I'm sure Pritzker will sign the new firearm storage law, which is really problematic

[vito]

I haven't seen the detail on this law but from what I know it will be a real problem for anyone with a "child", since that now includes teenagers between 14 and 18. I sometimes have young grandchildren visiting, or staying overnight, and I woud never leave an unsecured gun when they are in my home, even if that means it would take me a bit longer to get to a gun in the unlikely case of a home invasion, but I see this new law as just one more way to harass gun owners. I guess most voters in our pathetic state really like being helpless potential victims since they keep electing these anti-gun, anti-self defense Democrats. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Imagine being punished for being the victim of a crime in a state where they constantly let violent gun offenders off without being prosecuted. 

 

When I say that the democrats are practicing anarcho-politics, this soon to become law is a good example of what they are doing. 

 

 

[soundguy]

Two types of persons always know where your guns are... thieves and children.

 

You do not want your guns to be stolen and you do not want your 15 year old child to accidentally kill their best friend while "showing off" the loaded Beretta Tomcat you keep in your top dresser drawer under your skivvies. We procrastinate and make excuses for why proper storage isn't necessary "in my particular circumstances" because... and then you find out why you should have gotten that proper gun safe years ago.

 

Not all responsible gun owners are responsible.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[yurimodin]

On 7/14/2025 at 7:37 AM, soundguy said:

Two types of persons always know where your guns are... thieves and children.

 

You do not want your guns to be stolen and you do not want your 15 year old child to accidentally kill their best friend while "showing off" the loaded Beretta Tomcat you keep in your top dresser drawer under your skivvies. We procrastinate and make excuses for why proper storage isn't necessary "in my particular circumstances" because... and then you find out why you should have gotten that proper gun safe years ago.

 

Not all responsible gun owners are responsible.

 

Cheers,

Tim

At 15 that's a parenting issue. I was taught firearms safety at 5 years old. 

 

At 14 I did have a neighbor friend try to show me his dad's revolver but I just left because I didn't know if this kid knew proper safety or not..........His dad was a city police officer.

[Kingcreek]

I learned firearm safety at an early age. I knew dad kept his rifle and a shotgun in his closet but I knew better than to ever touch one without permission.

if I expressed curiosity or asked about them he would get them out and talk about them and let me handle them safely. That took the mystique out of it and I learned to be responsible.

i would have toy guns taken away if I pointed one at my sister or failed to practice the same safety expected with real firearms.

i had worn out 2 BB guns (safely and mostly responsibly) before I got my first shotgun at age 12.

[soundguy]

I understand and yet… why give them the opportunity?

 

I suppose you can continue to store them in any manner that pleases you. The state is taking away your claims of innocence, “it’s not my fault”, should something bad happen. This should be a caution, a reminder of what might happen even with others who know the rules of safe gun handling. 

 

I do not like mandates any more than any of you. However, having suffered from theft and having covered far too many stories of unsecured guns resulting in death and serious hardship, it may be best to heed the caution. 

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Tango7]

On 7/14/2025 at 11:58 AM, soundguy said:

I understand and yet… why give them the opportunity?

 

I suppose you can continue to store them in any manner that pleases you. The state is taking away your claims of innocence, “it’s not my fault”, should something bad happen. This should be a caution, a reminder of what might happen even with others who know the rules of safe gun handling. 

 

I do not like mandates any more than any of you. However, having suffered from theft and having covered far too many stories of unsecured guns resulting in death and serious hardship, it may be best to heed the caution. 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

The state is "taking away my claim of innocence", yet how many of those stories you covered involved prohibited persons? The last few I recall did. And if the state is so concerned about unauthorized access to firearms, why don't they crow about their prosecution rate for straw purchasers?

 

Given that we won our RKCCWA in part thanks to the previous overturning of DC's draconian storage requirements in Heller, I see this law as Illannoys (D)imwits passing a version of the same law, knowing it will only infringe on those who actually follow the laws.

 

 

[soundguy]

On 7/16/2025 at 8:46 PM, Tango7 said:

The state is "taking away my claim of innocence", yet how many of those stories you covered involved prohibited persons?

 

All of the minors, the shooters, involved in these planned and accidental shootings were, by their age, prohibited persons. Their parents, who left the guns accessible, were not prohibited persons. There is a partial exception for the MI coupls a few years ago. They are now in prison for allowing their son to have access to "his gun". My involvement covering stories goes at least back to the 1997 "Paducah KY School Shooting" were a young man of 14 years stole guns from his fathers home to shoot up his school. Had the guns been secured, perhaps the event would never have occurred. We will never know.

 

I have covered too many events. I have also corrected the typical misconceptions of on-camera journalists and producers about the law and the guns.

 

Why would anyone wish to not have their firearms locked and safe when not in use... stupid? Lazy?

 

Cheers,

Tim

[davel501]

I don't like to argree with the chicken man, but he's right. Part of being a gun owner is keeping control of your guns so they can't be used on you, or others, but mostly you. 

 

I don't agree with the law. The better way would be to make the safes a tax write off so they're basically free. It's in the people's interest to fund that. 

 

This being a state run by garbage people, they have found yet another way to punish the good people of this state while making life easier for criminals. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 7/16/2025 at 11:56 PM, davel501 said:

I don't agree with the law. The better way would be to make the safes a tax write off so they're basically free. It's in the people's interest to fund that. 

A tax write off is far from making them free. 

I the doors in my house are locked, I consider them secure. 

I do however have many safes but that's my choice. 

[davel501]

On 7/17/2025 at 8:48 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

A tax write off is far from making them free. 

I the doors in my house are locked, I consider them secure. 

I do however have many safes but that's my choice. 

 

There are 2 ways to write it off, a deduction and a credit. A credit gets you the full amount while a deduction is a percentage.

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 7/17/2025 at 9:17 AM, davel501 said:

 

There are 2 ways to write it off, a deduction and a credit. A credit gets you the full amount while a deduction is a percentage.

I buy a $3000 safe and I take that off what I owe in state taxes (a credit), assuming I owe the state $3000 or I roll it for many years until I get it all back. 

I don't see anything close to that happening in any way shape or form. 

Same should also go for FOID's and CCL's.  A charge for a constitutional right.

[davel501]

On 7/17/2025 at 9:25 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I buy a $3000 safe and I take that off what I owe in state taxes (a credit), assuming I owe the state $3000 or I roll it for many years until I get it all back. 

I don't see anything close to that happening in any way shape or form. 

Same should also go for FOID's and CCL's.  A charge for a constitutional right.

 

I didn't say they would do it. I said it was the right way to do it and they chose the worst possible path instead. 

 

Tax credits can be refundable too so not necessary to carry over multiple years if the bill is written right. 

Edited July 17, 2025 at 02:55 PM by davel501

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I agree with properly securing firearms so they can't be accessed by unauthorized folks, be they kids or thieves. What we do not need, what I do not want, is "Big Brother" mandating the parameters thru another law. Pretty sure the State of Illinois wants to practically disarm Illini and this law is just another way of infringing on gun possession and ownership. I agree with the premise of the law but we all know the real reason (instead of protecting the children) is to infringe and make gun ownership and possession just that much more difficult and convoluted.

 

VooDoo 

[Tip]

Why stop here, are they going to mandate locks on kitchen cabinets where sharp knives are stored? How about locking gas cans for your mower, or locking storage containers for fertilizer? If it’s truly “For the Kids” then they’ll need to mandate locking storage for all cleaning supplies - oh my gawd you have TidePods!!!
 

You know, all of this boils down to a single thing - education.  Maybe we ought to spend the money on mandatory gun safety courses in, say, 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th grades….. maybe household chemicals in 2nd…, and sharp objects in 3rd….

 

Mandating behavior has apparently become the new dream of Illinois democrats politicians - remember COVID??? 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 7/17/2025 at 9:42 AM, davel501 said:

 

I didn't say they would do it. I said it was the right way to do it and they chose the worst possible path instead. 

 

Tax credits can be refundable too so not necessary to carry over multiple years if the bill is written right. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you thought they would. 😁

[ealcala31]

On 7/16/2025 at 10:43 PM, soundguy said:

 

All of the minors, the shooters, involved in these planned and accidental shootings were, by their age, prohibited persons. Their parents, who left the guns accessible, were not prohibited persons. There is a partial exception for the MI coupls a few years ago. They are now in prison for allowing their son to have access to "his gun". My involvement covering stories goes at least back to the 1997 "Paducah KY School Shooting" were a young man of 14 years stole guns from his fathers home to shoot up his school. Had the guns been secured, perhaps the event would never have occurred. We will never know.

 

I have covered too many events. I have also corrected the typical misconceptions of on-camera journalists and producers about the law and the guns.

 

Why would anyone wish to not have their firearms locked and safe when not in use... stupid? Lazy?

 

Cheers,

Tim

I'm interested to know, give us the stats. Most of the stories I read are children who access firearms from a prohibited person. Which the law would not affect at all. A prohibited person is not going to buy a safe to avoid an additional charge when the firearm is going to be the main charge against them?

[vito]

For whatever reason I have not yet read about the Governor signing this bill into law although I have no doubt that he will do so. Pritzker never met a gun control bill that he did not support. 

[Euler]

As of today, according to its status page, the bill was sent to the governor on June 26, but he hasn't signed it yet.

[mauserme]

They may be trying to figure out how to handle this without sinking Democrats even further in the polls.  If he's smart, he'll veto it.  Which is not to say I think he's smart.

 

 

[davel501]

On 7/20/2025 at 11:19 AM, mauserme said:

They may be trying to figure out how to handle this without sinking Democrats even further in the polls.  If he's smart, he'll veto it.  Which is not to say I think he's smart.

 

 

 

They'll promise him some chicky nuggies. He'll sign. 

Edited July 21, 2025 at 05:02 AM by davel501

[crufflesmuth]

I do not like this law because it punishes parents/family who own or shoot guns. It violates various aspects of precedent and case law. 

[Jeffrey]

If they went after the parent(s) of minors that get caught with guns every day in Chitcago, I might think they were truly concerned.  This is to go after the law abiding specifically.

[crufflesmuth]

On 7/16/2025 at 11:56 PM, davel501 said:

I don't like to argree with the chicken man, but he's right. Part of being a gun owner is keeping control of your guns so they can't be used on you, or others, but mostly you. 

 

I don't agree with the law. The better way would be to make the safes a tax write off so they're basically free. It's in the people's interest to fund that. 

 

This being a state run by garbage people, they have found yet another way to punish the good people of this state while making life easier for criminals. 

 

The government should not be mandating this. Whether that is case precedent from SCOTUS or at the state level with Diggins. People underestimate the progress Illinois has made compared to other jurisdictions. This impacts families with children who shoot or do anything with firearms. It is not about safety. It is about impacting the already limited firearm culture within this state. 

 

Stop complaining about tax and fee increases, because this is where and how it starts. 

[davel501]

On 7/24/2025 at 9:15 AM, crufflesmuth said:

 

The government should not be mandating this. Whether that is case precedent from SCOTUS or at the state level with Diggins. People underestimate the progress Illinois has made compared to other jurisdictions. This impacts families with children who shoot or do anything with firearms. It is not about safety. It is about impacting the already limited firearm culture within this state. 

 

Stop complaining about tax and fee increases, because this is where and how it starts. 

 

Maybe you missed the point. 

[crufflesmuth]

On 7/24/2025 at 10:01 AM, davel501 said:

 

Maybe you missed the point. 

 

Did I? I believe we both can agree minors having access to firearms is something left up to the parent. I do not believe the government has the best approach to that.

[mikeyk101]

I don't remember but if a bill sits on his desk for a certain amount of time and doesn't get signed or vetoed, it automatically becomes a law and the governer can then claim that he never approved of it to save face?

[Euler]

If a bill remains unsigned (and not vetoed) for 60 days after being sent to the governor, it becomes law automatically.

60 days from June 26 is August 25.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

My guess is that since Pritzker wants to be next in line after Trump, he'll pick his battles more wisely the next few years. Pritzker wants to turn the US into California and Illinois so, to get elected, he'll have to be a bit more careful about buying judges and shoving Leftist Rhetoric and policy to the forefront. 

 

VooDoo

[ealcala31]

On 7/25/2025 at 10:56 AM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

My guess is that since Pritzker wants to be next in line after Trump, he'll pick his battles more wisely the next few years. Pritzker wants to turn the US into California and Illinois so, to get elected, he'll have to be a bit more careful about buying judges and shoving Leftist Rhetoric and policy to the forefront. 

 

VooDoo

He might be able to fool the American masses with a more moderate approach the next few years, but he'll NEVER fool US.