Jump to content

Semi-automatic rifles legal Post-Pica


crufflesmuth

Recommended Posts

ILguns Reddit loves to argue about this. Many argue every semi auto that can accept a detachable magazine is banned because of the barrel shroud language that could conceivably cover every form of hand guard on every rifle ever.
 

I personally believe those drafting and voting for the law were idiots who probably just intended to cover things like a Tec 9. 

 

In a potential worst case where the law is not struck down it’s going to have to get settled in a criminal case perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes, there are semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are legal under the stupid Protect Illinois Communities Act. It is bad enough as it is without people saying that it contains items that do not exist. 

 

(720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 new)
    Sec. 24-1.9. Manufacture, possession, delivery, sale, and
purchase of assault weapons, .50 caliber rifles, and .50
caliber cartridges.
    (a) Definitions. In this Section:
    (1) "Assault weapon" means any of the following, except as
provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection:
        (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to
    accept a detachable magazine or that may be readily
    modified to accept a detachable magazine, if the firearm
    has one or more of the following:
            (i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
            (ii) any feature capable of functioning as a
        protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger
        hand;
            (iii) a folding, telescoping, thumbhole, or
        detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise
        foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to
        reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or
        otherwise enhances the concealability of, the weapon;
            (iv) a flash suppressor;
            (v) a grenade launcher;
            (vi) a shroud attached to the barrel or that
        partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing
        the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger
        hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that
        encloses the barrel.
        (B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine
    with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except
    for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
    capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire
    ammunition.
        (C) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to
    accept a detachable magazine or that may be readily
    modified to accept a detachable magazine, if the firearm
    has one or more of the following:
            (i) a threaded barrel;
            (ii) a second pistol grip or another feature
        capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can
        be held by the non-trigger hand;
            (iii) a shroud attached to the barrel or that
        partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing
        the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger
        hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that
        encloses the barrel;
            (iv) a flash suppressor;
            (v) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine
        at some location outside of the pistol grip; or
            (vi) a buffer tube, arm brace, or other part that
        protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip and is
        designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate a
        firearm to be fired from the shoulder.
        (D) A semiautomatic pistol that has a fixed magazine
    with the capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.
        (E) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
        (F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of
    the following:
            (i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
            (ii) any feature capable of functioning as a
        protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger
        hand;
            (iii) a folding or thumbhole stock;
            (iv) a grenade launcher;
            (v) a fixed magazine with the capacity of more
        than 5 rounds; or
            (vi) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.
        (G) Any semiautomatic firearm that has the capacity to
    accept a belt ammunition feeding device.
        (H) Any firearm that has been modified to be operable
    as an assault weapon as defined in this Section. 

Public Act 1116 102ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY (ilga.gov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2023 at 3:53 PM, Quiet Observer said:

(vi) a shroud attached to the barrel or that
        partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing
        the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger
        hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that
        encloses the barrel.

 

I think that brings most semi automatic rifles in scope. 

 

image.thumb.png.542b9ad22fd00097da93a1f134c53414.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2023 at 1:20 AM, spanishjames said:

Proof that there's no way legislators know about what they're regulating.  I bet if you showed them a picture of the rifle above, they'd say " that rifle isn't scary, and ok to own".

 

My favorite was the one that got their info from a video game. It was like "flash suppressor +5 concealment +3 damage". It was a good laugh until I really thought about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2023 at 1:20 AM, spanishjames said:

Proof that there's no way legislators know about what they're regulating.  I bet if you showed them a picture of the rifle above, they'd say " that rifle isn't scary, and ok to own".

 

Then sloppy catch-all Illinois gun laws fail the "well-regulated" test that leftists demand of the 2nd Amendment. "Well" does not mean "extreme" or "punitive" or "broad-sweeping" or "non-sensical".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2023 at 7:00 PM, Matt B said:

ILguns Reddit loves to argue about this. Many argue every semi auto that can accept a detachable magazine is banned because of the barrel shroud language that could conceivably cover every form of hand guard on every rifle ever.
 

I personally believe those drafting and voting for the law were idiots who probably just intended to cover things like a Tec 9. 

 

In a potential worst case where the law is not struck down it’s going to have to get settled in a criminal case perhaps.

Yes, they are idiots but I think they left it vague enough so that FFL's would be afraid to take a risk and refuse to sell anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2023 at 8:55 AM, davel501 said:

 

I hope this means they are not shipping anything to IL no matter who orders. I would support that stand.

This would help knock off some of this stupid stuff if the "authorities" could NOT get their weapons, ammo, etc like the rest of us can't. Let them feel the pain as well, BUT that is usually not the way it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2023 at 9:07 AM, ragsbo said:

This would help knock off some of this stupid stuff if the "authorities" could NOT get their weapons, ammo, etc like the rest of us can't. Let them feel the pain as well, BUT that is usually not the way it works.

 

Yeah, there's always one guy that figures out all this means he can get above market prices and doesn't care about anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2023 at 11:26 AM, roundkot said:

I'll throw my question in, after reading through the law, googling and still not getting it.  Ruger takedown 10/22, 10 round detachable mag.  Banned or not? TIA.

 

Probably. If not the first day then give it 10 years of enforcement to slowly widen the net to the exact letter of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 21, 2023 at 11:26 AM, roundkot said:
... Ruger takedown 10/22, 10 round detachable mag. Banned or not? ...

Takedown or not, semi-auto + detachable magazine = banned.

There is no exception for 22LR. Supposedly Harmon said on the floor during senate debate that he specifically did not want to exclude the 10/22 from the ban. The law does specifically allow tube-fed 22LR, but that's just a special case of a non-detachable magazine. (At least I've never heard of a detachable tube magazine.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2023 at 1:23 PM, Euler said:


Takedown or not, semi-auto + detachable magazine = banned.

There is no exception for 22LR. Supposedly Harmon said on the floor during senate debate that he specifically did not want to exclude the 10/22 from the ban. The law does specifically allow tube-fed 22LR, but that's just a special case of a non-detachable magazine. (At least I've never heard of a detachable tube magazine.)

Where in the law does it state "semi-auto + detachable magazine = banned."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 21, 2023 at 02:12 PM, cybermgk said:
Where in the law does it state "semi-auto + detachable magazine = banned."

On September 21, 2023 at 02:24 PM, Matt B said:
That assessment assumes a broad reading of the barrel shroud language, as every rifle has some sort of hand guard or shroud to prevent the non firing hand from being burned by the barrel.

Pretty much that. Every rifle has a feature that allows supporting the rifle with one's non-trigger-finger hand and not burning it. The language itself is over-broad. In addition, I think it's also worth remembering that the word "shroud" was introduced into the gun control debate by the 1994 Clinton AWB. It was never used by the pro-2A side before that and has never been precisely defined by the anti-2A side after that.

On September 21, 2023 at 04:34 PM, countyline said:
We openly sell 10/22's every day, they are not banned.

The difficulty is that LE not enforcing a law doesn't guarantee that it doesn't apply. The first enforcement point is supposed to be when owners register their firearms. If the firearm is not exempt, the police will deny the registration and seize it. But if even an owner who wants to comply with the law thinks he isn't required to register a firearm, then LE will never know. That's the functional definition of unconstitutional vagueness: people cannot comply with a law if they can't figure out when it's supposed to apply. The alternative is to chill the exercise of a right: people choose to avoid situations (rather than the government actively prohibiting them) where the law shouldn't apply, because they fear the extreme consequences of arbitrary enforcement (which is exactly why vagueness is unconstitutional).
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...