Jump to content

Illinois now tracking the Caliber of ammunition you buy.


mab22

Recommended Posts

On 10/7/2023 at 11:25 AM, davel501 said:

Ever been asked for your foid when buying ammo in person out of state? It's a tough gap for the isp to close. 

 

Like most databases, the more information the worse the quality of that information.

 

On 10/7/2023 at 11:10 AM, steveTA84 said:

 

This looks like it's for a firearm purchase/transfer. If that's the case, this open up another avenue: disclosure of 4473 information in a somewhat centralized database. Seems like that would be prohibited.

 

On 10/6/2023 at 8:42 PM, davel501 said:

How do they articulate reasonable suspicion that an assault weapon is on your property based on ammunition? I can't think of a caliber that isn't available for something legal. There are plenty of bolt action rifles in 5.56/.223 even. 

 

Buying the ammo means nothing. Even if it was for a an actual assault weapon, as they've made up the term to mean, they need to connect it to you in the state. They can skip fighting for warrants outside the state's jurisdiction and just wait for the angry exes to call. 

 

The only people they could get are those buying .50 caliber ammo since that's banned but who is going to ship it here? 

 

"Reasonable suspicion" is for traffic stops; borders and government workplaces. It's less than probable cause; literally a hunch. So if I have to use my imagination: you will see increase police presence on/near the border by the highways. This would present the Illinois State Police with a logistical nightmare; non-residents are exempted; how does the typical police officer differentiate? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2023 at 6:03 PM, crufflesmuth said:

 

Like most databases, the more information the worse the quality of that information.

 

 

This looks like it's for a firearm purchase/transfer. If that's the case, this open up another avenue: disclosure of 4473 information in a somewhat centralized database. Seems like that would be prohibited.

 

 

"Reasonable suspicion" is for traffic stops; borders and government workplaces. It's less than probable cause; literally a hunch. So if I have to use my imagination: you will see increase police presence on/near the border by the highways. This would present the Illinois State Police with a logistical nightmare; non-residents are exempted; how does the typical police officer differentiate? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not how I'm reading the law. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/102/HB/10200HB5567.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are still in IL, why would you buy any ammo or guns in-state?  Unless you desperately need a handgun, buy everything outside the state.  You can buy a long-gun in almost any state in the country. There are few places in IL that are more than an hour from a border with a more free state.  The downside is the LGS suffer, which is part of the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2023 at 6:03 PM, crufflesmuth said:

 

Like most databases, the more information the worse the quality of that information.

 

 

This looks like it's for a firearm purchase/transfer. If that's the case, this open up another avenue: disclosure of 4473 information in a somewhat centralized database. Seems like that would be prohibited.

 

 

"Reasonable suspicion" is for traffic stops; borders and government workplaces. It's less than probable cause; literally a hunch. So if I have to use my imagination: you will see increase police presence on/near the border by the highways. This would present the Illinois State Police with a logistical nightmare; non-residents are exempted; how does the typical police officer differentiate? 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s not 7B2BE9F5-83C7-4461-9818-5A4BD1583419.thumb.jpeg.3b916239f40ce78a4fdf433ffa50b9fb.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2023 at 6:03 PM, crufflesmuth said:

 

Like most databases, the more information the worse the quality of that information.

 

 

This looks like it's for a firearm purchase/transfer. If that's the case, this open up another avenue: disclosure of 4473 information in a somewhat centralized database. Seems like that would be prohibited.

 

 

"Reasonable suspicion" is for traffic stops; borders and government workplaces. It's less than probable cause; literally a hunch. So if I have to use my imagination: you will see increase police presence on/near the border by the highways. This would present the Illinois State Police with a logistical nightmare; non-residents are exempted; how does the typical police officer differentiate? 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s for ammunition sales/record, not firearms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2023 at 9:41 PM, mikew said:

Dave, with all respect for your efforts, that is not law, it is legislation that was introduced and never went anywhere but died on the vine with the end of the 102nd GA.

 

image.png.5f4bcb03d62a928d5598d894132434d4.png

 

It would be helpful if you shared the actual law. There were a handful of sites pointing to it as the law. 

 

Let's try this one: https://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072500050K114-12.htm

 

(2) The search and seizure with a warrant was illegal because the warrant is insufficient on its face; the evidence seized is not that described in the warrant; there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant; or, the warrant was illegally executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked in the ILCS FOID Act and I can't find anything that authorizes this kind of heavy-handedness by the ISP at the top who are doing his master's bidding.

 

This is the closest I could find in the FOID Act:  ("monitoring databases" - not creating new ones)

 

    (430 ILCS 65/8.5)
    Sec. 8.5. Illinois State Police to monitor databases for firearms prohibitors. The Illinois State Police shall continuously monitor relevant State and federal databases, as allowed by State and federal law, for firearms prohibitors and correlate those records with Firearm Owner's Identification Card holders to ensure compliance with this Act and any other State and federal laws. As used in this Section, "firearms prohibitor" means any factor listed in Section 8 or Section 8.2 of this Act or Section 24-3 or 24-3.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012 that prohibits a person from transferring or possessing a firearm, firearm ammunition, Firearm Owner's Identification Card, or concealed carry license.
(Source: P.A. 102-237, eff. 1-1-22.)
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked in the Illinois Register, this is the closest thing I could find:

https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/index/register/volume45/register_volume45_issue_37.pdf

(PDF page 51, Illinois Register page 10949)

 

Nothing about caliber.

 

--------------

 

Section 1230.35 Possession and Validity of a FOID Card

b) Validity – Prior to the sale or transfer of any firearms or firearms ammunition, if
the FOID Card has no expiration date on its face or the FOID Card is expired, the
validity of the purchaser's FOID Card under this Act must be checked on the
Department's on-line FOID system except as provided in subsection (b)(7) below.

    1) Federally-licensed firearm dealers transferring a firearm are exempt from
this requirement but must comply with the provisions set forth in Part
1235, Firearm Transfer Inquiry Program, of this Title.

    2) These inquiry requirements apply equally to transfers involving new, used,
and trade-in firearms.

    3) Inquiries made to the Department's on-line FOID system do not exempt or
otherwise relieve the person making such inquiry from compliance with
any other State or federal laws or local ordinances.

    4) The seller will perform the inquiry by following the step-by-step
instructions provided through the Department's on-line FOID system.

    5) The Department shall determine the validity of the purchaser's FOID Card
and provide a transaction approval number if the FOID Card is active.

        A) The seller shall not complete the sale or otherwise transfer the
firearm until a transaction approval number is provided by the
Department.
       'B ) The seller must complete the transfer of all firearms within 30 days
after the transaction approval number has been provided by the
Department.
        C) If the purchaser's FOID Card is not active, the Department shall
advise the seller.

    6) The purchaser and seller are required to comply with the requirements of
Section 3b of the Act [430 ILCS 65/3(b)].

        A) Purchasers and/or sellers who elect to provide the Department with
a record of the transfer, may do so by completing the form
available on the Department's website for this purpose.

       'B ) Completed transfer record forms will be attached to the purchaser's
account within the Department's FOID database and retained for a
period of not less than 20 years.

    7) If the FOID Card has an expiration date printed on its face and the card
has not yet expired, the card may be considered active for purposes of sale
or transfer of firearms ammunition only and need not be checked in the
Department's on-line FOID system. All FOID Cards must be checked in
the Department's on-line FOID system for the sale or transfer of firearms
as provided above.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2023 at 10:24 PM, davel501 said:

 

It would be helpful if you shared the actual law. There were a handful of sites pointing to it as the law. 

 

Let's try this one: https://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072500050K114-12.htm

 

(2) The search and seizure with a warrant was illegal because the warrant is insufficient on its face; the evidence seized is not that described in the warrant; there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant; or, the warrant was illegally executed.

 

That is actual law, it's in the ILCS.
This line at the bottom can help you find the original bill, if that mattered:
(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

 

>>>>There were a handful of sites pointing to it as the law. 
Neither you nor I are responsible for a mistake others made in quoting the law.

>>>>It would be helpful if you shared the actual law.
I'll be honest, I was unsure of what you were trying to share.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can really do anything they want. The whole dem gestapo is in lock step on this one. It's not like Kwame is going to object. 

 

I still don't see how buying ammo would give them probable cause for a search warrant. Best they could do is a knock and talk with the hope someone is dumb enough to talk to them. 

 

In reality, I'm not sure who's buying ammo in state for a firearm they can't be seen with in state. 

 

All this to say, I don't see how a private citizen can challenge this law without being able to show actual damages...that are going to be hard to show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2023 at 6:33 AM, G214me said:

Gun shops are going to suffer even more now. All kinds of guns, parts, mags, accessories they can no longer sell and now everyone will be afraid to buy ammo or maybe go out of state to buy at gun shows and such. I suspect the Pigster regime will try to make it illegal to bring ammo into Illinois.

 

Afraid to buy ammo? I think people are reaching too far here. JCAR most likely made this happen. The people who buy ammo out of state are the people who don't want to spend money in state. That's some, but not most of the reasons gun shops are suffering. Zoning and not much competition is also a reason. Why is there not a gun range and shop operating within Chicago itself? despite Ezell v. Chicago I and II? 

 

Across the board, gun owners and the community at large is suffering because nobody saw the power of having a gun range/shop in Chicago itself: it would have cemented those wins with real and clear imagery. 

 

So, there is that.

 

Pritzker? It's not a regime: people voted. And it does start with people. It barely was a fight with Pritzker being re-elected. 

 

Even before the ban, shops were mostly anticipating it. Until Chicago itself gets a gun range operating within its limits and that includes after the zoning BS gets

shot down, these great wins in court will largely be forgotten by the average person, who we need to restore the culture - which is worth the extravagant price and regulations. 

Edited by crufflesmuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2023 at 10:22 PM, crufflesmuth said:

 

Pritzker? It's not a regime: people voted. And it does start with people. It barely was a fight with Pritzker being re-elected. 


As Bongino says, when it come to electing the Democrat, like Pritzker and Johnson, it just hasn’t gotten bed enough yet for the people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 10:11 AM, yurimodin said:

Its not like the GOP didn't put up their most modern version of a Lonesome Rhodes meme to run against him.

 

Bailey would have been a great governor with respect to keeping the government out of our lives, but a certain part of the state has a problem with people who have a slight southern twang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 11:22 AM, countyline said:

 

Bailey would have been a great governor with respect to keeping the government out of our lives, but a certain part of the state has a problem with people who have a slight southern twang.

IF you think Bailey had a southern twang, you should come hang around down here with me for a while! (About a mile north of the Ohio River and Kentucky). More folks around here fought for the south than the north

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 3:21 PM, mab22 said:

No idea on a law being passed, it was just reported recently and has been verified since.

Maybe @mauserme would know if this is new or baked in already?

 

 

I'll double check but I don't recall ammo registration being specifically included in any bills.  I think it may have morphed into a registration the way background checks did on guns.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 4:48 PM, mauserme said:

 

I'll double check but I don't recall ammo registration being specifically included in any bills.  I think it may have morphed into a registration the way background checks did on guns.

 

 

Background checks on guns isn't a law? How did it get implemented, who funded it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...