Jump to content

Illinois General Assembly 1/10/2023


mauserme

Recommended Posts

On 1/10/2023 at 2:40 PM, mousegun6 said:

I agree. We should all go buy something at the FFL you do business with to show we support them. Part of the intention of this bill is to drive them out of business since they will have to dispose of their "now illegal" inventory back to the distributor and may take a loss on it. Support your local gun shop.

💯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:43 PM, FieldGL said:

So what happens to the local gun stores that were not able to sell the inventory that will be illegal to sell? Do they have to sell them to out of state stores or relocate them outside of the state? 

 

Put them aside for LEOs until this blows over. They really only get hurt by the carrying cost of the inventory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 3:03 PM, Skris48 said:

but the US supreme court hasn't even accepted an assault weapons ban case let alone overturned one.

All that were pending before SCOTUS were sent back almost immediately after the Bruen decision and basically the courts were told “new standard. Re-rule based on that”. The CA ban will be overturned again and be published in March more than likely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 3:01 PM, Mitch said:

So what was in the final bill that passed as far as mag limits?  Was it 5 for shotguns, 10 for rifles, and 15 for pistols?

 

Does that mean that a pump action shotgun that holds more than 5 rounds is now illegal?

If I read the law correctly, pumps are not AWBs. Not my cup of tea, I am a semi-auto snob, have a M2 and a couple of Beretta 1301s. Started w/a Stoeger M3K and just moving right along...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:55 PM, 357 said:

The Supreme Court needs to spell it out so these crooks can't say is muddled and continue with their shenanigans and sell our right to billionaires for campaign contributions.

Bruen already spelled it out, morgan doesn't actually believe any of what he said.  They know this isn't constitutional, they just don't care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 3:06 PM, steveTA84 said:

All that were pending before SCOTUS were sent back almost immediately after the Bruen decision and basically the courts were told “new standard. Re-rule based on that”. The CA ban will be overturned again and be published in March more than likely 

 

The MA one looked good based on oral arguments, even though it seemed the two rational judges didn't really understand Bruen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the IL state's attorney knows that signing this bill into law is unconstitutional, yes?

 

Surely that since the IL state's attorney knows this, they're telling the governor that signing this bill would violate the governor's oath of office, yes?

 

Surely the IL state's attorney knowing this bill is unconstitutional, also knows that this bill opens the state up to litigation, yes?

 

Surely the state's attorney is prepared to take action against the governor to prevent said litigation and act in the best interest of the state, yes?

 

Nah. Of course not. IL gotta do things in hard mode all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:49 PM, hetzen said:

 

If you're ignorant on a topic, it's best to keep quiet instead of stating things.

 

Look up what happened in Colorado earlier this year when town's passed AWBs. Look at the NJ and NY and their carry laws. 

I think we're in slightly unusual territory for a few of us.  Some of us have been watching the Cook County and Chicago AWBs bounced around in court for the better part of 15 years without any substantive relief for those citizens, and we're used to seeing a very real disconnect between what gun rights advocates all agree the SCOTUS rulings have specified and what the lower courts are willing to actually provide in terms of relief.  I appreciate many folks on here (especially Mauserme) stating that they expect this to move more quickly, but I also think we simply don't know how much our specific state, district and circuit judges might delay or dodge ruling on this or even blatantly misinterpret Bruen and kick it back up the chain (causing further substantial delays) until we actually go through it with the lower courts we have to deal with.  Those of us watching this for long enough have learned to remain hopeful when it comes to court relief, but definitely not to count on it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 3:07 PM, tricolor said:

Bruen already spelled it out, morgan doesn't actually believe any of what he said.  They know this isn't constitutional, they just don't care

There should be accountability and consequences for the great crimes they are committing against more than 2 million people of this state who have committed no crime. They know they will get away with it that's why they keep doing it, just like the criminals in Illinois which they set free to prey on the people.

 

Corrupt politicians shouldn't be allowed to turn more than 2 million innocent voters into felons for exercising their Constitutional right with the stroke of a pen. Selling our Constitutional right to special interest and billionaires for campaign contributions is not legal and should be investigated. Harmon is a lawyer too and knows better but openly ignores the Supreme Court and ridicules them, can't the Supreme Court do something about disbarring him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had the equipment and ability to do it, I would make morale patches that say something along the lines of "MY CRIMINAL STATUS IN ILLINOIS FOR TODAY: NOT A FELON", and "NOT A" would be on a second hook and loop backing so you could remove and apply it as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 3:22 PM, TargetCollector said:

I think we're in slightly unusual territory for a few of us.  Some of us have been watching the Cook County and Chicago AWBs bounced around in court for the better part of 15 years without any substantive relief for those citizens, and we're used to seeing a very real disconnect between what gun rights advocates all agree the SCOTUS rulings have specified and what the lower courts are willing to actually provide in terms of relief.  I appreciate many folks on here (especially Mauserme) stating that they expect this to move more quickly, but I also think we simply don't know how much our specific state, district and circuit judges might delay or dodge ruling on this or even blatantly misinterpret Bruen and kick it back up the chain (causing further substantial delays) until we actually go through it with the lower courts we have to deal with.  Those of us watching this for long enough have learned to remain hopeful when it comes to court relief, but definitely not to count on it.    

I agree - the justice system often gets there, but it can be a slooooow journey.  I think it is tenuous to put our confidence in SCOTUS.  These legislators know better. PS: I hope Im wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 3:01 PM, Mitch said:

So what was in the final bill that passed as far as mag limits?  Was it 5 for shotguns, 10 for rifles, and 15 for pistols?

 

Does that mean that a pump action shotgun that holds more than 5 rounds is now illegal?

 

On 1/10/2023 at 3:07 PM, ealcala31 said:

If I read the law correctly, pumps are not AWBs. Not my cup of tea, I am a semi-auto snob, have a M2 and a couple of Beretta 1301s. Started w/a Stoeger M3K and just moving right along...

Pump action is excluded from being an AW.  However as written, it only excludes attached tubular mags for 22 rifles of any kind and lever action from the 10 rd limit, thus, as I read it even pump shotguns are limited to a 10 rd magazine.  AND, what is scary, is that with short shell rds, where does that leave a typical pump with a nominal 5-8 rd capacity, if using shorter rounds.  As written, technically they would be illegal, except at home, range, on road to range, or private property with express permission.

 

13       (2) "Assault weapon" does not include:
14           (A) Any firearm that is an unserviceable firearm or
15       has been made permanently inoperable.
16           (B) An antique firearm or a replica of an antique
17       firearm.
18           (C) A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump,
19       lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun
20  

    with a revolving cylinder.

 

 

However,as written, it would

9       Sec. 24-1.10. Manufacture, delivery, sale, and possession
10   of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
11       (a) In this Section:
12       "Handgun" has the meaning ascribed to it in the Firearm
13   Concealed Carry Act.
14       "Long gun" means a rifle or shotgun.
15       "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:
16           (1) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
17       device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily
18       restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of
19       ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of
20       ammunition for handguns; or
21           (2) any combination of parts from which a device
22       described in paragraph (1) can be assembled.
23       "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does not
24   include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
25   capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire

 

 

    10200HB5471sam003 - 106 - LRB102 24372 RLC 42574 a
 
1   ammunition. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does
2   not include a tubular magazine that is contained in a
3   lever-action firearm or any device that has been made
4   permanently inoperable.

 

 

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...