PICA Hearing 3 of 3: 11/6/2023

[Upholder]

On 11/13/2023 at 1:04 PM, JTHunter said:

Are they exempt because they are rimfire (.22 Mag)?

 

No.  Only fixed tubular .22lr mags are exempt from the size limits.

[Euler]

The only exemption for 22LR is for fixed tubular magazines.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

The Way I read it, it's not about the "Feeding Devices" it's about what weapon they are being used in. If one uses a 15 round magazine in a long gun that is semi auto and accepts Glock magazines it's not legal. If it's a 15 round Glock mag in a pistol yer fine. It's not about the magazines - it's about what the configuration of the firearm in question is. Semi auto rifles are capped at 10 rounds. Semi auto pistols are capped at 15.

 

VooDoo

[Upholder]

From the law (emphasis mine):

 

(720 ILCS 5/24-1.10)
Sec. 24-1.10. Manufacture, delivery, sale, and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
(a) In this Section:
"Handgun" has the meaning ascribed to it in the Firearm
Concealed Carry Act.
"Long gun" means a rifle or shotgun.
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:
(1) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily
restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of
ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of
ammunition for handguns; or
(2) any combination of parts from which a device
described in paragraph (1) can be assembled.
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does not
include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire
ammunition. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does
not include a tubular magazine that is contained in a
lever-action firearm or any device that has been made
permanently inoperable.

 

The way you read it is not the way that I read it at all. 

 

I read it as if it can hold ammunition that can be used in a long gun and more than 10 rounds of that ammunition, it is a "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" according to the statute.  In fact, the way that the law is written, it may not even matter if you personally own or have access to a long gun that could accept that magazine -- it might not even matter if ANY long gun can accept that specific magazine if there is a long gun that uses that ammunition.

 

The restriction is on a magazine that can hold ammunition that a long gun can use.  That's how badly this law is written.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

No one I know will debate the fact that the whole thing is written to be confusing and....badly written. But you win. I stand corrected.

 

VooDoo

[Euler]

On November 13, 2023 at 05:22 PM CST, Upholder said:→

...
I read it as if it can hold ammunition that can be used in a long gun and more than 10 rounds of that ammunition, it is a "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" according to the statute.
...

I believe that's how it's intended to be read. Of course, that also is at odds with the US v Thompson-Center (1992) Supreme Court ruling, which held that if a firearm part has a legitimate use (pistol barrel in the TC case) as well as an illegitimate use (unregistered SBR barrel in the TC case), it cannot be assumed that the person possessing it (or selling it) intended illegitimate use. The same argument should apply to magazines, but it'll probably take a criminal court case to make IL acknowledge it.

Edited November 13, 2023 at 11:55 PM by Euler

[Tvandermyde]

On 11/6/2023 at 6:14 PM, davel501 said:

 

By the letter of the law that are already illegal. Why would you want to give an administrative body power to start enforcing that on a whim while allowing them to dodge the current legal proceedings? 

JCAR can't enforce the law. JCAR is there to add clarity to the law and rules that allow the agency to administer it. 

 

The point is that if the state police are held to a standard of the black letter of the law, then the mag ban is not 5 rounds for semi-auto shotguns, 10 rounds for most long guns and 15 rounds for handguns it expands far beyond that. so the ban is no the number they choose but goes far beyond that to include man many more guns and mags -- without military pedigree. 

[Smallbore]

Since the legislators are too important and lazy to make good clear law then I prefer only the courts to have the power to clarify the law. Rather than unelected/unaccountable bureaucrats.

[davel501]

On 11/14/2023 at 7:00 AM, Tvandermyde said:

JCAR can't enforce the law. JCAR is there to add clarity to the law and rules that allow the agency to administer it. 

 

The point is that if the state police are held to a standard of the black letter of the law, then the mag ban is not 5 rounds for semi-auto shotguns, 10 rounds for most long guns and 15 rounds for handguns it expands far beyond that. so the ban is no the number they choose but goes far beyond that to include man many more guns and mags -- without military pedigree. 

 

I thought JCAR was just the rubber stamp on the ISP. My point was let's let the law be the law rather than letting them pretend it is something softer for the court cases then "align the rules closer to the law as written" after the legal proceedings.

[MRE]

On 11/14/2023 at 9:33 AM, davel501 said:

 

I thought JCAR was just the rubber stamp on the ISP. My point was let's let the law be the law rather than letting them pretend it is something softer for the court cases then "align the rules closer to the law as written" after the legal proceedings.

At its core, JCAR is simply a legislative branch committee with limited authority to review and “object” to the executive branch’s proposed rules. They tend to think they have more authority than they actually do. The process is many times just a lot of song and dance following the beat of required times for comments to be accepted. On its face it’s “bipartisan” but that means little when a tie vote is actually a losing vote. Any final, formal rebuke would need to come with a vote of the majority party. And the full legislature if it gets far enough. But when the Governor is of the same party as the legislative majority, that rarely happens. In the end it is 99% of the time a rubber stamp for the Agency. Unless and until a Court steps in.

Edited November 14, 2023 at 09:22 PM by MRE

[Molly B.]

This is the response to the questions I asked during the hearing -  I received from ISP today.

 

Quote

 

The ISP is updating our FAQ section to add the “qualified retired law enforcement officers” language and the ISP is also adding additional clarification regarding your questions. To answer your first question, persons who are exempt from the endorsement affidavit provisions pursuant to an exemption in 24-1.9(e) are required to file an electronic endorsement affidavit should the circumstances giving rise to the exemption change. The ISP encourages people like corrections officers and law enforcement officers to complete the endorsement affidavit before they separate from their employment.  If a person loses their exempt status, the ISP’s online FOID/FCCL system will permit them to file even after January 1, 2024. 

 

As to your second question, a 15-round magazine without an extension kit is legal. A 15-round magazine with an extension kit is regulated by the PICA. The ISP is proposing the following definition in our rules: “Readily assembled, modified, restored or converted” shall mean any assembly, modification, restoration, or conversion beyond those that would be required in regular maintenance that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, and does not require special knowledge or skill, additional parts or tools, or significant expense.  Readily assembled, modified, restored or converted shall not include assembly, modifications, restorations, or conversions that would damage or destroy the firearm or cause it to malfunction. 

 

In response to your third question, the statute defines the term “assault weapon attachment” as any device capable of being attached to a firearm that is specifically designed for making or converting a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in the Act.     

Assault weapon attachments do not include integral parts or components of an assault weapon but rather are supplementary or other items not specifically designed for a firearm, for example items specifically designed for an airsoft gun.

•             Scopes and scope mounts

•             Red dot sights, holographic sights, and their mounts

•             Laser sighting devices

•             Flashlights or other lighting devices

•             Slings and sling mounts

•             Aftermarket stocks that do not otherwise meet the criteria in (1)(a).

•             Picatinny rails (used for attaching devices to the exterior of a firearm)

•             Bayonets and bayonet mounts

•             Belt clips / minimalistic holsters (pistols)

              

To be an assault weapon attachment, the item must be specifically designed for a firearm. Items specifically designed for airsoft guns are not assault weapon attachments.  If a person were to attach parts specifically designed for an airsoft gun to a firearm thereby bringing it within the definition of assault weapon under PICA, the firearm would be regulated.

 

Lastly, the ISP is creating a table of changes to the FAQs and will publish on its website once complete.

Thank you.

 

[Yeti]

Thank you for posting.  I believe I am just as confused after the clarification as I was before reading it and don’t expect to find myself alone in that camp.  

Edited November 21, 2023 at 02:47 AM by Yeti
Typo

[Upholder]

On 11/20/2023 at 5:03 PM, Molly B. said:

As to your second question, a 15-round magazine without an extension kit is legal. A 15-round magazine with an extension kit is regulated by the PICA. The ISP is proposing the following definition in our rules: “Readily assembled, modified, restored or converted” shall mean any assembly, modification, restoration, or conversion beyond those that would be required in regular maintenance that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, and does not require special knowledge or skill, additional parts or tools, or significant expense.  Readily assembled, modified, restored or converted shall not include assembly, modifications, restorations, or conversions that would damage or destroy the firearm or cause it to malfunction. 

 

So, their clarification is that "without an extension kit is legal" in the first sentence and then goes on to say that if it is "fairly or reasonably efficient, quick,. and easy, and does not require any special knowledge or skill, additional parts or tools, or significant expense." then it would not be legal?   They contradict their first sentence with the second.

 

Adding an extender tube to a shotgun magazine is trivially easy, very quick, takes no special knowledge or skill, no tools, etc..   I've not played with magazine extensions that involve removable baseplates, but I can't imagine it would be any different.

[Upholder]

On 11/20/2023 at 5:03 PM, Molly B. said:

In response to your third question, the statute defines the term “assault weapon attachment” as any device capable of being attached to a firearm that is specifically designed for making or converting a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in the Act.     

Assault weapon attachments do not include integral parts or components of an assault weapon but rather are supplementary or other items not specifically designed for a firearm, for example items specifically designed for an airsoft gun.

•             Scopes and scope mounts

•             Red dot sights, holographic sights, and their mounts

•             Laser sighting devices

•             Flashlights or other lighting devices

•             Slings and sling mounts

•             Aftermarket stocks that do not otherwise meet the criteria in (1)(a).

•             Picatinny rails (used for attaching devices to the exterior of a firearm)

•             Bayonets and bayonet mounts

•             Belt clips / minimalistic holsters (pistols)

 

So, they want people to be registering SCOPES and scope mounts now?  Red dots?  FLASHLIGHTS?   They've really gone off the deep end.

[mab22]

Quote

To be an assault weapon attachment, the item must be specifically designed for a firearm. Items specifically designed for airsoft guns are not assault weapon attachments.  If a person were to attach parts specifically designed for an airsoft gun to a firearm thereby bringing it within the definition of assault weapon under PICA, the firearm would be regulated.

Boy is this confusing!

So try this logic as I think it applies.

If you go and buy a cloth belt, in size Gov. Pritzker, and attach it to a rifle, then the “belt,” isn’t a sling because it wasn’t specifically designed for a firearm. 
BUT, since it makes it an assault weapon, now firearm is regulated. 

So what if I replace my barrel shroud with oven mits and duct tape, do the oven mits now “reclassify” the firearm as an assault weapon?

Edited November 21, 2023 at 05:24 AM by mab22

[davel501]

On 11/20/2023 at 11:23 PM, mab22 said:

Boy is this confusing!

So try this logic as I think it applies.

If you go and buy a cloth belt, in size Gov. Pritzker, and attach it to a rifle, then the “belt,” isn’t a sling because it wasn’t specifically designed for a firearm. 
BUT, since it makes it an assault weapon, now firearm is regulated. 

So what if I replace my barrel shroud with oven mits and duct tape, do the oven mits now “reclassify” the firearm as an assault weapon?

 

Don't nobody want their rifle dragging in the dirt. 

[Illinois Sucks]

On 11/20/2023 at 5:03 PM, Molly B. said:

This is the response to the questions I asked during the hearing -  I received from ISP today.

 

Zero clarification.  ZERO.  These were not answers, these were the same confusing rules they gave us regurgitated in a different order.  

[Jeffrey]

On 11/20/2023 at 11:23 PM, mab22 said:

Boy is this confusing!

So try this logic as I think it applies.

If you go and buy a cloth belt, in size Gov. Pritzker, and attach it to a rifle, then the “belt,” isn’t a sling because it wasn’t specifically designed for a firearm. 
BUT, since it makes it an assault weapon, now firearm is regulated. 

So what if I replace my barrel shroud with oven mits and duct tape, do the oven mits now “reclassify” the firearm as an assault weapon?

Only if the belt is a size abrams.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Quote

Assault weapon attachments do not include integral parts or components of an assault weapon but rather are supplementary or other items not specifically designed for a firearm, for example items specifically designed for an airsoft gun.

 

But some of/many of these Airsoft parts (collapsible stocks, pistols grips, ect) are interchangeable with the real weapons they are designed to mimic. They would be classified as an Assault Weapon Attachment but not if they are mounted on an Airsoft rifle? I heard them say at one of the clarification meetings that these would have to be registered via disclosure affidavit.

 

No one knows what's going on. The ISP contradicts itself and then says to look at the FAQ. 

 

VooDoo

[korgs130]

On 11/20/2023 at 5:03 PM, Molly B. said:

 

 

In response to your third question, the statute defines the term “assault weapon attachment” as any device capable of being attached to a firearm that is specifically designed for making or converting a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in the Act.     

Assault weapon attachments do not include integral parts or components of an assault weapon but rather are supplementary or other items not specifically designed for a firearm, for example items specifically designed for an airsoft gun.

•             Scopes and scope mounts

•             Red dot sights, holographic sights, and their mounts

•             Laser sighting devices

•             Flashlights or other lighting devices

•             Slings and sling mounts

•             Aftermarket stocks that do not otherwise meet the criteria in (1)(a).

•             Picatinny rails (used for attaching devices to the exterior of a firearm)

•             Bayonets and bayonet mounts

•             Belt clips / minimalistic holsters (pistols)

              

To be an assault weapon attachment, the item must be specifically designed for a firearm. Items specifically designed for airsoft guns are not assault weapon attachments.  If a person were to attach parts specifically designed for an airsoft gun to a firearm thereby bringing it within the definition of assault weapon under PICA, the firearm would be regulated..

 

 

Just when you thought it couldn’t be any more confusing. Here is the way I read this horribly written “clarification.” The above is actually a list of items designed for firearms and that attach to firearms, but ARE NOT “Assault Weapons Attachments.” From PICA:

 

“(3) "Assault weapon attachment" means any device capable of being attached to a firearm that is specifically designed for making or converting a firearm into any of the firearms listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection (a).”

 

None of the items on list from the answer make an firearm an “assault weapon.” For example look at “Aftermarket stocks that do not otherwise meet the criteria in (1)(a).” From above. I think the ISP are trying to say that if a stock is not:

 

“(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;“

 

Then the stock IS NOT considered an “Assault Weapons Attachment” (ie a fixed stock that would go on an 20” AR15 Colt Sporter would not be an “AWA” because that is not a feature making that firearm an “AW”). Unfortunately, because of the way it’s worded, it is impossible to know fore sure. 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Do we think this vagueness is accidental/stupidity or deliberate? I agree with korgs assessment. A scope or sling does not make a semi auto an assault weapon.

 

VooDoo 

Edited November 21, 2023 at 02:36 PM by Vodoun da Vinci
clarification

[korgs130]

On 11/21/2023 at 8:34 AM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

Do we think this vagueness is accidental/stupidity or deliberate? I agree with korgs assessment. A scope or sling does not make a semi auto an assault weapon.

 

VooDoo 

 

I ask myself this question several times a day. Applying Occam’s Razor, this simplest answer is that ISP leadership is ignorant when it comes to firearms. While a lot of LEOs are “gun guys” the vast majority are not. Clearly the ISP legal council from the hearings is out of her depth when it comes to firearms.  Add to that they were handed an incredible vague law written by politicians know even less about the topic. If “gun guys” like us can’t determine how to apply the law, I think it is unrealistic for us to expect any true clarification from the ISP. It’s one big soup sandwich.

 

As far as the politicians that wrote and passed PICA, my view that they are deliberately ignorant. They want us disarmed, so they see no advantage in making clearly understood laws when in comes to firearms.  The more vague a law, the easier it is to prosecute someone for violating the law. 

[davel501]

On 11/21/2023 at 9:50 AM, korgs130 said:

 

I ask myself this question several times a day. Applying Occam’s Razor, this simplest answer is that ISP leadership is ignorant when it comes to firearms. While a lot of LEOs are “gun guys” the vast majority are not. Clearly the ISP legal council from the hearings is out of her depth when it comes to firearms.  Add to that they were handed an incredible vague law written by politicians know even less about the topic. If “gun guys” like us can’t determine how to apply the law, I think it is unrealistic for us to expect any true clarification from the ISP. It’s one big soup sandwich.

 

As far as the politicians that wrote and passed PICA, my view that they are deliberately ignorant. They want us disarmed, so they see no advantage in making clearly understood laws when in comes to firearms.  The more vague a law, the easier it is to prosecute someone for violating the law. 

 

I think we have been well into Hickum's Dictum territory for quite a while with these fools. 

[Capt_Destro]

This Black Powder .50 is probably problematic in IL under the very vague law currently in place due to parts/attachments. Mainly the vfg and stock would need registration.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2023 at 04:48 PM by Capt_Destro

[yurimodin]

[John Q Public]

This is, "clarification?" 

[Jeffrey]

On 11/21/2023 at 12:55 PM, John Q Public said:

This is, "clarification?" 

clear as mud, just like they want it.

Now the hearings are done, what other options do we have to get further clarifications?  Will ISP have a call in number we can use?  I'm sure it would always have an attendant... 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 11/21/2023 at 1:37 PM, Jeffrey said:

clear as mud, just like they want it.

Now the hearings are done, what other options do we have to get further clarifications?  Will ISP have a call in number we can use?  I'm sure it would always have an attendant... 

 I managed to get to real live person in the FOID Dept. and all she would say was that telling me anything was legal advice and they didn't give legal advice. My State Senators office is calling them for me to get clarification to my specific questions. Prolly wont matter because I reconnected with a trusted former coworker this week - he just moved back to Iowa and has safe storage for my "Assault Weapons".

 

VooDoo

[RECarry]

The state can't give "legal advice" about their vague rules, but will bring the full force of legal penalties down on your head for non-compliance. Sounds like tyranny to any reasonable person.

[Talo19]

Sounds like our state is still making things worse. I am looking to purchase a semiauto shotgun but am confused on what to do.