the other night because he wants to buy the presidency next and he wants this bill in his cap when he goes on the campaign trail. God help us if he becomes president. There is a concerted, organized, well-funded drive to change the constitution and eliminate the 2nd Amendment. The democrats in Springfield are just trying to outdo their cronies in California, New York, New Jersey, etc.

 

I don't know if I own any guns that will be banned by this bill. I checked the list and it's a big NO, but they change definitions at will and you have to read the fine print so I'm confused.

I do own magazines that will need to be modified or dispossessed. I'm working on that.

I bet there is not a single democrat that voted for this bill who could actually tell you what it bans, what it doesn't ban, or what is in the bill. All they know is that their political future depends on them passing it in some form so their campaign checks from their billionaire buddy will continue to flow. It's about money and power, as always.

 

I think we need to talk about the details of what the bill allows and does not allow once it is passed. We don't need to talk about the bill's defects or talk about the best way to overturn it but we do need to help people understand it and hopefully avoid being arrested because they will be affected by the law if passed. Our collective experience and gun knowledge will help us chart the path through the legislative minefield.  I joined this site because you all are the best informed about gun rights in Illinois and the battle to keep them. I'm hoping I can help in that effort.

 

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:36 PM, mousegun6 said:

Perhaps complacency is not the word that I should have used for gun owners but it fits the general population when it comes to keeping an eye on legislation that may affect them and until it does affect them they don't worry about it. I agree that a big part of the problem with understanding this legislation, or any other, is the deliberate attempt by the legislature to make it hard to understand and the slip-shod way they go about producing legislation that is copied and pasted from other anti-gun legislation in other states. Then they change the bill at the last minute and move it to a shell bill and vote on it under some name that has nothing to do with the legislative intention. It's called fraud, and they are really good at it. Our chubby governor stayed up late for the show in the house the other night because he wants to buy the presidency next and he wants this bill in his cap when he goes on the campaign trail. God help us if he becomes president. There is a concerted, organized, well-funded drive to change the constitution and eliminate the 2nd Amendment. The democrats in Springfield are just trying to outdo their cronies in California, New York, New Jersey, etc.

 

I don't know if I own any guns that will be banned by this bill. I checked the list and it's a big NO, but they change definitions at will and you have to read the fine print so I'm confused.

I do own magazines that will need to be modified or dispossessed. I'm working on that.

I bet there is not a single democrat that voted for this bill who could actually tell you what it bans, what it doesn't ban, or what is in the bill. All they know is that their political future depends on them passing it in some form so their campaign checks from their billionaire buddy will continue to flow. It's about money and power, as always.

 

I think we need to talk about the details of what the bill allows and does not allow once it is passed. We don't need to talk about the bill's defects or talk about the best way to overturn it but we do need to help people understand it and hopefully avoid being arrested because they will be affected by the law if passed. Our collective experience and gun knowledge will help us chart the path through the legislative minefield.  I joined this site because you all are the best informed about gun rights in Illinois and the battle to keep them. I'm hoping I can help in that effort.

 

 

If we mention it bans a type of gun in common use, the antis that lurk here will see that and tell their people who will then fix their bill.  We are indirectly helping them build a better mouse trap by pointing out everything it bans and everything unconstitutional. 

Between the House committee hearing and the House Floor debate I'm convinced someone helped them fix the bill a bit.   I'd speculate that a special carve out for the manufacturers didn't happen without some quid pro quo. 

[mousegun6]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:59 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

If we mention it bans a type of gun in common use, the antis that lurk here will see that and tell their people who will then fix their bill.  We are indirectly helping them build a better mouse trap by pointing out everything it bans and everything unconstitutional. 

Between the House committee hearing and the House Floor debate I'm convinced someone helped them fix the bill a bit.   I'd speculate that a special carve out for the manufacturers didn't happen without some quid pro quo. 

I'm not suggesting that we discuss or identify the parts that are unconstitutional except to say that the whole bill is unconstitutional. I am suggesting that we try and help people understand that  some firearms are banned and the list is a part of the bill. I don't know how reading the bill, understanding the guns that are banned, and taking steps to protect ourselves is possibly going to help them "build a better mousetrap". Please explain. I'm confused

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/7/2023 at 6:31 PM, mousegun6 said:

I'm not suggesting that we discuss or identify the parts that are unconstitutional except to say that the whole bill is unconstitutional. I am suggesting that we try and help people understand that  some firearms are banned and the list is a part of the bill. I don't know how reading the bill, understanding the guns that are banned, and taking steps to protect ourselves is possibly going to help them "build a better mousetrap". Please explain. I'm confused

 

Okay...  gun bills are not written by gun people that are knowledgeable about firearms.   So they often make mistakes when they are looking to ban types of guns with various features and accessories.  

Back in the day they would write bills that would ban guns that hold X amount of rounds.   Well many lever action guns hold more than X amount of rounds in their tubular magazine.  The antis have learned from us shouting "IT EVEN BANS LEVER ACTION GUNS".  So after 20+ years of this, the anti-gun organizations and their politicians have learned how to write better bills on their end by exempting lever action guns with tubular mags from their bills.

 

 The latest bill prevented IL based manufacturers from selling AR15s out of state.  That is a commerce clause issue.  I saw it mentioned here on this board that it was a huge commerce clause issue.  Guess what happened when the bill hit the House floor?  That issue had been fixed.  Did they learn that from reading our posts in response to SB 2226 and HB 5855, or from some youtuber expert that has to point out every constitutional issue, or did someone mention it during the committee hearing?  We'll never know, but they fixed it.