Illinois Parts Shipping law?

[davel501]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:21 AM, mauserme said:

 

We should stop doing that, too.

 

 

 

It's the reality of our legal system. There are a lot of people sitting in prison right now because a plea deal for a couple of years seemed like a better deal than the legal fees coupled with the potential for a longer sentence.

[davel501]

If we are going to advocate for civil disobedience, we really need to get a legal fund going so people can fight these cases. Every plea deal and every loss makes the law stronger.

[mauserme]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:27 AM, davel501 said:

 

It's the reality of our legal system. There are a lot of people sitting in prison right now because a plea deal for a couple of years seemed like a better deal than the legal fees coupled with the potential for a longer sentence.

 

Can you point to a single instance of that occurring under PICA?

 

 

[davel501]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:31 AM, mauserme said:

 

Can you point to a single instance of that occurring under PICA?

 

 

 

Can you state unequivocally that nobody has been charged under this law?

[mauserme]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:37 AM, davel501 said:

 

Can you state unequivocally that nobody has been charged under this law?

 

I don't know of a way to prove a negative.

 

 

 

[davel501]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:39 AM, mauserme said:

 

I don't know of a way to prove a negative.

 

 

 

 

But yet you implied you could by asking the question.

 

Acting like this law is no big deal doesn't help anyone. If people aren't angry then they don't understand the law.

[mauserme]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:46 AM, davel501 said:

 

But yet you implied you could by asking the question.

 

Acting like this law is no big deal doesn't help anyone. If people aren't angry then they don't understand the law.

 

 

A few posts up I said we should not help the anti's.  I am firm in that belief.

 

It is you trying to make this more than that by claiming things for which there is no evidence.

 

 

[davel501]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:54 AM, mauserme said:

 

 

A few posts up I said we should not help the anti's.  I am firm in that belief.

 

It is you trying to make this more than that by claiming things for which there is no evidence.

 

 

 

I guess we have different opinions on who is helping the antis here.

[mab22]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:21 AM, mauserme said:

 

We should stop doing that, too.

 

 

I don't understand, stop taking things to court?

How else do we stay out of trouble?
I do think they they know how to fight dirty and get away with it, (our side won't), while we try and complain to the referee.

 

[mauserme]

On 8/6/2024 at 12:09 PM, mab22 said:

I don't understand, stop taking things to court?

How else do we stay out of trouble?
I do think they they know how to fight dirty and get away with it, (our side won't), while we try and complain to the referee.

 

 

You didn't read the part I quoted, did you.

 

 

ETA let me put it in context for you:

 

 

In other words, we should leave the unsupported fear, uncertainty, and doubt out of the conversation.  That does the work of the anti's, not us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2024 at 05:19 PM by mauserme

[mab22]

On 8/6/2024 at 12:14 PM, mauserme said:

 

You didn't read the part I quoted, did you.

 

 

 

I did, which is why I am confused. The post you were quoting was about spending lots of money in court to defeat the left. 
 

[davel501]

On 8/6/2024 at 12:14 PM, mauserme said:

 

You didn't read the part I quoted, did you.

 

 

ETA let me put it in context for you:

 

 

In other words, we should leave the unsupported fear, uncertainty, and doubt out of the conversation.  That does the work of the anti's, not us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The law says what it says. The legal system works how it works. Telling people to put their heads in the sand and pretend this law isn't that bad does more for the anti's than anything else I can think of. I don't know how to say it more clearly.

[mauserme]

On 8/6/2024 at 1:59 PM, davel501 said:

 

The law says what it says. The legal system works how it works. Telling people to put their heads in the sand and pretend this law isn't that bad does more for the anti's than anything else I can think of. I don't know how to say it more clearly.

 

No one is suggesting anyone put their heads anywhere.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

 

 

[GP100Wii]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:18 AM, davel501 said:

 

The law is very clear on the points in this thread. The trigger in question is an ""assault weapon"" attachment unless it is attached to a Ruger Mark IV that does not have a threaded barrel. If a local prosecutor wanted to charge someone for receiving said trigger in the mail they could. 

No, a simple trigger is not illegal under the law.

 

“Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an "assault weapon", including any combination of parts from which an "assault weapon" may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.”

 

A simple trigger is not “designed or intended to convert… into an "assault weapon"” (where, say ordering a threaded barrel would be).  You can’t just read it as “any part.”   It’s any part designed to convert to an "assault weapon".

 

I agree the law is confusing, but this reading of it is not correct.

 

There are banned builds of the Ruger 10/22.  Threaded barrels, stocks, etc.  This does not mean I could not order a charging handle or auto release plate for a legal 10/22. Because these are not AW parts.  Case in point: they literally sell them on Amazon, and Amazon of all places will ship them to Illinois.

[mab22]

On 8/7/2024 at 7:11 AM, GP100Wii said:

No, a simple trigger is not illegal under the law.

 

“Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an ""assault weapon"", including any combination of parts from which an ""assault weapon"" may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.”

 

A simple trigger is not “designed or intended to convert… into an ""assault weapon""” (where, say ordering a threaded barrel would be).  You can’t just read it as “any part.”   It’s any part designed to convert to an ""assault weapon"".

 

I agree the law is confusing, but this reading of it is not correct.

 

There are banned builds of the Ruger 10/22.  Threaded barrels, stocks, etc.  This does not mean I could not order a charging handle or auto release plate for a legal 10/22. Because these are not AW parts.  Case in point: they literally sell them on Amazon, and Amazon of all places will ship them to Illinois.

It is vague enough that a spring, is considered "any part", how about screws, nuts, bolts, washers, roll pins, etc. Go ahead and try and try to buy a screw, nut washer, etc, that COULD go on AR. You won't be able to order it. Yet you might be able to go to a hardware store and find the same dimensional item though and purchase it.

 

 

[GP100Wii]

This would be likely, yes.  Those stores are being careful.  However, from ISP’s own website on PICA, pertaining to “can you repair an ""assault weapon""?”

 

“Further, you can repair your own ""assault weapon"" insofar as you do not need to replace parts that would be considered ""assault weapon"" attachments" under PICA. Since non-exempt individuals cannot purchase ""assault weapon"" attachments, such parts would need to be replaced by an FFL or gunsmith.”

 

Of course, the original thread I started here was about a basic, legal Ruger Mark IV, and trying to order a basic trigger or firing pin.   My original question was: where in the law are parts like that banned?   They aren’t.   Parts that could convert a firearm to an ""assault weapon"" are.  They have a list of the parts that would be included in that.

 

(isp link: https://www.isp.illinois.gov/Home/AssaultWeapons. )

Edited August 7, 2024 at 01:06 PM by GP100Wii

[mab22]

Read the following again. 
 

Quote

insofar as you do not need to replace parts that would be considered """assault weapon""" attachments" under PICA. Since non-exempt individuals cannot purchase """assault weapon""" attachments, such parts would need to be replaced by an FFL or gunsmith.”

What does ISP/congress/governor consider and an "assault weapon" attachment? 
“anything that could be used to assemble an "assault weapon".” 
 

Your other option is to contact the ISP, Congress, The governor and tell them they are wrong. You can also go to the legal section here and read up the cases, currently making their way through the courts, regarding the very same thing you are claiming. 
 

Sarcasm - Vote democrat! 
 

 

[davel501]

On 8/7/2024 at 7:11 AM, GP100Wii said:

No, a simple trigger is not illegal under the law.

 

“Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an ""assault weapon"", including any combination of parts from which an ""assault weapon"" may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.”

 

A simple trigger is not “designed or intended to convert… into an ""assault weapon""” (where, say ordering a threaded barrel would be).  You can’t just read it as “any part.”   It’s any part designed to convert to an ""assault weapon"".

 

I agree the law is confusing, but this reading of it is not correct.

 

There are banned builds of the Ruger 10/22.  Threaded barrels, stocks, etc.  This does not mean I could not order a charging handle or auto release plate for a legal 10/22. Because these are not AW parts.  Case in point: they literally sell them on Amazon, and Amazon of all places will ship them to Illinois.

 

(I) Any part or combination of parts designed or

intended to convert a firearm into an "assault weapon", including any combination of parts from which an "assault weapon" may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

The law is intentionally broad. They want to ban guns. They lost on handgun bans so they pivoted to "assault weapons" bans. Soon enough, when the "assault weapons" bans fail, we'll be hearing how shotguns are the evilest of evil. This was written to be as broad as possible so they can ban as much as possible. They want all the guns gone. If more people were honest about where we are right now, we might stand a chance of getting the 2M+ FOID holders off their butts to vote against some of these people.

 

[Yeti]

There are many pages on topic because the laws are intentionally obtuse.  What might seem clear to one can be manipulated into meaning something else by another… a “feature” of the terrible regulation as written.  There is no point debating it online as our interpretation is irrelevant unless we are using it in a lawsuit  against this unconstitutional regulation.   
 

The only interpretations that matter are those of the prosecution, judge, jury, etc. and the scummy politicians who write this manure and those interpretations are situational.   The politicians don’t/can’t even answer questions about what they’ve dictated as law consistently… they choose not to to write clear, actionable (and legal) regulations and let others sort it out instead of doing their jobs.  They also chose to regulate what they don’t understand, a choice of malfeasance that is endorsed by the people who vote them in.  The police who enforce laws still aren’t clear on all aspects so this forum can’t expect to be clear.
 

We are dealing with a group of people who can’t— or choose not to- understand the very clear language  of “shall not be infringed”.  Anything with more words in it will also be distorted against us. 

[ealcala31]

On 8/7/2024 at 9:43 AM, davel501 said:

If more people were honest about where we are right now, we might stand a chance of getting the 2M+ FOID holders off their butts to vote against some of these people.

This is my current argument. But we have 2A Advocates that want to blame ISRA. I am not defending ISRA, I am a member, but we as voters can change this political landscape. I don't think I realized how many FOID Card Holders vote against the 2nd Amendment, basically Democrat. Now, some Democrats are 2A but in IL, that boat has sailed long ago. At this point, I have joined and contributed to many organizations that is fighting PICA in the courts, that includes ISRA. They have a good case, Bevis has a good case, FFL of IL is specifically fighting the topic at-hand. I am betting these same 2M+ FOID Card Holders have not contributed to the cause, but can't wait for the W...

[GP100Wii]

To be clear, I don’t support this law.   That’s different, though, from not understanding what it says.
 

An “""assault weapon""” has listed characteristics in the law.  They are specified for rifles, pistols, and shotguns.   Things like suppressors, pistol grips on rifles, etc.

 

In order for a part to be able to “assemble” in an ""assault weapon"", the parts in question would have to assemble to something that would result in an ""assault weapon"" as defined.  A “collection of parts” would have to include something like a threaded barrel.  
 

If someone has a firing pin and a charging handle for a 10/22, they do not have parts that could assemble an ""assault weapon"".  That would require them to also have something like a threaded barrel.  To say that the firing pin is illegal because somewhere a 10/22 is made with a threaded barrel is not what the law says at all.  I don’t see it.  

 

A firing pin is not considered and ""assault weapon"" part anywhere in the law.  These are:

 

• a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
• any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
• 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;
• a flash suppressor;
• a grenade launcher;
• 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;
• a threaded barrel; and
• 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.

 

 

 

The list is described as “not exhaustive” which is tricky.   But, if you read the law itself under rifle, pistol, and shotgun subsections, no where would a simple trigger or a spring repair part be considered banned.

Edited August 7, 2024 at 05:53 PM by GP100Wii

[Yeti]

My last response to this:  can you point us to the part of the law that specifically and conclusively states that a part is ONLY illegal if you have the complete collection of parts to assemble 100% of an “"assault weapon"”?  And that parts assigned to one “maybe legal” gun are clearly be designated by law to not be “transferable” to another “"assault weapon"” at a future time?

 

Trying to find something conclusive in a law that already admits it does not specify all items you may be dinged on and is “non-exhaustive” is an exercise in futility.  If it makes you feel better to convince yourself, go ahead but I am out.

[GP100Wii]

On 8/7/2024 at 1:31 PM, Yeti said:

My last response to this:  can you point us to the part of the law that specifically and conclusively states that a part is ONLY illegal if you have the complete collection of parts to assemble 100% of an “""assault weapon""”?  And that parts assigned to one “maybe legal” gun are clearly be designated by law to not be “transferable” to another “""assault weapon""” at a future time?

 

Sure.  First, the law stipulates if “those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person,” first of all.

 

 

Then, an example for the case of a Ruger Mark IV.  It does not meet any of the below.

 

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

 

 

Now, since it is not an "assault weapon", can a person order a firing pin or trigger upgrade?  What if there is another gun somewhere else that could use the same part that may be considered an AW?

 

True or false, would a trigger and firing pin meet this requirement:

 

        (I) Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an "assault weapon",

 

False.  A trigger or firing pin does not convert a Mark IV to an "assault weapon".   A threaded barrel would.  If there was a part whose intended purpose was to attach a brace to a pistol, I could see that that part would be banned.  A firing pin would not be.  A trigger would not be.

 

including any combination of parts from which an "assault weapon" may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

False.  The person with the Mark IV would have the legal firearm and a couple non-AW parts in their possession.

 

That’s the law.  And the section (c) part listed here is exhaustive for a pistol.  Those are the things that can make a pistol an AW.

 

 

 

 

[davel501]

On 8/7/2024 at 1:52 PM, GP100Wii said:

 

Sure.  First, the law stipulates if “those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person,” first of all.

 

 

Then, an example for the case of a Ruger Mark IV.  It does not meet any of the below.

 

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

 

 

Now, since it is not an """assault weapon""", can a person order a firing pin or trigger upgrade?  What if there is another gun somewhere else that could use the same part that may be considered an AW?

 

True or false, would a trigger and firing pin meet this requirement:

 

        (I) Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an """assault weapon""",

 

False.  A trigger or firing pin does not convert a Mark IV to an """assault weapon""".   A threaded barrel would.  If there was a part whose intended purpose was to attach a brace to a pistol, I could see that that part would be banned.  A firing pin would not be.  A trigger would not be.

 

including any combination of parts from which an """assault weapon""" may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

False.  The person with the Mark IV would have the legal firearm and a couple non-AW parts in their possession.

 

That’s the law.  And the section (c) part listed here is exhaustive for a pistol.  Those are the things that can make a pistol an AW.

 

 

 

 

 

Ruger® Mark IV™ Target Rimfire Pistol Model 40126

 

You can read through all the threads on this where we hashed it all out. They all concluded with you gotta do you. Talk to your lawyer and see what they think..or don't. It's up to you.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2024 at 06:58 PM by davel501

[GP100Wii]

On 8/7/2024 at 1:56 PM, davel501 said:

 

Ruger® Mark IV™ Target Rimfire Pistol Model 40126

 

I’m not sure you read my post.  It’s long so I don’t blame you, I guess.

 

The law stipulates:

 

if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

If a person has a Mark IV without a threaded barrel, the fact that a threaded barrel exists on a gun they don’t own doesn’t matter.  A person with a Mark IV and a spare firing pin cannot convert that Mark IV into an AW.  A person with a Mark IV and a spare threaded barrel could.  The first instance is legal, the second is not.  “If” statements in legal writing mean “if.”  It’s not casual.

 

If you buy a single shot pistol that shares the same firing pin as a machine gun (as if) you’re not barred from repairing your single shot pistol.   The firing pin isn’t a banned part that converts it to an "assault weapon".  And you don’t own the machine gun.   

Edited August 7, 2024 at 07:08 PM by GP100Wii

[davel501]

On 8/7/2024 at 2:03 PM, GP100Wii said:

I’m not sure you read my post.  It’s long so I don’t blame you, I guess.

 

The law stipulates:

 

if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

If a person has a Mark IV without a threaded barrel, the fact that a threaded barrel exists on a gun they don’t own doesn’t matter.  A person with a Mark IV and a spare firing pin cannot convert that Mark IV into an AW.  A person with a Mark IV and a spare threaded barrel could.  The first instance is legal, the second is not.  “If” statements in legal writing mean “if.”  It’s not casual.

 

Yes and back to your original post, how is Optics Planet to know they aren't sending you the last piece of the puzzle?

 

[GP100Wii]

On 8/7/2024 at 2:08 PM, davel501 said:

 

Yes and back to your original post, how is Optics Planet to know they aren't sending you the last piece of the puzzle?

 

I didn’t  end up ordering, I’ve been too busy reading up on the law and such.

 

Here’s what’s interesting.  Whats silly about OpticsPlanet is this:

 

- They will not ship a TandemKross Mark IV trigger upgrade to Illinois.

- They will send a full Mark IV TandemKross lower (for like $600 or so) that includes as part of it the same trigger upgrade they won’t ship separately.

 

They don’t know what they’re doing, it seems.

 

When I say “won’t ship” — at checkout if you include any items they won’t ship it hits you with a big yellow box message.  It’s straightforward to see what they will and won’t.

 

Doing the same “last step at checkout” test, other companies like Midway will send all of the above.     My reading of the law is that simple parts like triggers and firing pins for non-banned guns are certainly legal.

Edited August 7, 2024 at 07:28 PM by GP100Wii

[davel501]

On 8/7/2024 at 2:14 PM, GP100Wii said:

I didn’t  end up ordering, I’ve been too busy reading up on the law and such.

 

Here’s what’s interesting.  Whats silly about OpticsPlanet is this:

 

- They will not ship a TandemKross Mark IV trigger upgrade to Illinois.

- They will send a full Mark IV TandemKross lower (for like $600 or so) that includes as part of it the same trigger upgrade they won’t ship separately.

 

They don’t know what they’re doing, it seems.

 

When I say “won’t ship” — at checkout if you include any items they won’t ship it hits you with a big yellow box message.  It’s straightforward to see what they will and won’t.

 

Doing the same “last step at checkout” test, other companies like Midway will send all of the above.     My reading of the law is that simple parts like triggers and firing pins for non-banned guns are certainly legal.

 

Yeah, it's a tough problem to solve, especially when you get into common parts like shims, screws, etc. I imagine that's why a lot of vendors (who we shouldn't name) decided to just ignore the Illinois law. 

[GP100Wii]

At any rate, I appreciate all the comments & discussion throughout the thread.  I’m not a lawyer, so all the resources are helpful.  My “take away” is my own, YMMV.  

[Euler]

As the law is worded, any part that could be used to construct a banned weapon, which necessarily would be one of a combination of such parts, is included in the definition of parts that can be used to "convert a firearm" into a banned weapon and is thus banned.

It doesn't matter that the law as a whole is a dumpster fire. That's what the legislators intended the law to mean, and that's how many retailers have interpreted it.

If you manage to buy an assaulty part (or probably even a whole assaulty weapon), the ISP will not come knocking, nor is it likely to notify your local PD or prosecutor. The only people who are really enforcing this law are retailers. The main reason that people who generally respect the law are so easily subjects of enforcement is because they so easily and freely admit to violating a law when they violate a law. Meanwhile people who contemn the law can violate it seemingly without limit, as long as they shut up about it.