PICA Hearing 3 of 3: 11/6/2023

[Tip]

On 11/21/2023 at 2:28 PM, RECarry said:

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.

The state can’t give “legal advice” yet isn’t that exactly what they do in their FAQs?

[Vodoun da Vinci]

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

The state can’t give “legal advice” yet isn’t that exactly what they do in their FAQs?

 

I was only told that the individual troopers/ISP people were not allowed to give legal advice. I don't see the FAQ's as fitting that description. 

 

VooDoo

[John Q Public]

My response would be if you don't know the law, or advise, how can you enforce?  How about giving the the action you have been asked to enforce, or will enforce? 

 

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I asked a few questions and got the same answer to every question - Employees of the ISP can not give legal advice. I said "I'm not asking for legal advice I'm asking for clarification so I can be a good citizen" Is there someone else I can talk to who can clarify these questions?"

 

"Employees of the ISP cannot  give legal advice - none of us can answer your questions, it's against department policy." Seems ridiculous to me but at least she didn't disappoint when she said "All of the information you need is in the FAQ's and PICA Identification Guide."

 

I'm sure she was just doing her job and trying to be as flat and unemotional as possible. I have worked with Police a lot in Martial Arts training mostly county Sherriff's Deputies.....I'm can tell when I'm getting the dry, flat, department response. It's just conjecture on my part but I get the feeling that the ISP is not real happy about being handed this bag of excrement called PICA to enforce and write the rules and terms for. They're screwed in my opinion.

 

VooDoo

[John Q Public]

Again, if they can't answer, how do they enforce?

[mauserme]

On 11/24/2023 at 2:19 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

I asked a few questions and got the same answer to every question - Employees of the ISP can not give legal advice. I said "I'm not asking for legal advice I'm asking for clarification so I can be a good citizen" Is there someone else I can talk to who can clarify these questions?"

 

"Employees of the ISP cannot  give legal advice - none of us can answer your questions, it's against department policy." Seems ridiculous to me but at least she didn't disappoint when she said "All of the information you need is in the FAQ's and PICA Identification Guide."

 

I'm sure she was just doing her job and trying to be as flat and unemotional as possible. I have worked with Police a lot in Martial Arts training mostly county Sherriff's Deputies.....I'm can tell when I'm getting the dry, flat, department response. It's just conjecture on my part but I get the feeling that the ISP is not real happy about being handed this bag of excrement called PICA to enforce and write the rules and terms for. They're screwed in my opinion.

 

VooDoo

 

 

Maybe this is the answer you seek:

 

It will be less of an enforcement mechanism and more of a compliance mechanism.”

 

 

 

[soundguy]

On 11/24/2023 at 3:58 PM, mauserme said:

 

Maybe this is the answer you seek:

 

Quote

Also exempt are Olympic target shooting competitors and coaches,

 

Huh... maybe become an Olympic coach?

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 11/24/2023 at 3:58 PM, mauserme said:

 

 

Maybe this is the answer you seek:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really. If they seek compliance then they have to make it clear how I am to comply. The point is probably moot at this time for me as I am not in possession of anything that needs to have a disclosure affidavit registered. When I originally asked the questions I expected some degree of an attempt on the part of the ISP to help me be compliant. When I realized that was not going to happen, I dispossessed myself of the contraband.

 

I'd still like to have it clarified but that's not going to happen I don't think.

 

VooDoo

[mauserme]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:13 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

Not really. If they seek compliance then they have to make it clear how I am to comply. The point is probably moot at this time for me as I am not in possession of anything that needs to have a disclosure affidavit registered. When I originally asked the questions I expected some degree of an attempt on the part of the ISP to help me be compliant. When I realized that was not going to happen, I dispossessed myself of the contraband.

 

I'd still like to have it clarified but that's not going to happen I don't think.

 

VooDoo

 

What I'm saying is, it's confusing if you try to put yourself in ISP's shoes and ask how you would enforce this law.  But if, as Director Kelly might have implied, ISP has no expectation of enforcement, things might make a little more sense.

 

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:16 PM, mauserme said:

 

What I'm saying is, it's confusing if you try to put yourself in ISP's shoes and ask how you would enforce this law.  But if, as Director Kelly might have implied, ISP has no expectation of enforcement, things might make a little more sense.

 

 

 

I take your point. Thank You. But I'm betting that if The Director of ISP has no expectation of enforcement, his boss (Governor Pritzker) may have other ideas and expectations. Maybe? clearly enforcing this madness is going to be difficult if not impossible. Like Todd said:

 

Quote

“You can’t put us all in jail, your new bail law just said you can’t do that,” Vandermyde told lawmakers during a hearing. “You will have civil disobedience to where people aren’t gonna register things. They’re not gonna surrender things. They’re not going to turn them in. So I ask you, what is the enforcement mechanism? You going to send state police house to house?” 

 

What's The Plan? If they have no expectation of enforcing this law yet want to focus on compliance they are failing and likely will continue to fail miserably. What do we think the final consequences, The "Final Solution" will be on Jan.1 2024 when compliance is 0.5%? Now what?

 

VooDoo

[mauserme]

I don't think the "Final Solution" will occur 1/1/2024.  SCOTUS doesn't work quite that fast.

 

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 11/24/2023 at 5:49 PM, mauserme said:

I don't think the "Final Solution" will occur 1/1/2024.  SCOTUS doesn't work quite that fast.

 

 

 

I mean as far as Illinois is concerned....how long after Jan. 1 do we think they will wait before trying to force this new law and compliance? SCOTUS intervention might be months or even years away. Don't we think Pritzker and the ISP will push The Agenda and try to force compliance?

 

VooDoo

[mauserme]

Forced compliance = enforcement.  I have to go back to what the Director said about that for the best insight.

 

 

[soundguy]

On 11/24/2023 at 5:54 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

I mean as far as Illinois is concerned....how long after Jan. 1 do we think they will wait before trying to force this new law and compliance?

 

VooDoo

 

My guess:

 

Compliance will remain extremely low. No one knows how many affected arms or devices are out there and there is no easy way to find out. ISP doesn't have the will or resources to "force compliance" or even attempt to go through FFL records to find out who might have something. They will know only of items that have been registered, but might guess about certain folks being non-compliant for talking on the internet in a forum open to the public about what they are gonna do. Every so often, someone will be arrested for having something they shouldn't while doing something stupid with it.

 

I could be wrong.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Lou]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:15 PM, John Q Public said:

Also Beretta as well, pistol, and carbine same mags.

I guess it all depends on what identifies as 

 

 

[Euler]

The politicians who passed the law don't care if the law is enforced, which is why it doesn't matter to them that they don't understand it. They passed the law to get votes to keep their government job with its government healthcare and government pension.

If the cops or prosecutors want to screw with you, the law gives them another way they can do it. I'm reasonably sure that's what Kelly meant when he said he's leaving enforcement to county ASAs. In that sense, registration is truly voluntary. No one actually cares about our stuff. Neighbors, in-laws, and (soon-to-be) ex-spouses are more worrisome.

Meanwhile, no one can buy parts.

[ealcala31]

On 11/24/2023 at 11:07 PM, Euler said:

The politicians who passed the law don't care if the law is enforced, which is why it doesn't matter to them that they don't understand it. They passed the law to get votes to keep their government job with its government healthcare and government pension.

If the cops or prosecutors want to screw with you, the law gives them another way they can do it. I'm reasonably sure that's what Kelly meant when he said he's leaving enforcement to county ASAs. In that sense, registration is truly voluntary. No one actually cares about our stuff. Neighbors, in-laws, and (soon-to-be) ex-spouses are more worrisome.

Meanwhile, no one can buy parts.

That's kind of my thought process and to be more specific, the Democrat way of governing. Democrats pass a $hit ton of laws in the political subdivisions that they control. If you violate one of these laws, you get prosecuted. If you have "connections," you won't get charged. Or, you get a diversion program that "goes away." In return, you are indebted to the politician that went to bat for you. Basically, the ol' skool J Daley "Machine Politics," (AKA a 2-Tier justice system). All the while, they "did something." Democrats passed gun control laws and made you safe. They also "slapped" their political opponents with new laws that will anger their constituents and possibly get them voted out of office (not in IL). And let their opposing political constituents know they have the power to throw your @$$ in prison...

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Quote

Individuals who possessed assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other devices listed in the Act before it took effect are required to submit an endorsement affidavit through their Firearm Owner’s Identification Card account by JANUARY 1, 2024.

Quote

5) An affirmation that the endorsement affidavit is signed under oath, swearing, affirming, and certifying, that the statements set forth in the endorsement affidavit are true and correct subject to the penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/1-109]. d) Electronic Endorsement Affidavit Filing Deadlines. The endorsement affidavit, shall be filed electronically through the online FOID/FCCL system, no later than: 1) January 1, 2024, if the person is an Illinois resident who possessed an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge, prior to January 10, 2023; or 2) 60 days after moving to Illinois, if the person was an out-of-state resident who moved into Illinois after January 10, 2023, and possessed an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge prior to moving to Illinois.

 

I, and many other people, are under the imression that if I am not in possession of any of the items defined as an assault weapon, attachment, or ammunition, I don't have to fill out disclosure affidavits for the items. The "black letter of the law" says if I possessed banned items (past tense) at the time the Act went into effect, I have to disclose the banned items. I'm not finding anything in the law (granted I have not yet read every word) that says "possession" as in present tense.

 

Opinions? I am curious as to what others think about possession vs possessed.

 

VooDoo

[Euler]

On November 26, 2023 at 02:49 PM CST, Vodoun da Vinci said:→

... The "black letter of the law" says if I possessed banned items (past tense) at the time the Act went into effect, I have to disclose the banned items. I'm not finding anything in the law (granted I have not yet read every word) that says "possession" as in present tense. ...

720 ILCS 5 ARTICLE 24. DEADLY WEAPONS said:

Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

...

(11) Sells, manufactures, delivers, imports, possesses, or purchases any assault weapon attachment or .50 caliber cartridge in violation of Section 24-1.9 or any explosive bullet. ...

...

(15) Carries or possesses any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle in violation of Section 24-1.9; or

(16) Manufactures, sells, delivers, imports, or purchases any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle in violation of Section 24-1.9.

...

Sec. 24-1.9. Manufacture, possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of assault weapons, .50 caliber rifles, and .50 caliber cartridges.

...

(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d), beginning January 1, 2024, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly possess an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge.

...

(d) This Section does not apply to a person's possession of an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge device if the person lawfully possessed that assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge prohibited by subsection (c) of this Section, if the person has provided in an endorsement affidavit, prior to January 1, 2024, under oath or affirmation ...

...

You are prohibited from possessing (present) "assault weapons" ...
... unless you possessed (past) them previous to the passage of the law (January 10, 2023) AND you registered them before January 1, 2024.

Between the passage of the law and 2024, you are graciously permitted to keep your property.

You are not required to register things that you do not possess (present), even if you possessed (past) them previously.

The definition of "possess" can be confusing and must be understood from context. "Possess" can be:

1. to own something (I possess a Mazarati. It's at my brother's place in Texas.)
2. To have custody and control of something (I possess his Lamborghini. It's in my garage.)
3. To have something on your person or in close proximity (I still possess the keys to my Mazarati, though. They're in my pocket.)

#3 implies #2. There are no other implications.

[JTHunter]

On 11/24/2023 at 1:32 PM, John Q Public said:

My response would be if you don't know the law, or advise, how can you enforce?  How about giving the the action you have been asked to enforce, or will enforce?

 

As far too many cops have said over the years: "I don't care about the law.  I'm gonna book you anyway!"  Or something along those lines.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Thank you, Euler, for the clarification.

 

VooDoo

[lilguy]

On 11/24/2023 at 5:49 PM, mauserme said:

I don't think the "Final Solution" will occur 1/1/2024.  SCOTUS doesn't work quite that fast.

 

 

MM

Do you think there is a chance the Supremes will rule on any this session?

All the lower courts seem to be punting. Speaking their minds,  also feeling this SCOTUS will do something.

 

[mauserme]

Rahimi was argued earlier this month so, yes, I think that one at least is a given.

 

 

[Upholder]

with regards to the email that the ISP sent Molly B earlier, they intended for the list to be things NOT included.  That email was very poorly worded.

 

From the recently updated FAQ at https://www.isp.illinois.gov/Home/AssaultWeapons

 

[Upholder]

They provide zero clarification to "readily modified", etc:

[Upholder]

They are saying for fixed shotgun magazines, the "maximum identified chambered size round" is the standard to be used for capacity.

However, they then go on to say that for determining if it is a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" it's "if it accepts more than 10 rounds of any type of ammunition" to determine if it is regulated.
 

[Upholder]

Also, any Magazine Tube Extensions are attachments and need to be registered:

[steveTA84]

This gets more confusing and worse by the minute 😂

[Upholder]

They are holding the line on items purchased under the various TROs:

[Upholder]

The ISP is still under the delusion that there is a such thing as "properly licensed firing range"