Jump to content

Passage of Illinois Gun Law was Rushed


mauserme

Recommended Posts

https://jg-tc.com/opinion/editorial/our-view-passage-of-illinois-gun-law-was-rushed/article_d486d5ab-c7ee-5a5c-b566-5e1827cb5cc8.html

 

"When people feel disenfranchised by their government, our political process suffers. Often, those people become either apathetic or radicalized. The effects of this are insidious and intangible, and we will never fully catalogue the harm done. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That law is a confusing, hot mess.

 

Politicians who oppose firearm rights have little to no clue what they’re banning, so they make these sweeping, poorly written laws and shove them swiftly down our throats. When it had to be passed from the house after midnight, and the senate closing remarks were what they were, we all know this was wrong. Heck, even our Gov was on national TV yesterday, admitting that he knew the Supreme Court would strike it down.

 

people like that have no idea what they’re banning because they’re running purely on emotions vs logic. Laws based on feelings make no sense, never have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 10:46 AM, smokehouse said:

Heck, even our Gov was on national TV yesterday, admitting that he knew the Supreme Court would strike it down.

I didn’t hear this.  Can you point me to the interview, I would be so encouraged by this! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law was rushed? absolutely not. Only Lake and Cook County are enforcing it. Mike Madigan was very smart. He knew two things, one Illinois isn't California - or even New York. Second, class and wealth cut across lines for gun ownership. Those two reasons are probably why he always made sure bills would die in the rules committee. I'll never know. 

 

Shannon Watts is retiring because either she's made enough money from this whole gun-control charade, or she knows the days 

of making significant income from anti "violence" is sunsetting. 

 

What I believe is happening: Donald Harmon is gritting his teeth behind closed doors, why? because when this gets litigated, we could see a "reset", in Illinois' 

gun laws. 

 

For instance, the FOID act coupled with the Assault Weapon ban essentially gave the state the ability (technically) to FTIP every current gun owner, and the 

"endorsements" for banned items: magazines more than 15 rounds, rifles with cosmetic features - do these endorsements disappear, when a FOID card

is up for renewal? do the state police have the ability to revoke these "endorsements" when a FOID is up for renewal, because there is no statutory provision? we don't know. 

 

The effects of this legislation are bitter, because when this bill was signed, aside from the token minorities hauled in front of the cameras in Chicago, this was the work of white suburban Karens, Tims and Mikes - three of the worst people ever optics wise for passing any law. 

 

And then we get to the governor. We're supposed to have separation of powers. Yet, he sat with the general assembly. 

 

Donald Harmon is afraid. Emmanuel Welch is afraid too. Because AK-47's and standard magazines will be legal in ALL of Illinois, when this is said and done. We might even gut the FOID as well. 

 

I really will die of laughter, if the later happens as well. I will be sure to send grape juice to them, when that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never understood why we can't sue Politicians, especially Governors, for Breach of Oath - Pritzker has admittedly signed a Bill into law that he knew in advance The Supreme Court would strike down as unconstitutional. He deliberately breached his oath of office (he swore with his hand on a bible! Contempt? Perjury? If I did that in a court of law and lied I'd be jailed for perjury!) and there will be no consequences for him. He lied - took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and deliberately signed a bill he knows is unconstitutional thus making himself a domestic enemy of The Constitution.

 

I'll never understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 10:46 AM, smokehouse said:

That law is a confusing, hot mess.

 

Politicians who oppose firearm rights have little to no clue what they’re banning, so they make these sweeping, poorly written laws and shove them swiftly down our throats. When it had to be passed from the house after midnight, and the senate closing remarks were what they were, we all know this was wrong. Heck, even our Gov was on national TV yesterday, admitting that he knew the Supreme Court would strike it down.

 

people like that have no idea what they’re banning because they’re running purely on emotions vs logic. Laws based on feelings make no sense, never have.

Why would you think these people are stupid? They play the long game and act stupid. You don’t think the wording was so vague on purpose? They effectively banned pretty much everything. And when I say that, yeah you can buy a 15 rd handgun with no rail for attachments but try and get a replacement recoil spring or any part. You can’t, atleast not if you “follow the rules”. If I understand all this correctly, even my bolt action is an assault weapon. How is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm working through the "endorsement" portion, 

 

It's registration by another name,

 

so you want an "endorsement" for your AR-15?

 

You will be signing an affidavit - which will be used as evidence against you in court, when they do another ban, like Connecticut..

 

Oh, it gets better! In addition to you providing this, you're providing the serial numbers as well..they've just turned the 

FOID into a gun registry for this..well, some guns anyway (I know they won't stop there).

 

It looks like they've dipped into a few areas of inspiration, but I won't list those here.

 

My favorite part: private security companies are exempt, in addition to security guards. 

How thoughtful. I'm sure the snobs in Sheffield Neighbors and Lincoln Park added that 

one.

 

On the 1st of October, the state police is supposed to publish a list of assault weapons, so they can add more

(potentially) to that definition.

 

It's not worth. In my opinion. They're setting you, the gun owner up, for misery.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 12:00 PM, GunCollector said:

I didn’t hear this.  Can you point me to the interview, I would be so encouraged by this! 

 

Add me to the list of folks who'd love a link to video where Pritzker admits he knew the Supreme Court would strike this down. I'd love to hear this if it's true. Paraphrased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t read too much into his comment. I’d say his comments could be interpreted either way. To me it seems like he’s saying SCOTUS would strike it down, but I don’t see him conceding its constitutionality. Also he second clause about being the 9th state really adds ambiguity. 

 

“We know the way they’re going to vote, but I have to say, we have eight states that have passed assault weapons bans. We’re the ninth state,” Pritzker said. “So we believe the Supreme Court will take into account that these are established law, have been for some time.”

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/attorney-general-says-if-sheriffs-wont-enforce-gun-ban-there-are-other-people-there-to/article_8b6d435c-938f-11ed-bf51-3b89f7f861d3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article gives me no sense of his 

being with us on the issue at hand.

Nine states and counting is the lefts 

long game playing out. They have the time and the money. It’s not just gun rights. I worry about the fact that conservative states over time move left but once they dig in you never see Blue state transition to red.It seems when the left grabs a state they never let go. That Colorado is lost is a testament to their strength.

They trashed the west coast states and move east to run from their handy work. I have yet to understand why they bring that destruction with them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 2:58 PM, lilguy said:

The article gives me no sense of his 

being with us on the issue at hand.

Nine states and counting is the lefts 

long game playing out. They have the time and the money. It’s not just gun rights. I worry about the fact that conservative states over time move left but once they dig in you never see Blue state transition to red.It seems when the left grabs a state they never let go. That Colorado is lost is a testament to their strength.

They trashed the west coast states and move east to run from their handy work. I have yet to understand why they bring that destruction with them.

 

You forget Florida… It was a purple state. The big cities still have their blue stink, but overall the state is quite solidly red, now. It’s not impossible to turn the tide, and I think on this issue the courts may slap this one down in light of precedent. As far as the political situation goes, letting the Chicago machine run themselves off the cliff is the only solution. Let them have their run of the place and watch them get slapped in the face of reality. Much like what’s happening in west coast cities… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 1:23 PM, Craigcr2 said:

I wouldn’t read too much into his comment. I’d say his comments could be interpreted either way. To me it seems like he’s saying SCOTUS would strike it down, but I don’t see him conceding its constitutionality. Also he second clause about being the 9th state really adds ambiguity. 

 

“We know the way they’re going to vote, but I have to say, we have eight states that have passed assault weapons bans. We’re the ninth state,” Pritzker said. “So we believe the Supreme Court will take into account that these are established law, have been for some time.”

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/attorney-general-says-if-sheriffs-wont-enforce-gun-ban-there-are-other-people-there-to/article_8b6d435c-938f-11ed-bf51-3b89f7f861d3.html

If there is a way to deliberately misread NYSRPA v Bruen more drastically than this, I have no idea what it could be. (For that matter, he seems to be unclear on the whole concept of judicial review, somewhat surprising for a dude whose family name is on an actual law school.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 3:43 PM, Hap said:

If there is a way to deliberately misread NYSRPA v Bruen more drastically than this, I have no idea what it could be. (For that matter, he seems to be unclear on the whole concept of judicial review, somewhat surprising for a dude whose family name is on an actual law school.)

I don’t think that we should assume he’s read it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I’m pretty sure they only listen to Everytown and Giffords attorneys and aren’t getting the full story of Bruen. Anyone halfway versed in that decision would realize that AWB laws are extremely new and well beyond the window of relevant laws at time then 2A was ratified (or even the 14th). It doesn’t matter if 9 states or 40 states currently have one in force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The democrats knew all along that NYSRPA v Bruen reset the game.   That whole "our lawyers tell us it doesn't effect our efforts" nonsense was just a smoke screen to keep their donor campaign cash coming in.    

 

The democrats have lawyers and they have some of the best in the country.   Across many different states, the dems are rushing to put up a wall of legislation, intermingling new law with current laws, all in the hopes it makes it harder for judges to strike down.

 

That is their game plan.  I said it in another thread.  It isn't coincidence that everything is being integrated into the FOID system to make it harder for judges to dissect. I can already see the State's arguments coming..  *if the court strikes down the AWB, it will have ramifications with the FOID system.  It will cause a mountain of chaos. blah blah blah.. *
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 4:27 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

The democrats knew all along that NYSRPA v Bruen reset the game.   That whole "our lawyers tell us it doesn't effect our efforts" nonsense was just a smoke screen to keep their donor campaign cash coming in.    

 

The democrats have lawyers and they have some of the best in the country.   Across many different states, the dems are rushing to put up a wall of legislation, intermingling new law with current laws, all in the hopes it makes it harder for judges to strike down.

 

That is their game plan.  I said it in another thread.  It isn't coincidence that everything is being integrated into the FOID system to make it harder for judges to dissect. I can already see the State's arguments coming..  *if the court strikes down the AWB, it will have ramifications with the FOID system.  It will cause a mountain of chaos. blah blah blah.. *
 

Well, if it causes chaos, they can always go back to the old laws. I assume somebody will have kept a copy of the text just in case. And we've already seen how quickly the ILGA and governor's office can move when they put their minds to it. SCOTUS can give them a couple of weeks to get it taken care of and they should be fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 4:27 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

The democrats knew all along that NYSRPA v Bruen reset the game.   That whole "our lawyers tell us it doesn't effect our efforts" nonsense was just a smoke screen to keep their donor campaign cash coming in.    

 

The democrats have lawyers and they have some of the best in the country.   Across many different states, the dems are rushing to put up a wall of legislation, intermingling new law with current laws, all in the hopes it makes it harder for judges to strike down.

 

That is their game plan.  I said it in another thread.  It isn't coincidence that everything is being integrated into the FOID system to make it harder for judges to dissect. I can already see the State's arguments coming..  *if the court strikes down the AWB, it will have ramifications with the FOID system.  It will cause a mountain of chaos. blah blah blah.. *
 

They have it all planned and backed by billionaires who have all the democrats in their pocket and are imposing their will on us and depriving us of our Constitutional right. They found a way to make all gun shops and FFL's go out of business. The best selling rifles and pistols and shotguns which are best for self defense and everyone wants to buy are now illegal and labeled machine guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upside of this is that it may be the tipping point that gets moderates of all three political parties (including the largest one, independents) to start pushing back against being over-governmented.  I just saw a former associate who is usually moderately liberal start ranting that she doesn't like guns, but if they think this over-reach is OK, what is next?  She also is having issues because IL failed to pay back federal funds for COVID and now all businesses, such as hers, are getting dinged on their federal taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 12:57 PM, crufflesmuth said:

I'm working through the "endorsement" portion, 

 

It's registration by another name,

 

so you want an "endorsement" for your AR-15?

 

You will be signing an affidavit - which will be used as evidence against you in court, when they do another ban, like Connecticut..

 

Oh, it gets better! In addition to you providing this, you're providing the serial numbers as well..they've just turned the 

FOID into a gun registry for this..well, some guns anyway (I know they won't stop there).

 

It looks like they've dipped into a few areas of inspiration, but I won't list those here.

 

My favorite part: private security companies are exempt, in addition to security guards. 

How thoughtful. I'm sure the snobs in Sheffield Neighbors and Lincoln Park added that 

one.

 

On the 1st of October, the state police is supposed to publish a list of assault weapons, so they can add more

(potentially) to that definition.

 

It's not worth. In my opinion. They're setting you, the gun owner up, for misery.

 

 

ISP just released a FAQ about this law, and they use the term "register" multiple times. This hilariously lets the cat out of the bag with their obfuscating "endorsement affidavit" language. I archived it in case they realize their mistake and change the language. Maybe it could help paint a picture during litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 2:58 PM, lilguy said:

The article gives me no sense of his 

being with us on the issue at hand.

Nine states and counting is the lefts 

long game playing out. They have the time and the money. It’s not just gun rights. I worry about the fact that conservative states over time move left but once they dig in you never see Blue state transition to red.It seems when the left grabs a state they never let go. That Colorado is lost is a testament to their strength.

They trashed the west coast states and move east to run from their handy work. I have yet to understand why they bring that destruction with them.

 

Well he does call it a semi=auto ban, not an assault weapon, weapons of war, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 1:23 PM, Craigcr2 said:

I wouldn’t read too much into his comment. I’d say his comments could be interpreted either way. To me it seems like he’s saying SCOTUS would strike it down, but I don’t see him conceding its constitutionality. Also he second clause about being the 9th state really adds ambiguity. 

 

“We know the way they’re going to vote, but I have to say, we have eight states that have passed assault weapons bans. We’re the ninth state,” Pritzker said. “So we believe the Supreme Court will take into account that these are established law, have been for some time.”

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/attorney-general-says-if-sheriffs-wont-enforce-gun-ban-there-are-other-people-there-to/article_8b6d435c-938f-11ed-bf51-3b89f7f861d3.html

Said like someone purposely ignoring, or has zero clue about the Bruen decision OR the several AWB cases SCOTUS then took up, immediately dismissed back to the lower courts that upheld them, to redo, under the guidelines of Bruen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 7:17 PM, Gerlo said:

ISP just released a FAQ about this law, and they use the term "register" multiple times. This hilariously lets the cat out of the bag with their obfuscating "endorsement affidavit" language. I archived it in case they realize their mistake and change the language. Maybe it could help paint a picture during litigation.

Can you post a copy of the FAQ, or send it to me directly? Alternatively, if it's still up, please post a link. I wasn't able to find it on the ISP site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 4:27 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

The democrats knew all along that NYSRPA v Bruen reset the game.   That whole "our lawyers tell us it doesn't effect our efforts" nonsense was just a smoke screen to keep their donor campaign cash coming in.    

 

The democrats have lawyers and they have some of the best in the country.   Across many different states, the dems are rushing to put up a wall of legislation, intermingling new law with current laws, all in the hopes it makes it harder for judges to strike down.

 

That is their game plan.  I said it in another thread.  It isn't coincidence that everything is being integrated into the FOID system to make it harder for judges to dissect. I can already see the State's arguments coming..  *if the court strikes down the AWB, it will have ramifications with the FOID system.  It will cause a mountain of chaos. blah blah blah.. *
 

I don’t think in our history and traditions did we ever require anyone pay for a LICENSE for ANY constitutional right.

AND NONE of this should misconstrued as COINCIDENCE, or poorly structured, or done by really stupid people. 
They planned this very well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Naperville AWB sale prohibition wasn’t planned out and timed just perfectly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 10:25 PM, mab22 said:

I don’t think in our history and traditions did we ever require anyone pay for a LICENSE for ANY constitutional right.

AND NONE of this should misconstrued as COINCIDENCE, or poorly structured, or done by really stupid people. 
They planned this very well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Naperville AWB sale prohibition wasn’t planned out and timed just perfectly. 

They also have a former ATF agent in Bloomberg's payroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 10:16 PM, cybermgk said:

Said like someone purposely ignoring, or has zero clue about the Bruen decision OR the several AWB cases SCOTUS then took up, immediately dismissed back to the lower courts that upheld them, to redo, under the guidelines of Bruen. 

I really think it’s just an economy of time issues. I’m not trying to defend JB, but I assume that his schedule is similar to the CEO of a large company. He doesn’t have time to read Bruen and likely depends on a summary prepared by his attorney or the AG. The righter was probably an ideologue, an idiot, or both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 10:25 PM, mab22 said:

I don’t think in our history and traditions did we ever require anyone pay for a LICENSE for ANY constitutional right.

AND NONE of this should misconstrued as COINCIDENCE, or poorly structured, or done by really stupid people. 
They planned this very well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Naperville AWB sale prohibition wasn’t planned out and timed just perfectly. 

 

In light of Justice's Thomas' brilliant ruling in Bruen, SCOTUS should seriously review FOID and similar edicts as the 2a has been FINALLY deemed a "...first class right." 

A reminder of the language of two US Supreme Court decisions is relevant. 

 

1. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: 

"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."

 

2. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262:

"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore

the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."

 

Additionally, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr stated it perfectly in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail" (as we approach MLK Day tomorrow):

 

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

– Martin Luther King, Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 7:17 PM, Gerlo said:

ISP just released a FAQ about this law, and they use the term "register" multiple times. This hilariously lets the cat out of the bag with their obfuscating "endorsement affidavit" language. I archived it in case they realize their mistake and change the language. Maybe it could help paint a picture during litigation.

Wow C88BDF41-8212-4DA9-8F4D-9328710BE332.jpeg.1747e0041d80b7a5af1c2ff14f04281d.jpegD0FE626F-2B80-4277-889F-525EC36EA1EE.thumb.jpeg.91ab0641c7ed38c198834967dec49a6a.jpeg979B4988-8BF4-460C-8D09-76DD109E5C53.jpeg.7429d677bf078f955ca825c9703ce579.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 7:12 AM, steveTA84 said:

Wow C88BDF41-8212-4DA9-8F4D-9328710BE332.jpeg.1747e0041d80b7a5af1c2ff14f04281d.jpegD0FE626F-2B80-4277-889F-525EC36EA1EE.thumb.jpeg.91ab0641c7ed38c198834967dec49a6a.jpeg979B4988-8BF4-460C-8D09-76DD109E5C53.jpeg.7429d677bf078f955ca825c9703ce579.jpeg

 

I commented on this, in another post. I will reiterate it here.

 

It does a person no good, to "endorse" a lawful firearm,

 

when you file an affidavit, the Illinois State Police HAS that on file - just like the CCL info, and that is available in LEADS.

 

Additionally, they already have access to that information, through FTIP - BAT Arms had a post on this sometime back.

 

So why, do they need information they already have access to?

 

People commenting here the left has eight states and counting, you need to understand: you need to stop arguing

this violates your second amendment rights. Sure, it does - there is precedent and case law to back that up. 

But that's not how we win the fight of optics.

 

It's not just about the second amendment, it's about data privacy and the state arbitrarily banning something

based on cosmetic looks and capacity. 

 

We now know, there are three counties to convince: Cook, Lake and Champaign. Lake County has 

Highland Park, controlling the politics. Cook, Chicago. Champaign, I wouldn't know. 

 

The common thread for winning the culture war is finding issues within a single issue: data privacy.

In addition to the second amendment, most people understand the consequences of that. In

addition to self-defense, we should be arguing these weapons are not dangerous - they're 

actually less lethal. 

 

The 556 is a round sanctioned by the Geneva Convention. It's designed to wound. And when a 

"doctor" gets up in front of the cameras, ask that person, whether they're stating personal

opinion or guidance - because the later is what most people see in front of the cameras.

Any doctor who says a 556 wound is "devastating" is posturing. 

 

I went to my local gun store and not a single, semi-automatic rifle was available.

Gun manufacturers should consider blacklisting the state police and any police

department that pledges to enforce this tyranny.

 

I'm heartened to see our progress. We're united and we will prevail. The grape juice drinker

will gnash his teeth at the end of this whole ordeal.

 

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...