which guns specifically are banned or required to be registered per hb5471

[soundguy]

On 1/15/2023 at 11:52 AM, davel501 said:

 

Please don't chop up my words. Include the whole quote.

 

 

Yes... I believe we agree!

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Flynn]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:49 AM, GunCollector said:

I don’t know if this is precedent, but if the laws sponsor makes this statement, it must be significant in the interpretation.  Thoughts?

 

It's Wikipedia, but it still gives a good generic overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

 

Basically, intent is secondary if the court decides the ordinay plain common definition reading of the text is not clear and could be interpreted multiple way.

 

Personally, attacking these laws under ambiguity and intent is wrong when the laws are likely unconstitutional an moot entirely.  Basically we are in the drivers seat aim for the sky, if a constitutional challenge failes entirely then you explore other options, not before as we have limited resources to fight the law, best to focus on the most sucessful outcome and Bruen gives us the key to win that.

[Prairie Pucker]

On 1/14/2023 at 10:08 PM, Yeti said:

If this bill and the recent actions in other states don’t make it clear, they are coming after guns (per the D party platform) and will continue to until it is legally impossible (if the courts honor the 2A) or people stop voting these weasels in.  If anyone is surprised that voting for politicians with gun control in their party platform results in gun control, I don’t know what to say to them…

 

I mostly agree with this statement, but I think the anti's plot is deeper than that.  I think they <know> the law is unconstitutional.  I think they <know> at least parts of it won't stand court scrutiny. I think they know it'll be in court.  Because that's <exactly> what they want for the purpose of causing the gun groups to spend lots of money fighting it.  And when it finally makes its way through the system all the way to the USSC and is found to be unconstitutional, they'll change a few words and try again. 

 

They've weaponized the judicial system.  They could not win a purely legal battle, so this is the next step.  When a bill is found to be unconstitutional, it's time to fight back with stiff penalties for sponsors and signatories <at minimum.>  This needs to stop.

[DoYouFeelLucky]

So, from a discussion with a friend in IL, is his new Unitah Precision bolt action upper on an AR lower now banned?

[GunCollector]

Well , I don’t think so??? …

2) "Assault weapon" does not include:
(C) A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump,
lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun
with a revolving cylinder.

[Flynn]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:14 PM, GunCollector said:

Well , I don’t think so??? …

2) "Assault weapon" does not include:
(C) A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump,
lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun
with a revolving cylinder.

 

I beg to differ

 

I would say yes, because of the AR lower and compents in that lower, I will admit it's ambigious, but the upper/lower design of the AR really blurs what is actually the firearm as defined in that exemption.  If it's all going to depend on the upper installed, then all AR's lower sales and internal components would still be AOK as they could be assembled into a bolt action, I don't think anyone believes that to be the case under the wording of this law.

[THE KING]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:33 PM, Flynn said:

 

I beg to differ

 

I would say yes, because of the AR lower and compents in that lower, I will admit it's ambigious, but the upper/lower design of the AR really blurs what is actually the firearm as defined in that exemption.  If it's all going to depend on the upper installed, then all AR's lower sales and internal components would still be AOK as they could be assembled into a bolt action, I don't think anyone believes that to be the case under the wording of this law.

I believe Flynn is correct. Language from the bill on what is banned. 

 

(J) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates,

variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon:

 

(ii) all AR types, including the following:

[Tip]

IMHO, 
Under the law, as written, Its not parts, it’s a rifle.

And, in that configuration it’s a bolt action rifle - a type that is specifically exempted. 

Could he buy the parts to build that rifle in that configuration - likely not.

 

Were he to separate it back into its component parts it might muddy the waters a bit. But then there’s a whole lotta muddy waters with parts….

 

As a rifle it is not banned.

 

 

[mousegun6]

The folks that passed this law want it to be confusing so people will register everything they own or they can get you for perjury if they find you with something later that you thought was legal and they say is banned. The ISP plans on taking the list of weapons that are registered and adding specific models and guns that they didn't think of or know people had in their possession. In effect, we will, by registering, helping them build a better mousetrap. I'm not suggesting that anyone refuse to comply with the law but rather that they are going to use compliance as a tool to further and expand the banned gun list every October 1st. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Flynn]

On 1/15/2023 at 7:26 PM, Tip said:

IMHO, 
Under the law, as written, Its not parts, it’s a rifle.

And, in that configuration it’s a bolt action rifle - a type that is specifically exempted. 

Could he buy the parts to build that rifle in that configuration - likely not.

 

Were he to separate it back into its component parts it might muddy the waters a bit. But then there’s a whole lotta muddy waters with parts….

 

As a rifle it is not banned.

 

 

 

In regards to ARs the lower is the rifle, the upper is a part that attaches to the rifle.  The silliness that is, is established precenet in regards to the AR design.  I would agree with you if it wasn't an AR standard lower and/or possible the upper and lower were permanently affixed to each other but I doubt either is applicable.

 

Hopefully it won't matter and an injunction and final ruling put an end to the entire law.

[GunCollector]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:46 PM, THE KING said:

I believe Flynn is correct. Language from the bill on what is banned. 

 

(J) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates,

variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon:

 

(ii) all AR types, including the following:

Remember, I am not a lawyer, and have never spent as much time analyzing a law as this one.....This being said, I highlighted the key phrase above - a bolt action rifle built on an AR15 upper / lower, does not have the capability of an AR15.

[Flynn]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:24 PM, GunCollector said:

Remember, I am not a lawyer, and have never spent as much time analyzing a law as this one.....This being said, I highlighted the key phrase above - a bolt action rifle built on an AR15 upper / lower, does not have the capability of an AR15.

 

If you slap a different upper on it, it does.  Again the lower is the rifle, the upper aka the bolt action and barrel are addons, the rifle itself is the lower and that bolt action lower has all the capabilities as any other AR lower.

 

As I said, if your interpretation is correct then selling AR lowers would still be AOK as well as long as they didn't sell it with an semi-auto upper, and I don't believe anyone believes that to be the case.  I firmly believe that AR lowers regardless of how they are assembled are prohibited under this law.

[Ruglin4570]

What about a 590a1 retrograde?  It is a pump shotgun but has a heat shield over part of the barrel.  Sorry for my ignorance if it's obvious. 

[Flynn]

On 1/16/2023 at 2:47 PM, Ruglin4570 said:

What about a 590a1 retrograde?  It is a pump shotgun but has a heat shield over part of the barrel.  Sorry for my ignorance if it's obvious. 

 

I would say right now it's probaby not as the shroud ban(s) are under the semiauto pistol/rifle areas of the law, the law is silent in regards to pump shotguns and shrouds for now.

[Tip]

On 1/16/2023 at 2:24 PM, Flynn said:

 

If you slap a different upper on it, it does.  Again the lower is the rifle, the upper aka the bolt action and barrel are addons, the rifle itself is the lower and that bolt action lower has all the capabilities as any other AR lower.

 

As I said, if your interpretation is correct then selling AR lowers would still be AOK as well as long as they didn't sell it with an semi-auto upper, and I don't believe anyone believes that to be the case.  I firmly believe that AR lowers regardless of how they are assembled are prohibited under this law.

You keep repeating the lower is a rifle, I do not believe that is true.

The lower IS a firearm but it is neither a rifle nor pistol until it’s assembled as such.

If the lower is indeed a rifle then an AR pistol cannot be built from any lower since you can’t make a pistol from a rifle. A lower is neither a pistol or a rifle. 

The device in question is a bolt action rifle - a device specifically exempted.

Nowhere in this craptastic law does it ban a bolt action rifle because of the parts it contains.

 

However, I agree with you some of the PARTS necessary to construct said rifle are, of themselves, likely prohibited but strictly speaking the assembled bolt action rifle is not.

[davel501]

On 1/16/2023 at 4:20 PM, Tip said:

You keep repeating the lower is a rifle, I do not believe that is true.

The lower IS a firearm but it is neither a rifle nor pistol until it’s assembled as such.

If the lower is indeed a rifle then an AR pistol cannot be built from any lower since you can’t make a pistol from a rifle. A lower is neither a pistol or a rifle. 

The device in question is a bolt action rifle - a device specifically exempted.

Nowhere in this craptastic law does it ban a bolt action rifle because of the parts it contains.

 

However, I agree with you some of the PARTS necessary to construct said rifle are, of themselves, likely prohibited but strictly speaking the assembled bolt action rifle is not.

 

How is it not a bolt action ar15 in the eyes of the prosecutors? Ar15s are explicitly banned regardless of action type as I read it. 

[Tip]

On 1/16/2023 at 4:24 PM, davel501 said:

 

How is it not a bolt action ar15 in the eyes of the prosecutors? Ar15s are explicitly banned regardless of action type as I read it. 

Actually, it does NOT say AR15s are banned, it says SEMI-AUTOMATIC AR15s are banned. 
Bolt action rifles are specifically excluded from the law.

 

[davel501]

On 1/16/2023 at 4:46 PM, Tip said:

Actually, it does NOT say AR15s are banned, it says SEMI-AUTOMATIC AR15s are banned. 
Bolt action rifles are specifically excluded from the law.

 

 

Section J is equal to the other sections, not subordinate meaning it may have qualities like being semi auto OR it may be listed by model. 

[Flynn]

On 1/16/2023 at 4:20 PM, Tip said:

You keep repeating the lower is a rifle, I do not believe that is true.

 

It is true

 

The lower IS a firearm but it is neither a rifle nor pistol until it’s assembled as such.

 

In this case the lower is an AR15 rifle as that is how it was first assembled.

 

If the lower is indeed a rifle then an AR pistol cannot be built from any lower since you can’t make a pistol from a rifle. A lower is neither a pistol or a rifle.

 

It's based on first assembly, and you are correct, if it was intiially built as a rifle it's illegal to make it a pistol, but the reverse is permissible.

 

The device in question is a bolt action rifle - a device specifically exempted.

Nowhere in this craptastic law does it ban a bolt action rifle because of the parts it contains.

 

The device in question is a bolt action upper sitting on an AR15 rifle lower, I guess we will just have to beg to differ.  As I keep saying if your interpretation is correct than AR15 lowers less an upper can still be sold in Illinois at will under this law, I don't know anyone besides you that interprets the law that way.

 

[Tip]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:19 PM, davel501 said:

 

Section J is equal to the other sections, not subordinate meaning it may have qualities like being semi auto OR it may be listed by model. 

The law bans “assault weapons” not AR15’s, not AK’s, not anything else — “Assault Weapons”

The law then goes on to DEFINE an “assault weapon” stating

 

(1) "Assault weapon" means any of the following, except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection.

Note Section 1 includes your section J in defining “Assault Weapons”

 

and then we get to section 2 which specifically states:

(2) "Assault weapon" does not include:
(A) Any firearm that is an unserviceable firearm or has been made permanently inoperable.
(B) An antique firearm or a replica of an antique firearm.
(C) A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

…
 

Section J does not apply to bolt action guns, it’s NOT an “Assault Weapon”, it doesn’t matter how similar, or what qualities it has — The Law provides a specific exception.

 

What do you think “any of the following, except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection.”means?

 

You are trying to make the law far more insidious than it actually is.

 

A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun with a revolving cylinder is NOT an Assault Weapon under the law and is not banned.

 

 

[davel501]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:45 PM, Tip said:

The law bans “assault weapons” not AR15’s, not AK’s, not anything else — “Assault Weapons”

The law then goes on to DEFINE an “assault weapon” stating

 

(1) "Assault weapon" means any of the following, except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection.

Note Section 1 includes your section J in defining “Assault Weapons”

 

and then we get to section 2 which specifically states:

(2) "Assault weapon" does not include:
(A) Any firearm that is an unserviceable firearm or has been made permanently inoperable.
(B) An antique firearm or a replica of an antique firearm.
(C) A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

…
 

Section J does not apply to bolt action guns, it’s NOT an “Assault Weapon”, it doesn’t matter how similar, or what qualities it has — The Law provides a specific exception.

 

What do you think “any of the following, except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection.”means?

 

You are trying to make the law far more insidious than it actually is.

 

A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun with a revolving cylinder is NOT an Assault Weapon under the law and is not banned.

 

 

I'm not trying to make anything but sense of this bill. We are all reading this thing and trying to make sense of this giant mess. 

[Ruglin4570]

What a pile of crap, designed to confuse us all and maximize making criminals out of the law-abiding.  I hope our discussions here are moot due to the courts striking the law down.

[Tip]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:37 PM, Flynn said:

 

It is true

 

 

 

 

In this case the lower is an AR15 rifle as that is how it was first assembled.

 

 

 

 

It's based on first assembly, and you are correct, if it was intiially built as a rifle it's illegal to make it a pistol, but the reverse is permissible.

 

 

 

 

The device in question is a bolt action upper sitting on an AR15 rifle lower, I guess we will just have to beg to differ.  As I keep saying if your interpretation is correct than AR15 lowers less an upper can still be sold in Illinois at will under this law, I don't know anyone besides you that interprets the law that way.

 

I’ve never said a lower can be sold. I don’t interpret the law to say a Lower can be sold. YOU keep inserting that into the equation.

I’ve only said that a bolt action rifle is specifically exempted from being a banned “assault weapon”

 

Individual Lowers can’t be sold because they are parts that can be used to make … ya da ya da ya da.

 

The question was, and is, is the specified bolt action rifle banned - and NOWHERE in the law is it banned - in fact, by being bolt action it is specifically exempted.

[DoYouFeelLucky]

We solved the issue.  His new Unitah Precision bolt-action will be in my safe by the end of the week.  Now he just has to convince his wife to vacation in IA.  He also has the muzzle-loader upper for it also.  

[defaultdotxbe]

I can see the possible path for banning all lowers is as follows

 

There exists, somewhere, an archetypal AR lower that is stamped "AR-15," which is explicitly banned in J(ii)(II)

At this point it is not exempted as it is not operated manually, its just a stripped lower.

That lower, by itself, with no other attachment or feature, is banned by name.

Any and all other AR lowers are "copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles" of that stripped lower

They are also banned, since as a stripped lower they share the capabilities of the archetypal stripped lower.

 

In this interpretation an already-assembled bolt action AR would possibly be allowed, but the stripped lower to start such a project would not.

 

 

But it could hinge on whether a stripped lower, that has never been assembled, is a "rifle" or a "pistol" to match the text of sections (J) or (K) ("All of the following rifles" and "All of the following pistols"). We don't know the answer to that. Yes the federal standard is that it is neither a rifle or a pistol until it's assembled, but that's as it pertains to federal law, this is IL law so the courts could interpret differently, particularly since it also bans a combination of parts that could be assembled into an "assault weapon" so if you already own a grandfathered AR you could use those parts with a new stripped lower to assemble a new, non-grandfathered, AR. The same would apply to a bolt-action AR you already own, unless you register the lower.

[cnwfan3]

By definition Merriam Webster, an AR15 is defined as 

 

 

AR15

noun

ˈāˈär(ˈ)fif¦tēn

 

variants or AR15 rifle

plural-s

: a . 223 caliber gas-operated semiautomatic rifle that is essentially a civilian version of the M16

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/AR15

 

This would appear to mean an AR15, by definition, is a semi-automatic rifle.  No where have I found any definition of an AR15 being bolt action.  Is there a definition somewhere that says that?

 

[GunCollector]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:45 PM, Tip said:

You are trying to make the law far more insidious than it actually is.

I am enjoying the debate, and finding the deconstruction of the law really interesting, eg, how the language ties together.   If it wasn’t banning my rifles I might actually enjoy this.

 

however, I think the writers and sponsors of this bill want it to be as insidious as they can make it.  I honestly believe they want to ban as many guns, regardless of design, as they possibly can.

[snowcat]

On 1/16/2023 at 8:19 PM, GunCollector said:

I am enjoying the debate, and finding the deconstruction of the law really interesting, eg, how the language ties together.   If it wasn’t banning my rifles I might actually enjoy this.

 

however, I think the writers and sponsors of this bill want it to be as insidious as they can make it.  I honestly believe they want to ban as many guns, regardless of design, as they possibly can.

Honestly the bigger the net they casted the more likely they are going to get slapped down in court.

[Benbow]

see SPringfield Armory v. City of Columbus Ohio, I think 6th cir.  The list and copycat thing is unconstitutionally vague, at least to copycats.  thats why under the 1994 federal AW ban, the ATF DID NOT EVEN TRY to enfoce that nearly identical provision.

 

What exactly is a copy of an AR15?  The only thing I have ever seen marked AR15 was a vietnam era M16A1 in my college ROTC building.  If you modify it to have a solid trigger guard is it still an AR15?  What about if it uses different pin diameters.  What if it uses a drop in trigger assemply like the Taiwanese version.  What if the magwell is shaped like a skull, or Donald Trumps head?  What if you make push or coil pinds threaded?

 

The original semi AR15 type by colt used a threaded front push pin.  NOBODY does that anymore.  Thus, arguably, there are no AR15 copies on the market.  None.

 

As to lowers, I say they are legal.  Why, the list refers to rifles, pistols and shotguns.  The ban apparently also exclusdes SBRs, if you have a C*R.  The ban also excludes straight pull bolt actions.  I can build all those things on damn near any receiver ever made, AR15 type of not.  Furthermore, is a straight pull bolt action of a pump rifles that looks like an M16 an AR15 "copy"  granted, to avoid being a test case, I woud not sell a lower with the exact make and model markings on the list,, but I would have no problem selling a wilson or Harrington and Richardson, any more than I would selling an M1 carbine receiver.

 

How about that M1 carbine receiver.  I can show you where Stoner ripped off the M1 and M2 carbines trigger / receiver operations in his semi and full auto aR/M16 type guns.  Its obvious to anyone who ever built or closely examined them.  And yes, I do have all of the above to so compare.  Puch button made release.  upper and lower detach put a push pin.  Hammer and sear parts nearly identical, other than being scaled up.

 

Is the Remington model 8 a copy of an AK?  They use the same basic safety designed.  No matter the 8 came decades before the 47  Is the M1 garand a copy of an AK.  Look at the gas and trigger sytems, and tell me they are not identical, if not inverted.

 

How about the friggen Mark III Lee Enfield.  Australia once converted a batch to light machine guns.  It has a detachable magazine.  Should not be to hard to make a semi only verson.

 

The M1 garand is absolutly prohibited under the act.  Beretta modefied a boat load of them into the detachable magazine BM59, and it has what is a barrel shroud, and defined in the act.

 

 

 

[Flynn]

The question to me is it more or less likely when the 'gun dumb' prosecutor if made aware of said firearm what would they consider it, same with 'gun dumb' judges or 'anti-gun' judges.

 

Even if you are ultimently not charged the world of pain and money outlay is something to seriously consider right now, anyone that has went through being wrongully accused and/or believed  they were truely innocent of the charges will tell you the stress is enormous, especially when you know or believe you did no wrong.  Thus my hope is that laws are enjoined before it starts.  If it does start I expect A LOT of non-compliance, but I expect the hammer will come down on some and it's not going to be fun.