Jump to content

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


Mauserwaffen98

Recommended Posts

On 1/12/2023 at 6:21 PM, LeviSS said:

Is it all 50cal cartridges or just 50bmg?  

 

They mostly refer to only 50cal, but tucked in there is this:

    (6) ".50 caliber cartridge" means a cartridge in .50 BMG

caliber, either by designation or actual measurement, that is

capable of being fired from a centerfire rifle. 

I think I answered my own question.  Looks like since they made owning the ammo illegal, there are two subsections that define each... section 5 is any 50cal rifle, section 6 is the 50bmg cartridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 12:20 PM, Dani said:

So are pistols with threaded barrels also banned now? 

According to the law, yes.  Why? Who knows? I guess those threads at the end of the barrel represent a grave danger to the republic, according to our chubby governor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 6:47 PM, Yas said:

A 50 Beowulf projectile measures out at .499   They must have rounded up in the Slang naming of the cartridge.  Guess they could be sued for false advertising.

 

I believe Beowulf has never disclosed the specs and tolerances publically, it's been reverse engineered into a compatible 12.7x42mm used by others, that do measure .500

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 2:49 PM, mrmagloo said:

Hmm, what about the Dan Wesson multi-barrel 357 and 44 Mag kit's with the threaded barrels necessary to lock them down?

 

Even though using intent it's probably not what they intended, under the black and white text it's probably still illegal and the black and white text prevails over intent.

 

Honestly though like every other question, the law is a 2nd amendment violation travesty and the courts should never allow it to be enforced.  Just like Illinios pushed and lost in McDonald they are pushing and will lose here and likely set nationwide precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 3:04 PM, Flynn said:

 

Even though using intent it's probably not what they intended, under the black and white text it's probably still illegal and the black and white text prevails over intent.

 

Honestly though like every other question, the law is a 2nd amendment violation travesty and the courts should never allow it to be enforced.  Just like Illinios pushed and lost in McDonald they are pushing and will lose here and likely set nationwide precedent.

 

More of a rhetorical observation but you're right. Total cluster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 1/13/2023 at 12:30 PM, mousegun6 said:

According to the law, yes.  Why? Who knows? I guess those threads at the end of the barrel represent a grave danger to the republic, according to our chubby governor.

 

 

image.png

 

What do you think of this? Appears to be contradictory to their generalization on attachments and features

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 6:57 PM, techgeek said:

Fightlite SCR is billed as 50 state legal isn't it?  That marketing was pre IL foolishness of course.  Does it pass the test under this stupidity? 

I've been curious about that myself. If you have the pistol version it's now evil. But what if you convert the pistol to rifle config without a threaded barrel? Is it now a happy, friendly hunting rifle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it matter what the King says is legal or not? He/ISP will just change their mind as they see fit (it's written into the new law!). Compromise and capitulation is over with. Fight with everything you have to overturn this. If you have sat on the sidelines for years letting others do the hard and expensive, STOP IT! Get involved, work for your rights the King has taken away from you. Never give up. NEVER COMPLY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 6:19 PM, GunCollector said:

Is there any rifle in the world that has nothing surrounding the barrel be it a lower hand guard/stock like. 10/22?  I can’t think of one.   So basically they banned ALL semi auto rifles.  Why not just say that. The bill could have been one page.  

The only one that comes to mind is the Henry AR-7 survival rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 4:16 PM, Yeti said:
On 1/13/2023 at 2:49 PM, mrmagloo said:

Hmm, what about the Dan Wesson multi-barrel 357 and 44 Mag kit's with the threaded barrels necessary to lock them down?

Good point.  Aren’t most revolver barrels threaded (on the infeed side)?  Aren’t many rimfire or other rifle barrels threaded the same way?

 

On 1/13/2023 at 6:44 PM, guzzimike66 said:
  On 1/12/2023 at 6:19 PM, GunCollector said:

Is there any rifle in the world that has nothing surrounding the barrel be it a lower hand guard/stock like. 10/22?  I can’t think of one.   So basically they banned ALL semi auto rifles.  Why not just say that. The bill could have been one page.  

 

 

Reading the bill, and noting the theme of the list of banned items, ie the context; the evil "threaded barrel" seems to be for attaching something to the end of the rifle... the TEC-DC9 has threads on the end of the barrel and seems to come with a screw on "flash suppressor" attachment as well as something to simply protect the threads. The Dan Wesson revolvers which accept barrels of different lengths (I have one) are not "threaded barrels" in the context of the act.

 

In the same vein, as I see folks are stating that virtually all semi-auto rifles are banned, I must disagree for now. The list in the act specifically mentions the "Ruger Mini 14 Tactical", which looks as though it has features such as a flash suppressor. I expect the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle and the Mini-30 are not banned. Mini-14 Ranch Rifles with threaded barrels are probably banned. I am also thinking a traditional fore-stock on a rifle is not a device designed to allow the shooter to grasp the barrel.

 

I am not saying that, if my interpretation is more accurate than some other interpretations, the bill isn't so bad... It is an abomination and must be eliminated in its entirety in a way that benefits the rest of the states. I don't see a need to panic and rant.

 

I'll get to the range one of these days and ask questions after some of this dust settles... because I could be wrong. Now I kinda want a Mini-30 even though I am not a rifle guy. Or a 10/22 Take Down. And I've always wanted one of those Henry AR7 survival rifles!

 

Cheers,

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 8:42 PM, soundguy said:

I am also thinking a traditional fore-stock on a rifle is not a device designed to allow the shooter to grasp the barrel.

The issue here is that you state you are are thinking, unlike most of the weasels who voted this in.  Most of the unwisely-elected officials have no idea what a threaded barrel is or a flash hider does and why it is scary.   They vote purely on emotion rather than rational thought, as this bill and much of the rest of their policy clearly  demonstrates. Those who did actually think about the wording left it vague enough to scare and or eventually legally trap many of the gun owners in IL to meet their evil control agenda.  It’s going to have to make its way through the courts and future refinement before we will really know what makes us felons.  If the law’s not tossed, the list of banned things may get worse over time with the mechanism of the ban list built into this farce.

 

While there is much more to learn and unpack in the coming months, I will lump the advice not to rant (or panic) in the same bucket with the past opinions from some here that said the Democrats were never coming after our guns and that it was just talk… “nothing to fear”.  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…

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 8:42 PM, soundguy said:

the evil "threaded barrel" 

.

a traditional fore-stock on a rifle is not a device designed to allow the shooter to grasp the barrel.

 

IMO any legal analysis of "intent" of the text is one step too far, the black and white text using basic word definitions without extrapolation of what the dolts may have meant or not meant is primary now.

 

Either way, it's the wrong argument, the entire law is a means-ends based infringment, that is the only argument our side should be using to nullify and moot this law in it's entirety as unconstitutional.  And in that regard JB and the legislators are making that easier than ever as in all their media photo-ops and pressers they are spouting off thier means-ends justificaitons for passing the unconstitutional law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 9:05 PM, Flynn said:

 

It's a link to an image in one of their private emails, no way anyone but them is seeing it unless it's uploaded to a public image host or uploaded to this forum.

 

On 1/14/2023 at 4:53 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Requires a Gmail account.  No thanks.

 

 

Sorry guys, didn't know that would be an issue. I was trying to snip this line from the law:

 

    (2) "Assault weapon" does not include:

11        (A) Any firearm that is an unserviceable firearm or

12    has been made permanently inoperable.

13        (B) An antique firearm or a replica of an antique

14    firearm.

15        (C) A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump,

16    lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun

17    with a revolving cylinder.

18        (D) Any air rifle as defined in Section 24.8-0.1 of

19    this Code.

20        (E) Any handgun, as defined under the Firearm

21    Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise listed in this

22    Section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 11:50 PM, KnowThyZomB said:

 

 

 

Sorry guys, didn't know that would be an issue. I was trying to snip this line from the law:

 

    (2) "Assault weapon" does not include:

11        (A) Any firearm that is an unserviceable firearm or

12    has been made permanently inoperable.

13        (B) An antique firearm or a replica of an antique

14    firearm.

15        (C) A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump,

16    lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun

17    with a revolving cylinder.

18        (D) Any air rifle as defined in Section 24.8-0.1 of

19    this Code.

20        (E) Any handgun, as defined under the Firearm

21    Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise listed in this

22    Section.

 

IMO because the bill includes a list of features that would magically make a handgun an assault weapons based on it having those features, it's basically saying if it's a handgun under the CCL definition and it lacks any of the features that would make it an assualt weapon, it's not an assault weapon.  The "unless otherwise listed in this Section" hooks the definition of assualt weapon right back to what this bill says even if it was a permissible carry handgun previously.

 

Example

 

Model A handgun is a concealable handgun under the CCL definitions of "Concealed firearm" means a loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle." and "Handgun" means any device which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand...."

 

But Model A handgun with threaded barrel - Assault Weapon

While Model A handgun without threaded barrel - still just a handgun for today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to revisit the 10/22 debate.  My non-legal opinion is the traditional 10/22 is not considered an assault weapon. We should consider Morgan’s public statement during the floor Q&A.  He explicitly stated the Garand is not considered an assault weapon in the AWB.  The Garand has a wood stock and an upper hand guard.  Let’s call it a traditional configuration as compared to a modern tactical configuration. I don’t know if this is precedent, but if the laws sponsor makes this statement, it must be significant in the interpretation.  Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I want to revisit the 10/22 debate.  My non-legal opinion is the traditional 10/22 is not considered an assault weapon. We should consider Morgan’s public statement during the floor Q&A.  He explicitly stated the Garand is not considered an assault weapon in the AWB.  The Garand has a wood stock and an upper hand guard.  Let’s call it a traditional configuration as compared to a modern tactical configuration. I don’t know if this is precedent, but if the laws sponsor makes this statement, it must be significant in the interpretation.  Thoughts?

 

In court you will be arguing against a guy just like the slime bag from the Rittenhouse trial that argued FMJ bullets are explosive. He will use the words written in black and white against you because his job is to win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 11:09 AM, davel501 said:

the Rittenhouse trial

He will use the words written in black and white against you

 

Rittenhouse was acquitted...

 

If  a prosecutor pressed charges against someone with a traditionally configured rifle, I would think there is a huge chance for acquittal. The outcome will not be determined by a prosecutor... the plain language in the bill/law seems to support @GunCollector.

 

Cheers,

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 11:43 AM, soundguy said:

 

Rittenhouse was acquitted...

 

If  a prosecutor pressed charges against someone with a traditionally configured rifle, I would think there is a huge chance for acquittal. The outcome will not be determined by a prosecutor... the plain language in the bill/law seems to support @GunCollector.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

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

 

I was saying go with what is written in black and white and not what was said on the floor so I think we agree. 

 

The Rittenhouse gun charge was thrown out because of what was written in black and white in the law. He was acquitted of the murder charges. That never should have been brought, costing him a fortune in legal fees. 

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...