Illinois Declares .22 LR Caliber Firearms as “Weapons of War”

[SkyRider]

According to Wikipedia as of this writing, “The .22 LR cartridge is popular with both novice shooters and experts. Its minimal recoil and relatively low noise make it an ideal cartridge for recreational shooting, small-game hunting, and pest control.”

 

Now, however, firearms using the .22 LR cartridge qualify as “weapons of war,” if they possess, for example, an adjustable stock that would help people of different sizes properly hold the firearm in their hands.

 

Senate President Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) said ahead of Monday evening's vote: "The weapons on this list were designed to do one thing and one thing only: kill people in a horrible and vicious way.”

 

Governor Pritkzer’s office said, “Under the new law, Illinoisans who already own semi-automatic weapons have to register their ownership so that law enforcement knows the location of these weapons of war and who to hold accountable if they fall into the wrong hands.”

 

Under the original Illinois House proposed rule, “Assault weapon does not include: (A) any firearm that: … (iv) uses rimfire ammunition or cartridges …”

 

However, under the Illinois Senate version of the gun control legislation that was ultimately passed, there was no exemption for firearms using rimfire ammunition, which primarily includes .22 LR caliber firearms.

 

I argue that .22 LR caliber firearms, which primarily include rifles but also some pistols, were not primarily designed to “kill people,” and hopefully these facts can be used to help overturn this legislative travesty.

[Rev Jim]

Here is how they argued it in Australia/NZ (and we all know what happened there):

 

“Harmless” .22 calibre Rabbit Rifles Kill More People Than Any Other Type of Gun

[SkyRider]

On 1/12/2023 at 4:06 PM, Rev Jim said:

Here is how they argued it in Australia/NZ (and we all know what happened there):

Thanks for that, I did some searches, and most attributed the so-called “fact sheet” analysis as being unique to Australia and New Zealand due to .22-caliber guns being most common in those countries at the time. Plus, it is hard to trust a document (which is not a thorough study) prepared by a "gun policy researcher" who characterizes “22 calibre bunny guns” as “the most common agent of gun death and injury.”

 

My earlier posting was primarily intended to highlight the falsehood of IL government official claims that 22lr powered guns can now, by design, be considered weapons of war.

 

All weapons can kill people, but in general 22lr rimfire weapons are under-powered against human targets, but I can see how anti-gun activists will grab onto any data, whether true or not, to justify their bans.

[Flynn]

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

I argue that .22 LR caliber firearms, which primarily include rifles but also some pistols, were not primarily designed to “kill people,” and hopefully these facts can be used to help overturn this legislative travesty.

 

It really doesn't matter what it was designed to do, Bruen clearly stated that means ends arguments like this are moot and that weapons by design are intended to harm/kill and that that has no bearing on their constitutional protections.

 

We are at a point now where we have to break out of that mold we are stuck in arguing means ends it's no longer a valid argument or a defendable argument for the state, when the courts were using scrutiny it was the argument of choice but scrutiny is now moot, we have to reprogram ourselves to not even entertain debating means ends and simply state it's moot and remind them it's moot and has no relavance anymore.

[SkyRider]

On 1/12/2023 at 5:56 PM, Flynn said:

 

It really doesn't matter what it was designed to do, Bruen clearly stated that means ends arguments like this are moot and that weapons by design are intended to harm/kill and that that has no bearing on their constitutional protections.

 

I think we are saying the same thing, but maybe I need to articulate it in a different way:  Part of the reason for my posting was thinking that when 2A groups look for plaintiffs who would have standing against the unconstitutional law, it would make sense to use a person with one of the most extreme examples of government overreach and where everyone can see (for both the court’s benefit and public consumption) that the reason for the unconstitutional power grab has nothing to do with the design of the weapon, i.e., for killing people or for war. The example demonstrates it’s all a sham! No doubt there are other similar examples.

[Flynn]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:57 PM, SkyRider said:

I think we are saying the same thing, but maybe I need to articulate it in a different way:  Part of the reason for my posting was thinking that when 2A groups look for plaintiffs who would have standing against the unconstitutional law, it would make sense to use a person with one of the most extreme examples of government overreach and where everyone can see (for both the court’s benefit and public consumption) that the reason for the unconstitutional power grab has nothing to do with the design of the weapon, i.e., for killing people or for war. The example demonstrates it’s all a sham! No doubt there are other similar examples.

 

Means end is a moot argument for both the state and our side, IMO it's the entirely wrong approach now that we have Bruen.   Why even consider cracking open any means ends arguments at all when they are moot?  Cracking it open lends credibility to the argumetn, it should simply be mooted from the get go.  Plus if you file a lawsuit like that, you give the state the chance to moot your entire lawsuit by simply adding back an exemption for 22lr.

 

I say go for the juggler and sue over all calibers from the ban on 50BMG to 22 Short and everythign in between and EVEN larger, what justification does the state (or Federal government) have to ban rifles above 50 caliber in the first place?  It was common for colonial era rifles to be of larger calibers, so there certainly is no history and tradition that our founding fathers desired banning anything over 50 caliber either.

[357]

Any firearm for them is a weapon of war and an assaulting weapon.

[kevin525]

I read a article yesterday that the bill gives the state police the authority to add firearms to the AWB every October. Don't know if it's true or not.

[soundguy]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:20 PM, Flynn said:

I say go for the juggler  jugular and sue over all calibers from the ban on 50BMG to 22 Short

 

If only I could draw political cartoons... 

The thought of The State (JB) sneaking up on a juggler juggling ammo made me smile.

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

[Upholder]

Right at the top of Public Act 102-1116, the ISP can make changes on an emergency basis for one year.

[yurimodin]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:46 PM, 357 said:

Any firearm for them is a weapon of war and an assaulting weapon.

"its supposed to be dangerous" -Clint Smith

[Flynn]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:21 AM, soundguy said:

 

If only I could draw political cartoons... 

The thought of The State (JB) sneaking up on a juggler juggling ammo made me smile.

 

 

AI artist has a hard time creating art with two primary subjects and doesn't seem to know what bullets and/or ammunition is sometimes, so I had to simplify it.

 

[SkyRider]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:12 AM, kevin525 said:

I read a article yesterday that the bill gives the state police the authority to add firearms to the AWB every October. Don't know if it's true or not.

Yes, here is information I commented on for a separate post ... which is a definite problem:

 

“No later than October 1, 2023, and every October 1 thereafter, the Illinois State Police shall, via rulemaking, identify, publish, and make available on its website, the list of assault weapons subject to an endorsement affidavit.”

 

So even if you register your current weapons subject to the law and listed in the law, the ISP could later update that list for more weapons making you a criminal without your knowledge.