Illinois Parts Shipping law?

[GP100Wii]

On 8/7/2024 at 3:54 PM, Euler said:

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

 

 

Agree to disagree then.

Edited August 7, 2024 at 09:38 PM by GP100Wii

[mab22]

On 8/7/2024 at 4:29 PM, GP100Wii said:

 

 

Agree to disagree then.

So here’s the video about the light saber with banned parts at the ISP PICA hearing.
But everyone here is wrong, and I wish you were at the ISP meeting back when they discussed parts so you could convince the ISP, congress, etc that they are wrong. 
 

Have a blessed day!

[Black Flag]

Do not let Alec Baldwin near either of these:
 

[mauserme]

What needs to be kept in mind is that the people who passed this into law really didn't have a specific intent other "to do something".  It's like a contest for them, to see who can pass the most antigun laws.

 

They were given language they didn't understand by people who understood it only slightly better than them.  They filed it expecting to negotiate with the gun groups who would obligingly rewrite it so it would make sense, thinking we would avoid the most egregious parts.  Except the gun groups refused to play that game.

 

They passed it anyway because they had to save face in front of their "advocates", expecting the gun groups to explain everything to our members.  It didn't matter to them that it's a sack of BS as long as we told our members what we thought it meant.  Except the gun groups refused again.

 

So they have a law that even ISP can't figure out how to enforce.  A law that's unconstitutionally  vague. 

 

A law that can be read to make screws and washers illegal in some cases but not illegal under other circumstances even when they're the same screws and washers.  Or not, depending on the reader.

 

In many ways the law has no specific meaning at all, except that they can say they passed a law.

 

 

 

 

[Tip]

On 8/7/2024 at 8:20 PM, mauserme said:

What needs to be kept in mind is that the people who passed this into law really didn't have a specific intent other "to do something".  It's like a contest for them, to see who can pass the most antigun laws.

 

They were given language they didn't understand by people who understood it only slightly better than them.  They filed it expecting to negotiate with the gun groups who would obligingly rewrite it so it would make sense, thinking we would avoid the most egregious parts.  Except the gun groups refused to play that game.

 

They passed it anyway because they had to save face in front of their "advocates", expecting the gun groups to explain everything to our members.  It didn't matter to them that it's a sack of BS as long as we told our members what we thought it meant.  Except the gun groups refused again.

 

So they have a law that even ISP can't figure out how to enforce.  A law that's unconstitutionally  vague. 

 

A law that can be read to make screws and washers illegal in some cases but not illegal under other circumstances even when they're the same screws and washers.  Or not, depending on the reader.

 

In many ways the law has no specific meaning at all, except that they can say they passed a law.

 

 

 

 

Nice summary. 

[GP100Wii]

On 8/7/2024 at 8:20 PM, mauserme said:

What needs to be kept in mind is that the people who passed this into law really didn't have a specific intent other "to do something".  It's like a contest for them, to see who can pass the most antigun laws.

 

They were given language they didn't understand by people who understood it only slightly better than them.  They filed it expecting to negotiate with the gun groups who would obligingly rewrite it so it would make sense, thinking we would avoid the most egregious parts.  Except the gun groups refused to play that game.

 

They passed it anyway because they had to save face in front of their "advocates", expecting the gun groups to explain everything to our members.  It didn't matter to them that it's a sack of BS as long as we told our members what we thought it meant.  Except the gun groups refused again.

 

So they have a law that even ISP can't figure out how to enforce.  A law that's unconstitutionally  vague. 

 

A law that can be read to make screws and washers illegal in some cases but not illegal under other circumstances even when they're the same screws and washers.  Or not, depending on the reader.

 

In many ways the law has no specific meaning at all, except that they can say they passed a law.

 

 

 

 

Agreed.   Was looking over the old Cook County AWB and noticed how copy pasted a lot of it was into PICA.   Even the “parts” part.

[mikew]

On 8/7/2024 at 9:35 PM, GP100Wii said:

Agreed.   Was looking over the old Cook County AWB and noticed how copy pasted a lot of it was into PICA.   Even the “parts” part.

You should compare it to the 1994 Fed AWB that sunset in 2004.
The one that Creepy Joe takes credit for.

 

 

 

[IH8IL]

Its amazing that optics planet is more strict than ebay. You can buy the accurizing kit on ebay and its cheaper btw.

[davel501]

On 8/7/2024 at 8:20 PM, mauserme said:

What needs to be kept in mind is that the people who passed this into law really didn't have a specific intent other "to do something".  It's like a contest for them, to see who can pass the most antigun laws.

 

They were given language they didn't understand by people who understood it only slightly better than them.  They filed it expecting to negotiate with the gun groups who would obligingly rewrite it so it would make sense, thinking we would avoid the most egregious parts.  Except the gun groups refused to play that game.

 

They passed it anyway because they had to save face in front of their "advocates", expecting the gun groups to explain everything to our members.  It didn't matter to them that it's a sack of BS as long as we told our members what we thought it meant.  Except the gun groups refused again.

 

So they have a law that even ISP can't figure out how to enforce.  A law that's unconstitutionally  vague. 

 

A law that can be read to make screws and washers illegal in some cases but not illegal under other circumstances even when they're the same screws and washers.  Or not, depending on the reader.

 

In many ways the law has no specific meaning at all, except that they can say they passed a law.

 

 

 

 

 

When did they pause for feedback? They gutted and replaced the bill on 1/8 and had it signed by the governor on 1/10. They knew what they were doing. Watch gun dealer licenses get real hard to get now that so many ffls are going bankrupt. 

 

https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/HB5471/2021

[mauserme]

On 8/8/2024 at 10:24 PM, davel501 said:

 

When did they pause for feedback? They gutted and replaced the bill on 1/8 and had it signed by the governor on 1/10. They knew what they were doing. Watch gun dealer licenses get real hard to get now that so many ffls are going bankrupt. 

 

https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/HB5471/2021

 

 

I'm not sure what you're asking but maybe this will be an answer.

 

It's often the case on a controversial bill, or one that will meet with opposition, that draft language will be offered to various people in an effort to find common ground, to assuage the opposition and come to terms on language that everyone can support or at least find neutrality.  Sometimes this occurs before the language is filed as a new bill, sometimes later in the form of possible amendments.  When you hear that a bill has agreed language or that opposition has been removed, this is how that agreement is reached.  None of this is reflected in the legislative history of the sort you linked to.

 

There were attempts to negotiate agreed language on this, attempts that were roundly rejected by the pro-gun groups after our own discussions, that are also not reflected in the public record.

 

Does that help?
 

[mab22]

On 8/7/2024 at 11:05 PM, IH8IL said:

Its amazing that optics planet is more strict than ebay. You can buy the accurizing kit on ebay and its cheaper btw.

Is it “eBay”, or an individual seller on eBay?