Illinois General Assembly 5/31/2025

[mauserme]

House Supplemental Calendar 4 was released around 12:40 AM this morning.

 

Both bodies have adjourned at this point.

 

 

[countyline]

On 5/31/2025 at 7:37 PM, mauserme said:

While I was away, the Senate concurred in House Amendment 1 to SB2431 Explosive & Consumer Firework.  It's passed both houses.

 

 

So what effect will this have on those who sell powder, and those who reload?

[mauserme]

We'll have to see.  There are some administrative rules that may solve the problem, or at least help.  We won't know until we see how vendors react.  I'm afraid we may have fewer out-of-state  vendors willing to do business with us than in the past.

 

 

[John Q Public]

18 USC 841: DefinitionsText contains those laws in effect on June 1, 2025

 

§841. Definitions

As used in this chapter-

(a) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

(b) "Interstate" or foreign commerce means commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, and commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

(c) "Explosive materials" means explosives, blasting agents, and detonators.

(d) Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 844 of this title, "explosives" means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. The Attorney General shall publish and revise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional explosives which he determines to be within the coverage of this chapter. For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, the term "explosive" is defined in subsection (j) of such section 844.

(e) "Blasting agent" means any material or mixture, consisting of fuel and oxidizer, intended for blasting, not otherwise defined as an explosive: Provided, That the finished product, as mixed for use or shipment, cannot be detonated by means of a numbered 8 test blasting cap when unconfined.

(f) "Detonator" means any device containing a detonating charge that is used for initiating detonation in an explosive; the term includes, but is not limited to, electric blasting caps of instantaneous and delay types, blasting caps for use with safety fuses and detonating-cord delay connectors.

(g) "Importer" means any person engaged in the business of importing or bringing explosive materials into the United States for purposes of sale or distribution.

(h) "Manufacturer" means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use.

(i) "Dealer" means any person engaged in the business of distributing explosive materials at wholesale or retail.

(j) "Permittee" means any user of explosives for a lawful purpose, who has obtained either a user permit or a limited permit under the provisions of this chapter.

(k) "Attorney General" means the Attorney General of the United States.

(l) "Crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" shall not mean (1) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices as the Attorney General may by regulation designate, or (2) any State offense (other than one involving a firearm or explosive) classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

(m) "Licensee" means any importer, manufacturer, or dealer licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

(n) "Distribute" means sell, issue, give, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.

(o) "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives" means the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, Done at Montreal on 1 March 1991.

(p) "Detection agent" means any one of the substances specified in this subsection when introduced into a plastic explosive or formulated in such explosive as a part of the manufacturing process in such a manner as to achieve homogeneous distribution in the finished explosive, including-

(1) Ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN), C₂H₄(NO₃)₂, molecular weight 152, when the minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.2 percent by mass;

(2) 2,3-Dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane (DMNB), C₆H₁₂(NO₂)₂, molecular weight 176, when the minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.1 percent by mass;

(3) Para-Mononitrotoluene (p-MNT), C₇H₇NO₂, molecular weight 137, when the minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.5 percent by mass;

(4) Ortho-Mononitrotoluene (o-MNT), C₇H₇NO₂, molecular weight 137, when the minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.5 percent by mass; and

(5) any other substance in the concentration specified by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, that has been added to the table in part 2 of the Technical Annex to the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives.

(q) "Plastic explosive" means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10−⁴ Pa at a temperature of 25°C., is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature.

(r) "Alien" means any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

(s) "Responsible person" means an individual who has the power to direct the management and policies of the applicant pertaining to explosive materials.

(t) Indian Tribe ¹ .-The term "Indian tribe" has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a)).², ³

(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title XI, §1102(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 952 ; amended Pub. L. 104–132, title VI, §602, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1288 ; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, §§1112(e)(1), (3), 1122(a), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2276 , 2280; Pub. L. 111–211, title II, §236(b), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2286 .)

[John Q Public]

Seems pretty clear as written...  No on the powder and no on the primers too. 

[countyline]

[mauserme]

The problem is the ambiguity in that language.  The exemption obviously applies to black powder.  Some folks read it more broadly than that.  I avoid giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

[John Q Public]

It means what we say it means, the ambiguous nature is the trap. No, it also reads pellet powder.I don't care how it reads, it's an AD/ADA invocation. It's all uncon, but what I said from the jump, is they will keep passing bs laws that will stall for years. I'm done with it........

[Euler]

If a reasonable person is unable to determine if he's violating the law or not, that's pretty much the definition of unconstitutionally vague.

[Yeti]

On 6/2/2025 at 7:02 PM, Euler said:

If a reasonable person is unable to determine if he's violating the law or not, that's pretty much the definition of unconstitutionally vague.

You’re correct about that but it certainly can take a long while to prove that.  Exhibit: PICA

[mab22]

On 6/2/2025 at 8:44 PM, Yeti said:

You’re correct about that but it certainly can take a long while to prove that.  Exhibit: PICA

The punishment IS THE PROCESS. 

I like to think of it as “so ya’ll think you have rights created by God, well welcome to Illinois B*******! Take it up with a judge, we don’t care.” 

[John Q Public]

Yup. They pass this crap and then you have to defend yourself and the cost is extreme, then maybe, someday, it makes it to the SC, or it becomes moot for standing, or they rule in your favor, but only for you and nobody else. Funny how that works for them when they stay it affects us all, but when a final ruling is made it may only affect one person. In the mean time they have already passed five more laws to do the same thing with different wording and there we are back to the start, money is gone and or FOID and CCL in limbo.  It's a never ending game of Whac-A-Mole

The SC needs to grow a pair, but I don't think, most of the court, has the honor, nor fortitude to do it. I think they are more worried about what will be done to the court if they take on these types of cases. They saw how bad it will get when they did RvW and ruled, rightly, that it was a states issue. It should have NEVER been federal. 

 

I said at the time, I wish they would take on the 2nd and 1st first. I think Roberts was scared they would pack the court, or be cancelled. They almost were over that case, threatening the Justices and not enforcing Fed laws.  The 2nd cases they have ruled where full of holes and rife for abuse. The could have made a definitive ruling, but I don't think enough of the Justices were on board to do it. I know we have Constitutionals, but not as many as some think, and I find ACB a HUGE disappointment. I thought she was there, but...

 

Anyway, end of rant, for now.

Edited June 3, 2025 at 04:45 PM by John Q Public

[ragsbo]

On 6/3/2025 at 11:43 AM, John Q Public said:

Yup. They pass this crap and then you have to defend yourself and the cost is extreme, then maybe, someday, it makes it to the SC, or it becomes moot for standing, or they rule in your favor, but only for you and nobody else. Funny how that works for them when they stay it affects us all, but when a final ruling is made it may only affect one person. In the mean time they have already passed five more laws to do the same thing with different wording and there we are back to the start, money is gone and or FOID and CCL in limbo.  It's a never ending game of Whac-A-Mole

The SC needs to grow a pair, but I don't think, most of the court, has the honor, nor fortitude to do it. I think they are more worried about what will be done to the court if they take on these types of cases. They saw how bad it will get when they did RvW and ruled, rightly, that it was a states issue. It should have NEVER been federal. 

 

I said at the time, I wish they would take on the 2nd and 1st first. I think Roberts was scared they would pack the court, or be cancelled. They almost were over that case, threatening the Justices and not enforcing Fed laws.  The 2nd cases they have ruled where full of holes and rife for abuse. The could have made a definitive ruling, but I don't think enough of the Justices were on board to do it. I know we have Constitutionals, but not as many as some think, and I find ACB a HUGE disappointment. I thought she was there, but...

 

Anyway, end of rant, for now.

I agree with you! Until the folks who vote for and sign these unconstitutional laws are held accountable for their violations of our rights (and I mean harsh punishment including jail time) then NOTHING will change. Until the Supreme Court gets some backbone and start enforcing their rulings or at least ripping the lower courts a new one when they violate their rulings, NOTHING will happen. Until we make the state officials defend these unconstitutional laws with their own money instead of the endless tax payers pocket book, NOTHING will happen. 

[JTHunter]

Many years ago, I bought a graphic T that had a good saying on it, one that we should remember in these "trying times".  It said:

 

When Freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free

 

We need to keep this in mind with these renegade decisions.