So do we have to be dead to transfer to an heir? Do mags have to be registered?

[excatm76]

The new craptastic law only allows the transfer of “assault weapons” and magazines over the limit to be transferred to an heir, FFL, or out of state. Do you have to be dead to transfer to an heir? What legally constitutes an heir (wife, kids, nephew)?
 

I don’t see a provision to register mags, but the state police have to be notified within 10 days of transfer of mags to an heir, dealer or out of state? Why?

Edited January 11, 2023 at 12:23 PM by excatm76

[steveTA84]

This part of the law presents many issues and is ___________ 🤐.

 

It’s Swiss cheese, leave it at that for now 

[mab22]

It creates a bigger problem than just transferring to your heirs, I just realized that last night.

[mousegun6]

Mags do not have to be registered according to the law, just can't be sold anymore.

[SkyRider]

To answer the question about being dead, I noticed the new law doesn’t define the term “heir,” but generally heirs are determined after the moment of death based upon a will or otherwise through bloodline (and who has survived you). Before death such people would be called heir apparent or presumptive heir. Best to work with a lawyer and mention in your last will and testament who you specifically want to have the guns. Also best for the heirs to know in advance so they are prepared ahead time with FOID card, etc., as applicable, and willing to inherit them.

[RECarry]

Doesn't the term "Heirs" make a big presumption that a person has children or siblings? Sounds discriminatory. Our wills name Beneficiaries who are not direct bloodline since we chose to not have kids. Use of the term "heirs" seems very odd. Our attorney never used that word.

[SkyRider]

RECarry raises a good point in that the possible intent of the law may be to limit transfer to surviving family members only. Conceivably, beneficiaries named in a last will and testament for purposes of a weapon’s transfer might only be honored if the person is a direct family member.

[yurimodin]

look down, grow a pair, and make arrangements with people you trust........besides this thing is probobly getting overturned ASAP

[spanishjames]

On 1/11/2023 at 6:10 AM, excatm76 said:

The new craptastic law only allows the transfer of “assault weapons” and magazines over the limit to be transferred to an heir, FFL, or out of state. Do you have to be dead to transfer to an heir? What legally constitutes an heir (wife, kids, nephew)?
 

I don’t see a provision to register mags, but the state police have to be notified within 10 days of transfer of mags to an heir, dealer or out of state? Why?

Don't you remember you gave away your firearms as gifts years ago?  No BGC needed:

 

(a-15) The provisions of subsection (a-10) of this Section do not apply to:

 (2) transfers as a bona fide gift to the transferor's husband, wife, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law;

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=043000650K3

 

 

[RECarry]

On 1/12/2023 at 1:57 PM, spanishjames said:

Don't you remember you gave away your firearms as gifts years ago?  No BGC needed:

 

(a-15) The provisions of subsection (a-10) of this Section do not apply to:

 (2) transfers as a bona fide gift to the transferor's husband, wife, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law;

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=043000650K3

 

 

 

Interesting.  I thought woke Marxists sought to destroy the traditional family unit, but here they have more rights than people with no direct familial heirs, or whose remaining family members are estranged. Sounds discriminatory. 

[SkyRider]

On 1/12/2023 at 12:04 PM, yurimodin said:

look down, grow a pair, and make arrangements with people you trust........besides this thing is probobly getting overturned ASAP

I assume your comment is aimed at promoting an informal transfer to someone saying to them, “If I die, come get my weapons.” That certainly worked in the past and is how I got 3 of my weapons as all I needed was a FOID card and all was good. But certainly if I, for example, register a weapon and serial number with the ISP, that is going to present a problem as I won’t be able to change that after I am gone, and the ISP may try to figure out who has the weapon.

 

Realistically I don’t know how the ISP would ever have the resources to track all these things, but someone else may not want the lingering issue over their head for years into the future.

[yurimodin]

On 1/12/2023 at 4:17 PM, SkyRider said:

But certainly if I, for example, register a weapon and serial number with the ISP

🤦

[357]

There is no serial numbers on magazines and they don't know what or how many you got so you can do anything you want with your property.

[excatm76]

Quote

There is no serial numbers on magazines and they don't know what or how many you got so you can do anything you want with your property.

 

I guess you are missing my point. The only way to legally  transfer outlawed mags to an heir, is for them to report it to the ISP after receiving them.

 

If your heir is an adult, then there is no way the state can know if they had the, before the ban, so if caught with one they can say they already had it, so no real reason to report it.However is your heir is a child now, should this POS stand, how could they claim to have owned them before the ban? They can’t, so they would have to notify the ISP, per the law.

 

I did not see a provision in the bill, telling the ISP to create a mag registry.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 at 04:44 AM by excatm76

[357]

On 1/12/2023 at 10:43 PM, excatm76 said:

 

I guess you are missing my point. The only way to legally  transfer outlawed mags to an heir, is for them to report it to the ISP after receiving them.

 

If your heir is an adult, then there is no way the state can know if they had the, before the ban, so if caught with one they can say they already had it, so no real reason to report it.However is your heir is a child now, should this POS stand, how could they claim to have owned them before the ban? They can’t, so they would have to notify the ISP, per the law.

 

I did not see a provision in the bill, telling the ISP to create a mag registry.

 

 

If this stands your heirs won't have any 2nd Amendment rights pretty much.  This is the first step and the bans will continue and you'll have to buy 7rd magazines like they did in New York state. They want to know who has them so they can make you surrender them later, don't be fooled that they will let you keep them for long.

 

If people weren't so willing to abide by these Unconstitutional laws they wouldn't attempt them. The best way for your heirs to have them is if they don't know you have them. They will come for them later like they did in California after people registered them, they have it all planned and registration always leads to confiscation.

Edited January 13, 2023 at 05:20 AM by 357

[Flynn]

I think all questions should be asked of the bill sponsors, their contact info is in multiple threads here.  Beyond that much of the law is not in effect yet and worrying about it now is IMO premature, I fully expect much if not all of it to be enjoined before it actually goes into effect for the private sector.

[John Q Public]

Stop giving them ideas... Please! If you don't know what I mean in this thread, please don't ask.

 

JQ

[SkyRider]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:24 PM, Flynn said:

I think all questions should be asked of the bill sponsors, their contact info is in multiple threads here.  Beyond that much of the law is not in effect yet and worrying about it now is IMO premature, I fully expect much if not all of it to be enjoined before it actually goes into effect for the private sector.

We can all hope the law will be stopped, and there is no reason to worry a lot at this point that it won’t, but the discussions regarding the possible impacts of the law once it has been signed by the governor can reveal more reasons why the new "rushed" law is unworkable in addition to also being unconstitutional. This may ultimately help the efforts to fight the law.

[Bubbacs]

deleted

Edited January 15, 2023 at 03:43 AM by Bubbacs

[DoYouFeelLucky]

Most rifles, pistols, and magazines covered by this law are easily broken down into multiple pieces that only you will know where they end up.  I would suggest they don't all end up in the same place.  It's similar to the stories of the Jewish people hiding their possessions from the Nazi's.

[kevinmcc]

Why are you all asking questions as if this law is going to remain in place?

[Tip]

Does this mean it’s illegal for an “assault weapon” owner to die before 1 Oct 2023?? Or is it Jan 2024??
 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 at 03:19 PM by Tip

[John Q Public]

Rather than start a new thread, am I reading this right that we can still have 15+ round mags for 90 days, say for CCL people to get some 15 or less?

 

Also, anyone here anything about a ban in forest preserves? I know cook had a TRO for 6 month to not enforce it's ban, but was there something else I missed. It was something I heard, but can find nothing to back it.

 

Thanks

 

JQ

Edited January 15, 2023 at 07:14 PM by John Q Public

[SkyRider]

On 1/15/2023 at 1:12 PM, John Q Public said:

Also, anyone here anything about a ban in forest preserves? I know cook had a TRO for 6 month to not enforce it's ban, but was there something else I missed. It was something I heard, but can find nothing to back it.

 

Regarding a forest preserve, there is something in the new law that might apply, but the wording is nothing short of absurdity. Try to digest this quote from the new law on what is permitted:

“Possession of a weapon only for hunting use expressly permitted under the Wildlife Code, or while traveling to or from a location authorized for this hunting use under the Wildlife Code if the weapon is broken down in a nonfunctioning state, is not immediately accessible, or is unloaded and enclosed in a firearm case, carrying box, shipping box, or other similar portable container designed for the safe transportation of firearms. By October 1, 2023, the Illinois State Police, in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources, shall adopt rules concerning the list of applicable weapons approved under this subparagraph.”

[John Q Public]

I have not a clue wth that means....  What a hot mess.

[Flynn]

On 1/15/2023 at 1:37 PM, SkyRider said:

Regarding a forest preserve, there is something in the new law that might apply, but the wording is nothing short of absurdity. Try to digest this quote from the new law on what is permitted:

 

“Possession of a weapon only for hunting use expressly permitted under the Wildlife Code, or while traveling to or from a location authorized for this hunting use under the Wildlife Code if the weapon is broken down in a nonfunctioning state, is not immediately accessible, or is unloaded and enclosed in a firearm case, carrying box, shipping box, or other similar portable container designed for the safe transportation of firearms. By October 1, 2023, the Illinois State Police, in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources, shall adopt rules concerning the list of applicable weapons approved under this subparagraph.”

 

I think these two phrase connected with an "or" are key in this clause, if the Illinios Wildlife Code doesn't specificially exempt your firearm the rest of the clause is not applicable.

 

"expressly permitted under the Wildlife Code"

"authorized for this hunting use under the Wildlife Code"

 

Either way, it's a  hot mess, and even if it was constitutional it would take a court ruling or several to define what it actually means.

[SkyRider]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:19 AM, Tip said:

Does this mean it’s illegal for an “assault weapon” owner to die before 1 Oct 2023?? Or is it Jan 2024??

The rule does have language that doesn’t make total sense on the “heir” provision. The term heir from a legal perspective applies once you are dead. So the rule states that after I am dead, I am somehow going to notify the ISP of the transfer to an heir. The rule doesn’t talk about anyone else being able to perform the transfer on my behalf, like an executor or that the executor may temporarily possess a prohibited weapon during the will probate process, etc. In the past, all that was necessary is for the person possessing the weapon needed a FOID card.

[SkyRider]

On 1/15/2023 at 2:32 PM, Flynn said:

 

I think these two phrase connected with an "or" are key in this clause, if the Illinios Wildlife Code doesn't specificially exempt your firearm the rest of the clause is not applicable.

 

"expressly permitted under the Wildlife Code"

"authorized for this hunting use under the Wildlife Code"

 

When you are grandfathered to possess a prohibited weapon, you are restricted in terms of acceptable locations for that weapon, and you are allowed to transport only between those restricted locations. One possible accepted location for the prohibited weapon may be a location for a hunting use that is approved by the ISP (in consult with the Dept of Natural Resources) based upon a list of acceptable weapons yet to be determined for hunting use.

 

The "or" uses that make a difference pertain to the condition of prohibited weapon during transport between permissible locations as to whether you break down the weapon or put in a firearm case or other suitable container, etc.

[Flynn]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:16 PM, SkyRider said:

The "or" uses that make a difference pertain to the condition of prohibited weapon during transport between permissible locations as to whether you break down the weapon or put in a firearm case or other suitable container, etc.

 

I beg to differ, the "or" connects two instances when the fiream is "legal" in both cases what your are doing must be permisable and authorized under the Wildlife Code, so over and above the fact it must be a 'hunting firearm' as codified in the Wildlife Code when possessed, if traveling it needs to be broken down and blah, blah, blah, but you must also be traveling to a location authorized by the IL Wildlife Code, that is how I read it under the black and white text and thus would exclude out of state locations that are likely not codified.  One could argue intent, but I'm simply going by the black and white text and what I see.  The unconstitutional law is so horribly sloppy and poor, it's a hot mess.  I really hope the law is struck and mooted as unconstitutional before any of these questions actually might matter.

[SkyRider]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:57 PM, Flynn said:

 

I beg to differ, the "or" connects two instances when the fiream is "legal" in both cases what your are doing must be permisable and authorized under the Wildlife Code, so over and above the fact it must be a 'hunting firearm' as codified in the Wildlife Code when possessed, if traveling it needs to be broken down and blah, blah, blah, but you must also be traveling to a location authorized by the IL Wildlife Code, that is how I read it under the black and white text and thus would exclude out of state locations that are likely not codified.  One could argue intent, but I'm simply going by the black and white text and what I see.  The unconstitutional law is so horribly sloppy and poor, it's a hot mess.  I really hope the law is struck and mooted as unconstitutional before any of these questions actually might matter.

I’m sorry if I may have missed your main point. My main points center around being able to possess a grandfathered prohibited firearm only at permissible locations which will be further restricted by the ISP by a list yet to be developed (to be done by Oct 1, 2023).

One permissible location or locations would be at authorized hunting locations. I checked the Wildlife Code and Department of Natural Resources rules, and they appear to already heavily regulate what type of weapons can be used for hunting as well as ammunition. The ISP will likely clarify if any banned “assault” weapons can still be used by those people being grandfathered for hunting purposes, … and yes, hopefully, at the same time, the ISP could clarify about people going out-of-state to hunt.  I contend the ISP will have over-riding enforcement capability on what can be used for hunting in the state based upon the context in the subparagraph mentioning “the list of applicable weapons approved under this subparagraph (iv).” But we will see what the ISP comes up with … if this whole thing doesn’t get overturned in the meantime.