Illinois General Assembly 1/10/2023

[mauserme]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:14 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Flowers has a point. Not sure what her proposed solution is, but i agree wirh her diagnosis. 

 

 

She does, but those points were made repeatedly during hearings on this bill..  Her side of the aisle even agreed in large part.

 

It's window dressing.

 

 

[hetzen]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:53 PM, ealcala31 said:

Benbow is the guy, he is in here. I took his advice and hired him. I have 3 more on the way and this law might put me in a real pickle. 

 

He's a lawyer?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

We'll have a strong likelihood of success based on merits and hardships.   

We'll have an injunction quickly. 

 

 

[ealcala31]

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.

💯

[357]

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.

[DarkLord]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:55 PM, ealcala31 said:

💯

Yeah I was thinking of buying revolver - something aside from the 22LR

[ealcala31]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:54 PM, hetzen said:

 

He's a lawyer?

Lawyer and 07 Manufacturer w/CL II SOT

[357]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:54 PM, hetzen said:

 

He's a lawyer?

He's an FFL

[Helpdesk9]

Hope there's a clip of McCombie and Morgan's .50cal exchange 

[Mitch]

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?

[steveTA84]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:50 PM, countyline said:

Other Bruen cases seems to be moving along relatively quickly...at least quickly for the courts. 

They are getting destroyed all over the country 

[Double P]

Anyone have a screenshot of the votes?

[EdDinIL]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:57 PM, DarkLord said:

Yeah I was thinking of buying revolver - something aside from the 22LR

S&W 500 Magnum.  Go big or go home.

[davel501]

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.

[steveTA84]

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 

[Double P]

Should this be the official 2023 IGOLD shirt?

[SiliconSorcerer]

It's unfortunately the more bs laws they pass the more people get complacent with just ignoring them. 

It's been a long time since I put a front license plate on my truck.  

 

 

[EdDinIL]

On 1/10/2023 at 3:04 PM, Double P said:

Anyone have a screenshot of the votes?

Once they're done back-slapping each other the vote tally will get posted to the bill activities, likely easier to read than a photo taken from the floor.

[ealcala31]

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...

[tricolor]

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

[357]

On 1/10/2023 at 3:01 PM, Helpdesk9 said:

Hope there's a clip of McCombie and Morgan's .50cal exchange 

They even banned .50cal ammunition, more proof that is about "protecting Illinois communities" blah blah blah. It makes the tyrants feel safer.

[hetzen]

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. 

[solareclipse2]

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. 

[TargetCollector]

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.    

[357]

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?

[Zombieinthehat]

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.

[GunCollector]

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.

[cybermgk]

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.

[357]

Also conspiring to makes thousands of business and small business owners and their workers go out of business and unemployed to advance the agendas of a billionaire, is this legal?

[TargetCollector]

I should say, though, hopeful is not entirely enough, and I give generously to organizations such as SAF that take on the slow, arduous work of protecting our rights in court.  It's only through their efforts we have as many protections left as we do, even when their efforts can seem a little Quixotic.