BREAKING: Illinois Modern Firearms Ban and Mag Registration Bills Revealed

Yesterday we broke the news that Illinois legislators are preparing to introduce what we’ve been calling the “Nuclear Option” of gun control legislation: a full ban and confiscation on semi-automatic firearms of all types and then some, plus a magazine ban. TTAG has just received the full text of the bills:

  • Click here for a pdf of Illinois HB1263 banning semi-automatic rifles (and more).
  • Click here for a pdf of the amendment Illinois HB0815 [page 11] that covers ammunition magazine registration.

If you want the latest status on these bills, click here for the Illinois legislature’s website that shows the latest info:

These bills are set to be introduced in committee this afternoon at 5:30 PM local time for their first reading.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

169 Responses to BREAKING: Illinois Modern Firearms Ban and Mag Registration Bills Revealed

  1. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    How about that Heller decision…..

    • avatarJon says:

      It is amazing that the writers of this bill not only have the gall to cite Heller as supporting such a ban, but they would have us believe that semi-automatic weapons are “dangerous and unusual devices” that are “not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” It’s all there on the first and second pages of the bill.

      Simply incredible.

      • avatartjlarson2k says:

        semi-automatic weapons are “dangerous and unusual devices

        Which the police and military use to “protect” citizens and do “good” things.

        “not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

        Except by the police, military, and CHL holders. Only a few million examples to choose from that use them responsibly every day.

    • avatarCharles says:

      This is also from the Heller Decision “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Renov. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllov. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

      • avatarCharles says:

        Also from Heller : Meaning of the Operative Clause.
        Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
        We look to this because it has always been widely under-stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and
        Fourth Amendments, codified a preexisting right. The
        very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
        the preexistence of the right and declares only that it
        “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
        Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
        granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
        dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
        Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
        . . . .”
        16

  2. avatarstateisevil says:

    Question. If this became law, what purpose is there in the right to bear arms if the right is not exercised on certain pols and on the high n tights doing the enforcement?

  3. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    what a F**ked -up state

    • avatarBadjujuu says:

      Time to pack up and move. This is obamas experimental state. Once it’s implemented here other states will follow. One by one. While they make money on people who do abide and register their guns for ten bucks a piece. Unreal.

  4. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    how about posting links to the Illinois gun associations that will immediately file suit seeking injunctive relief? They will need funds for this protracted war . . .

  5. avatarOkieRim(Steve) says:

    jeez, what a cluster and criminal if not outlandish….hope this bites the Ill control freaks in the ass.

  6. avatarRydak says:

    This will teach those darn criminals!!!

    • avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

      These bans are not about stopping criminals or improving school safety. They are 100% about nipping Gun Culture 2.0 in the bud.

      The gun-grabbers aren’t stupid. They are looking at the numbers and seeing an explosion of people getting into firearms for the first time. This new breed of gun owner, however, isn’t in it for the hunting, and they aren’t going to be satisfied with grandpa’s old .30-30. The Feinsteins of the world know that if they don’t act now to restrict the sale of these modern (circa 1957) firearms that are drawing the new shooters, a tipping point will be reached and gun control will become impossible.

      If, however, they can ban these modern firearms, then the number of shooters out there will slowly dwindle through attrition, ultimately allowing other types of firearms to be banned (i.e. the rest).

      • avatarAdam says:

        This is what Trudeau (C-51), Mulroney-Campbell (C-17), and Chretien (C-68) tried to do. It didn’t work in Canada, and won’t work in the U.S.–as it did in Australia and Britain–for two reasons. First of all, Canada and the U.S. are not unitary states (Britain), or the emasculated federalism of Australia (where Canberra collects taxes for the States, and State governments say “yes, Prime Minister!”). Alberta, in particular, was furious over C-68, and ‘Liberal’ is now a four-letter word here, for a variety of reasons. Like Canada’s Provinces, American States have robust, constitutionally-guaranteed sovereignty, and WILL stare down any move by the Feds to infringe on their turf. And Canada never really had a ‘gun lobby’ before the 1990s, but the current Conservative Party is now dependent on gun owners’ donations (corporate and union donations are illegal, here), since gun owners quickly organized themselves following the Firearms Act. And, of course, the U.S. has a robust gun lobby. The lack of most firearms registration in Canada and the U.S., unlike Australia and Britain, also makes enforcing compliance with confiscation impossible. The gun grabbers will end up with scorched backsides, and the Democrats will end up, like Canada’s Liberals, as a shattered shell of a party.

      • avatarS.CROCK says:

        we are going to have to agree to disagree with your “the gun-grabbers aren’t stupid” comment. they are sneaky, lying, and misleading.

      • avatarBeninMA says:

        Armchair, I think you’re right — Gun control advocates see this as maybe their last chance to stop the gun culture before it gets away from them completely.

  7. avatarRKBA says:

    The residents of Illinois should revolt against this state sponsored tyranny, and remove from office those responsible for perpetrating it upon them.

    These documents create a living environment not unlike Hitler’s Germany.

    To the good people of Illinois: “Are you Hitler’s Jews, or are you Free Men?”

  8. avatarreoiv says:

    Maybe he loves gun rights and is using this as a way to force SCOTUS to rule that gun rights are subject to strict scrutiny end of story and thus all AWB, the NFA and GCA go bye bye.

    He’ll be a champion, but first he has to be the villain!

  9. This and Feinsteins bill are so over reaching I don’t know if they have a change at passing constitutional scrutiny, especially with Heller’s declaration that handguns are common use and thus protected. You could argue the same for Semi-auto rifles.

    One of my fears is that we could lose the mag limit battle. There are already many pro-gun pols that have stated willingness and desire to restrict magazine capacity.

  10. avatarDave S says:

    The elite will always have what they want
    the point here is to disarm us common rabble.

  11. avatarmike says:

    Good lord, an automatic felony for possessing a high cap mag in 2014 (unless grandfathered in 2013).

  12. avatarDonS says:

    (1) “Semi-automatic assault weapon” means:
    (C-2) a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol with the
    capacity to accept a detachable magazine, a muzzle
    brake, or muzzle compensator;

    So, a ban on pretty much every semi-auto pistol in existence, with grandfathering. People in Illinois will get to buy revolvers.

    • avatarDrewN says:

      If they mean “no threaded muzzles” why the hell don’t they just say so? FFS.

      • avatarThomas Paine says:

        it sounds more dangerous that way.

        • avatarVaqueroJustice says:

          It also includes any muzzle that can be threaded.

          The capacity to accept would include the capacity
          to be threaded.

          It occurs to me that set screw compensators and breaks
          exist, so that would include nearly all muzzles, and thus
          nearly all firearms.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Perhaps I’ve spent too much time around lawyers, but a careful reading of that section says it’s even worse than intended. The way it’s worded, ANY pistol capable of accepting a detachable magazine is banned, whether it’s single-shot or semi-auto. Here’s how I parse it:

      a semi-automatic rifle
      or
      a pistol
      with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, a muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator;

      By including that extra ‘a’ the pistol is separate from the ‘semi-automatic rifle’, regardless of intent. That one little letter means that it applies to all magazine-fed pistols, not just semi-autos — which sounds weird, but living in CA I can tell you that this is the sort of thing that makes a world of difference when finding workarounds to stupid laws.

      Regardless, this is an amazingly repugnant piece of legislation and deserves to die a quick death in committee. It’s basically every insane restriction in California law, doubled and squared, plus the elimination of semi-auto firearms.

      Heck, according to the proposed law, my Weatherby 20-gauge turkey gun is an assault weapon. Wait, what?

      • avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

        For what it’s worth, I’m an attorney and I read it the same way.

        This statute is horribly drafted. It reads like they took ten different assault weapons bans and just copied and pasted everything together.

        From just an English language standpoint, it is the most convoluted, contradictory statute I have ever seen. For example:

        (B) a semi-automatic rifle or pump-action rifle
        that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and
        has any of the following:
        (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
        (ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
        (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or
        partially or completely encircles the barrel, and
        that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with
        the non-trigger hand without being burned;

        “Semi-automatic assault weapon” does not
        include:
        (A) any firearm that:
        (i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever,
        or slide action;

        Are pump actions rifles assault weapons or not? The statute directly contradicts itself.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          The legislative sausage-factory was definitely working with the leftovers when they squeezed out this turd. I recognize stuff in there from:
          * CA law
          * CA legislation that’s been proposed but killed, sometimes multiple times
          * IL law
          * Draft legislation helpfully supplied by anti-2A lobbying groups

          I’m sure that’s not even the majority of the sources for this garbage, just the stuff I recognize as an interested layman.

          This just doesn’t read like legislation that’s meant to be passed, especially in the wake of McDonald and the stinging defeat that represents for the Chicago contingent.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        I picked up on the same thing..
        Good lord, I thought California was bad sshheeezzz…
        course we haven’t seen the latest from Leland Yee yet.. So I am waiting for that shoe to drop soon.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I have a very short list of people whom I wish would be set on fire then, after an appropriate amount of time has passed, dropped into the ocean in prime great white shark territory.

          On a completely different topic (ahem) fortunately our friend Leland hasn’t been especially successful at crafting legislation that makes it out of committee. One hopes that his track record continues in this, his final term in the CA state legislature.

        • avatarjwm says:

          AG, I think this wild assed and absurd bill is a response to the federal court slapping Illinois for not allowing concealed carry. The crooked pols are hoping to panic gun owners in Illinois into agreeing to give up their carry rights to save their guns.

          Don’t fall for it Illinois. Stand firm and come out the other side with your guns and the right to carry them.

          Of course it could also be time for tar, feathers and a rail.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Yeah, well, I’m still waiting to hear about restoration of my carry rights here in CA. Now that open-carry has been outlawed, we should have a reasonable shall-issue CCW law any day now, right? (sigh)

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          the only thing that scares me is the Dems now have a super majority come next session. If they are all on board we are screwed!
          Yeah they couldn’t deal with open unloaded open carry, sooooo not much for us…

    • avatarSlappy says:

      Not exactly. I made a cursory read and the section you are referencing goes on to list certain features, such as a folding/collapsable stock and accepts a magazine outside of the grip. So, the way I read that my S&W 669 would still be legal, if I were an Illinois resident that is….

    • avatarMark N. says:

      I don’t think so. It has to be semi auto with evil features:

      (C) a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to
      accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following:
      (i) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole
      stock;
      (ii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially
      or completely encircles the barrel, and that
      permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the
      non-trigger hand without being burned;
      (iii) an ammunition magazine that attaches to
      the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
      (iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more
      when the pistol is unloaded; or
      (v) a semi-automatic version of an automatic
      firearm;
      (C-1) a semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a fixed

      Seems what they are after is the AR pistols, plus any pistols with threaded barrels.

      • avatarDonS says:

        But that’s not what it says.

        Paragraphs C, C-1, and C-2 are independent definitions of “semi-automatic assault weapon”. C-2, all by itself, includes any pistol that accepts a detachable magazine.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Ok so I wasn’t the only one confused by this..
          And Exactly how are the LEO’s going to enforce this confusing piece of crap legislation????

          Oh wait if they see it, take it. File a charge, by the time the gun owner gets it back they will have died of old age! Did I get it right??

        • avatarSlappy says:

          Right! As AC mentioned above, that section of the bill is full of confusing contradiction.

    • avatarAZGoot says:

      I think what they are trying to say by pistol here, is an AR pistol. Cuz it goes on to say a magazine not in the grip…like a traditional pistol.

  13. avatarThomas Paine says:

    i dont see confiscation. I read grandfathering with registration.

    • avatarHerb says:

      Registration IS confiscation! Eventually & inevitably. UK & Australia could be our future.

      Only…..what has been the compliance rate in states mandating registration? Not much, I hear.

  14. avatarThomas Paine says:

    and what is this proof of ownership thing?

    (c) This Section does not apply to a person who possessed a
    device prohibited by subsection (b) before January 1, 2014,
    provided that the person has provided proof of ownership, his
    or her name, and other identifying information to the
    Department of State Police, as required

    • avatarDirk Diggler says:

      it allows them to show they are being reasonable . . . but since there are no registration numbers on magazines and I don’t keep my receipts. . . . I cannot “prove” and hence, it allows them to seize.

      This is so over the top, the only thing that makes sense is their desire to water down the concealed carry bill . . . as a bargaining chip

  15. avatarCaptain Howdy says:

    I am about fed up with these politicians trying to piss on our rights. This is tyranny plain and simple. I won’t comply. You will not take my property, my firearms from me. I will not comply.

    “Captain Howdy”
    US Army
    1991-1995

    • avatarHardhead says:

      Dam right Sir, this is total BS. My shit will stay in the safe but giving them up willingly or registering them so some ass tard comes a knocking sometime down the road no fen way.
      0844

  16. avatarRoss says:

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to give “We the People” the tools necessary to resist Tyranny and Oppression. This bill seeks to take these very tools from you by force of law…………. That is Tyranny and Oppression.

  17. avatarLance says:

    Live in Illinois call your Reps NOW!!!

  18. avatarThomas Paine says:

    and fees (yet unestablished)-

    including the
    establishment of fees charged and collected for collecting and
    maintaining the information required to be provided under this
    subsection.

  19. avatarGreg Camp says:

    Illinois is already facing the ruling that some kind of concealed carry must be allowed. Now the state legislature wants to have a new ruling against this rubbish?

    But seriously, Illinois–I wasn’t planning to move there, and I doubt many other gun owners were, either. Your thugs are safe from us.

    I do feel sorry for the good citizens of the state.

  20. avatarJSIII says:

    More proof that the antis do not care what the courts say.

  21. avatarArmchair Command'oh says:

    In the magazines ban, the Department can promulgate rules “including the establishment of fees charged and collected for collecting and maintaining the information required to be provided under this subsection.”

    How much do you think they will charge to register a magazine? I’ll guess $200 each.

  22. avatartdiinva says:

    The bill does not ban revolvers. That is probably sufficient to meet the Heller requirements. Hellers says nothing about the kind of weapon you are allowed to have.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      It’s Miller that introduces the test of “in common use” and frankly, I don’t see how this passes the Miller test at all.

      Is an IL anti-gun legislator seriously going to stand up and state on public record that Glock handguns are not in common use? I don’t think so.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        Glock handguns that all of the police in IL use both on and off duty? Doubtful that passes the test.

      • avatarC. Walther says:

        They don’t have to. They just have to say that all Glocks are semiautomatic versions of the Glock 18, and then they qualify as “a semiautomatic version of an automatic weapon.”

        F**k me, that is evil…

      • avatartdiinva says:

        But Heller establishes that at a minimum you have a right to have a gun in your house. A revolver meets that requirement as well as an automatic. The proposed law makes sure that it passes the Heller test. The Miller Test is another issue.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        Further thoughts.

        Common use in Miller is common military use. A strict reading of the decision would indicate that the only weapons in common military use are the M-9 and AR-15. It’s kind of a good news/bad news situation. Miller keep these two weapons on the good list. A more expansive reading would be that any 9mm pistol and and semiautomatic rifle chambered NATO 5.56 (not 223) would be allowed.

  23. avatarDrew says:

    did anyone notice how the bill contradicts itself in regards to pump action firearms?

    (B) a semi-automatic rifle or pump-action rifle
    that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and
    has any of the following:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
    (ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
    (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or
    partially or completely encircles the barrel, and
    that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with
    the non-trigger hand without being burned;

    “Semi-automatic assault weapon” does not
    include:
    (A) any firearm that:
    (i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever,
    or slide action;

    can anyone explain?

  24. I guess this is a preview of Feinswine’s bill, excluding the 900 safe firearms, you know, the ones to protect the 2A rights of existing gun owners. No mention, though, of future gun owners.

  25. At least we still have Call of Duty, assuming the NRA doesn’t turn video games into a scapegoat…

    • avatarHardhead says:

      It’s only a matter of time before that’s next.

    • avatarLogan P says:

      I’m a wee bit young to remember everything about Columbine, but weren’t they blaming video games and music then? I do recall not being allowed to listen to Marilyn Manson or Rob Zombie or play ANY shooter games for a few years because Barbara Walters said it would drive me to kill everyone.

      • avatarmatt says:

        After Columbine I had a Cook County Assistant States Attorney request from a judge that I be incarcerated indefinitely because I was a threat to myself and society. They really didnt like my 16″ boots.

  26. avatarCasey T says:

    Illinois already has a ton of fiscal problems but they want to waste more money attacking law abiding citizens who want to be able to protect themselves in a State with one of worst cities for crime in the U.S.. Sounds like a plan. What’s next, giving pardons to murderers if they kill a gun owner?

  27. avatarTom Hobbs says:

    When will the people in the state capital in Springfield stand up to Cook County. Many in the lower part of the state have guns and are afraid to take them out of the closet much less outside. The state is controled by the few in Chicago.

  28. avatarW C says:

    “This Section does not apply to a person who possessed a
    weapon or attachment prohibited by subsection (b) before
    January 1, 2014″
    This bill is a gun seller’s wet dream. There will be a massive run on guns in 2013.

  29. avatarChuckN says:

    I think all Illinois firearm related businesses should
    openly tell Illinois Law Enforcement they are no
    longer welcome and will not be sold anything or
    allowed use of any products/areas.

    If something this drastic doesn’t happen, part of
    either bill will survive in the name of compromise
    and reasonable measures; and it will take another
    lengthy series of court cases to overturn.

    • avatarsurlycmd says:

      I think all Illinois firearm related businesses should pick up and leave the State. I’m sure Texas is willing to cut some tax breaks.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Ha they should demand all the used firearms back, you know so they manufacturer can register them appropriately lol

      • avatarIan says:

        I’ve often wondered that… if the manufacturers organized and told the government at the state or federal level that they will no longer sell to them if limits or bans are put in place, I bet that might change things.

        If Colt, Remington, Sig Sauer, Glock, FNH, etc., all stopped supplying to the government (i.e. the military, police, federal law enforcement), they could really throw some weight around.

        It’d never happen though…

        • avatar16V says:

          If someone’s buyin’, someone will always be sellin’.

          No way to ever embargo a State. Even if you are the only game in town. See how much effect Barrett has had against that CA ban on .50s.

  30. avatarguzzimike says:

    FWIW, no mention of this yet in local (Chicago area) news as of 6 pm. Not that it surprises me but I was sure Rahm would have taken to his soap box by now

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Nothing on the major news sites, either. Give it until tomorrow, I’m sure AP and Reuters will pick up the story after some press releases go out from both sides.

  31. avatarSanchanim says:

    Wow, just WOW…..
    It looks based on the bill the Benelli M4 might be questionable, since the gun holds over five shots, although technically only 5 +1. Not sure how that is going to work.
    Your 50 Cal are bye bye.
    It is illegal if you don’t report a theft, oh fun!
    Here is some interesting text that I am trying to understand. It is the C-2 subsection:
    “a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, a muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator;”

    This isn’t an “and” statement, I am assuming any one of these features would be bad, correct? So any pistol which has a detachable magazine would be illegal?

    Now another section cover dry weight of the pistol set at over 50 oz. I know the M&P is about 24 oz. What does it matter the weight? Is this to target desert eagle large caliber pistols?

    • avatarDonS says:

      “So any pistol which has a detachable magazine would be illegal?”

      Yep.

      (C-2) is parsed as:
      [a semi-automatic rifle
      OR
      a pistol]
      with the capacity to accept
      [a detachable magazine
      OR
      a muzzle brake
      OR
      muzzle compensator]

      (Arguably, “the capacity to accept” could be bound to “a detachable magazine”. With that parsing, a threaded muzzle would be OK as long as you didn’t actually have a muzzle brake or compensator installed.)

      Paragraph (C-2) is a standalone definition of a “semi-automatic assault weapon”. It includes such evil weapons as the 1911. No other features necessary.

  32. avatarCA_Chris says:

    Looks like Illinois Democrats want to lose the next couple of election cycles.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      No, that’s only a problem for their Congressional reps. My understanding is that the folks pushing this are all Chicagoland Democrats, who coincidentally get on my last nerve even though I live halfway across the country from them. They’re playing to their base with a crap bill that should never have seen the light of day.

  33. avatartetsujin79 says:

    I personally enjoy how it’s tagged into bills about sex offenders getting life sentences automatically and nuclear safety…

    I can see it now…

    Douche bag congress critter who just lost his seat but is an evil, slimbag, scum sucking IL democrat: “All those in favor of putting sex offenders away for life and making nuclear power safer?”

    Half-asleep congress critter who just lost their seat and/or is a moron: “Zzz… Huh? Sounds legit. AYE!”

    Que Skeletor, er, Feinstein cackling. The End!

    • avatarKEMikos says:

      Tetsujin, it’s worse than that. They took a sex-offender bill and a nuclear safety bill that had already passed through 95% of the legislative process (and which were good bills, that we needed to pass) and gutted them, removing everything that had been in them to replace it with this garbage. They did it this way so that they could shortcut the normal timeframe that would allow people the chance to object. It’s no coincidence that this was all being put in place over a holiday – they wanted to catch the people unawares.

      So now not only did we have to fight these horrible bills, but they killed two perfectly good bills, either one of which could have saved far more lives than a feel-good gun ban ever could.

  34. avatarJeff says:

    I can’t recall any .50 BMG’s used in any mass shootings. I also noted when reading the ban on any semi auto copy of a full auto, too bad for the Glock fanboys, I can’t remember if that applied to rifles if so sorry springfield the m1a was orriginally full auto :(

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      CA banned 50BMG rifles despite the fact that exactly zero crimes had ever been committed with one.

      The result? The creation of the .416 Barrett cartridge with ballistics equivalent to or better than the 50BMG.

      • avatarLogan P says:

        Well the dudes in Waco had (but probably didn’t use) a Fiddy, so it must mean only terrorists and crazy people have (but probably don’t use) them. Ergo and therefore, if you’re not a terrorist or crazy person, you shouldn’t have (and definitely shouldn’t use) a Fiddy.

        Right?

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Why you gotta bring 50Cent into this? If anything, it’s DMX’s acting career that you should be citing as a cause…

        • avatarWLCE says:

          thats what they think and they’re wrong.

          the rocks need busting. 308 just doesnt have the muscle for that.

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      Is the Glock semi a copy of the full auto? Or the other way around? I know it’s a bit chicken vs egg first thing but there IS a difference.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        The Glock 17 is the original design, and predates all other Glock handguns including the 18.

        If anything, the Glock 18 is a select-fire derivative of the 17, not the inverse. This was clearly crafted to deal with the CA situation where CA DOJ gave up on the AR ban after the courts said they had to ban each and every model by name, and the manufacturers kept changing their CNC programs to engrave a different model name on every run of AR lowers.

      • avatarJeff says:

        As pee poor as the bill is written they will find a way,

        • avatarJeff says:

          they will say the g18 has been around since before the gen 3 and gen 4 glocks and poof there they go,

  35. avatarCaptain Howdy says:

    Any member of the legislature who signs on for this should be thrown out of office on their ear with a quickness. They should be removed and tried for treason. I’m not giveing up a firearm that is reasonable and legal to own everywhere else except in the Socialist Republic of Illinois. The 2nd amendment is very clear, and I don’t intend to defend myself from tyranny with a bolt-action 17Hmr.

  36. avatarTRUTHY says:

    F*** me, it’s hard to even read it without thinking of Hitler.

  37. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Folks, I’m going to take a page out of the CalGuns playbook here and shout:

    DO NOT HELP THESE JACKALS IMPROVE THEIR BILL!

    We’ve learned the hard way in CA that the anti-2A contingent DO have computers connected to the Internet, and they HAVE been known to take all of the criticism from the pro-2A community and use it to tighten up their legislation.

    It’s fair game to point out the ridiculously restrictive points of the proposed bill, but whatever, you do, don’t point out loopholes or offer suggestions for how they could improve it. We WANT this bill to remain so incredibly clueless and awful that it doesn’t pass inspection. Don’t provide aid to the enemy.

  38. avatarDrew says:

    Has the governor of Illinois even heard of the 2nd Amendment? Seems like he needs to do some reading.

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      I hate to say it but I liked Daley way more than Quinn/Emanuel. He might have been crazy but at least he was passionate about Chicago. Quinn is like a limp ramen noodle & Emanuel is looking @ his time as mayor as a stepping stone to something else

      • avatarMark N. says:

        Something else? Like what? He cannot be President (born in Israel), and as Mayor of th third largest city with the tightest political machine, he has as much if not more power than Bloomie. And no term limits either.

  39. avatarPete says:

    I hope to god it dosen’t pass….

  40. avatarJAS says:

    Manufacturers could just refuse to sell arms and ammunition to state and local law enforcement. How would that sit with the legislators I wonder?

    • avatarAdam Z says:

      Often the state & municipal law enforcement agencies do nit purchase directly from the manufacturer. They go through a distributed as well, like Streicher’s.

  41. avatarJeff says:

    Notice gun range owners can still have high capacity mag’s, everyone in that crap state needs to open a private gun range and get certified by the NRA lol

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      You must have missed the part where the state gets to approve and license shooting ranges, including independent regulatory authority for such ranges so they don’t have to go back to the legislature to make arbitrary rules changes.

  42. avatarNine says:

    Can anyone else hear that?

    That’s the sound of U-Haul trucks starting

  43. avatarCaptain Howdy says:

    I am a big fan of tar and feathers. Why change what works?

  44. avatarEric says:

    Rock River Arms can come over to Indiana. (BTW – y’all still haven’t given me an update on my order of 3 uppers from 2 months ago.)

  45. avatarPig says:

    Has anybody else noticed that HB1263 is regarding the uniform code of corrections and sex with a minor and has nothing to do with firearms? I am unable to find where in the bill on the general assembly’s website the PDF was pulled from. Can somebody give me the actual number of the bill?

    • avatarMark N. says:

      The proponenet is using the time honored tecnique of “gut and amend,” taking dead legislation, deleting everythin, then adding in the desired content. Thus it already has a bill number allowing it to be rushed through to a vote. Sounds fishy to me, but that’s the way they do it in Illinois.

  46. avatarToo close to chicago says:

    Oh good lord, why I am stuck in this stinking state? I just pray it does not go through. Don’t worry, I have done my calling and emailing of representatives for what ever good that will do. I ask you all to say a prayer for the law abiding gun owners in Illinois.

  47. avatarTman1966 says:

    “Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.”

    Kitty Werthmann, “A Warning to America”: http://www.disclose.tv/news/She_survived_Hitler_and_wants_to_warn_America/87914

  48. Welcome to California. Illinoisans even get to start fighting about bullet buttons already.

    -Gene

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I’m sure you recognize all of the worst parts of this legislation, Gene. It’s pretty clear that some of the worst parts of this mess are an attempt to prevent the OLL situation that caused CA-DOJ to throw in the towel on AR-pattern firearms.

      Also: thank you for all that you do, and have done, to help defend the rights of gun owners here in CA. Much appreciated.

  49. avatarmsaputo says:

    As the years pass I keep wondering why the hell I still live in this overpriced, corrupt and broke-ass state. I’ve done all I can do by contacting my reps. The rest, unfortunately, lies outside of my grasp. All we can do is worry and wait and hope that some semblance of sanity prevails.

  50. avatarPeter says:

    You can find all the information here on the Illinois General Assembly website. Once on this page, click up top on Senate Amendment number 05.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB1263sam006&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=57242&DocNum=1263&GAID=11&Session

  51. avatarRalph says:

    Well, well, well. So the Illinois scumb@gs will finally come out of the closet, just like that gungrabbing bloodsucker in the White House. This is a good thing. Now you will know your enemies, people of Illinois. Now you will know who considers you a criminal, while the real criminals walk around the streets of Chicago and the state legislature with no fear at all. And if the people of Illinois let their politicians screw them, then they’ve gotten exactly what they deserve.

  52. avatarLeo338 says:

    The asshole senator’s son seems to be familiar with the law. He has had a run in with them a few times. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/garritt-cullerton-senate-_n_1573884.html

  53. avatarToo close to chicago says:

    HB1263, the assault weapon ban, just passed out of committee by a vote of 6-4. They are debating the magazine ban now.

  54. avatarPeter says:

    I just looked for votes, I only saw a sex offender vote, nothing on assault rifles….Link please

  55. avatarKw557 says:

    I am really taken back by our government and their gall to try and strip our second amendment rights away. For us law abiding citizens I want to remind you of many quotes from our founding fathers:

    “A free people ought to be armed.”
    - George Washington

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    - George Washington

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    - Benjamin Franklin

    “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    - Thomas Jefferson

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    - Thomas Jefferson

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
    - Thomas Jefferson

    “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

    “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
    - Thomas Jefferson

    “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
    - Thomas Jefferson

    “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
    - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

    “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
    - John Adams

    “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
    - George Mason

    “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
    - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.”
    - Noah Webster

    “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
    - Noah Webster

    “A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.”
    - James Madison

    “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
    - James Madison

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
    - James Madison

    “The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.”
    - James Madison

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
    - William Pitt

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
    - Richard Henry Lee

    “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
    - Richard Henry Lee

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
    - Patrick Henry

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
    - St. George Tucker

    “… arms … discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.”
    - Thomas Paine

    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
    - Samuel Adams

    “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
    - Joseph Story

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
    - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

    ” … for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
    - Alexander Hamilton

  56. avatarBud says:

    The Committee just voted 6-4 in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms with confiscation.

    They are now debating banning hi cap magazines

    Want to guess which way they will vote on that?

  57. avatarjake45 says:

    Illinois past two governors are is prison serving long sentences. This cesspool of corruption has the nerve to tell honest people how to behave. I really feel like vomiting about now! Of course Mr. Obama came from this dung heap. What a joke!

  58. avatarPeter says:

    Too bad they just cant an the Chicago bears and cubs and forget this crap.

  59. avatarPeter J says:

    Can anyone provide links to the vote counts or point me where you are finding this out. I am on the ilga.gov site and nothing

    • avatarToo close to chicago says:

      I was listening to the debate on streaming audio. Not sure of links online. The audio is dead since the committee adjourned.

  60. avatarToo close to chicago says:

    HB815 just passed 6 to 3 and off both bills go to the state senate floor. Crap!

  61. avatarPascal says:

    Can someone tell me the legal president that allows states to simply take private property or in the case, whatever the gov’t does not like without recourse?

  62. avatarJD says:

    land of Lincoln…sad…he’s rolling in his grave

    -

    “Out of Stock, Backorder OK to Out of Stock, No Backorder.”

    just noticed….EVERYTHING GONE. (not going to list, but go check it out). if you don’t know a machinist, you’d better meet one soon.

  63. avatarPeter J says:

    Can someone explain things to a person who doesnt understand politics. Now that both of these have passed, what is the next step? Does this mean its inevitable? Are there more possibilities this will get struck down?

    • avatarJeff says:

      This is proposed and still needs votes by the state house to become a law.

    • avatarToo close to chicago says:

      Both bills have to go to the Senate floor for a vote. Since it is a lame duck sessions, they only have to get a simple majority not a super majority. I am not sure of the bills will have to go to the House for a vote as well. It is not over, it all depends on how the senators vote as a group.

      • avatarPeter J says:

        Do you know if it is a majority vote like 58-57 would pass it, or does it need 2/3 or anything special. I am really hoping this gets struck down.

  64. avatarJim B says:

    I can’t find the part about the state police confiscating Winchester Model 1894s and grandpa’s Model 12 that you told us about yesterday. It looks like another east coast or California try at gun control to me. Same old thing.

  65. avatarJeff says:

    The whole country is going to watch these proceedings very carefully and you can bet that if the libbies get a green light here, the pressure is going to double in DC. Everyone needs to stop whining about $100 p mags and write the lawmakers from your district now.

  66. avatarGJ1 says:

    I’ve been reading everyone’s comments and so far I haven’t seen anyone post this out so I feel I must.
    Am I crazy or is this information incorrect?
    The links to the IL State Legislature site for bill HB1263 is not about guns at all. You can read the full text on “their” website and it does not come close to the bill you post on this site. The HB1263 bill on the state website is about sex offenders.
    The other bill for the magazine is on the state website, and it is about nuclear power plants.
    Yes, I read through both full bills to make sure they didn’t sneak it in somewhere.

    Either I’m missing something, or you guys are wrong. Is this a hoax to get people worked up. I live in IL and I’ve stressed out about this all night last night and today.
    What’s going on here?? This is supposed to be the truth about guns.

    • avatarEJ says:

      From what others have said they gutted two bills that were already numbered and stuffed them with gun control crap so they could ram them through ASAP. I guess it takes more time to create a bill from scratch and number it etc etc.

    • avatarIan says:

      If you read a little further up in the comments it’s explained. Basically they’re taking dead bills, gutting them, and putting the new wording in there. This allows them to fast track the bills through because they already have numbers and what not. If you open the links to the bills from the main article, go to full text, and choose the last couple amendments, you’ll see the actual information in the bill.

      This is very very crooked.

      • avatarWA_2A says:

        Sneaky…they know the less time there is to debate it or object, the likelier it is that it will pass.

    • avatarThumper says:

      They stripped the contents out of those old bills and added the new language.

      They were about those things and now there about taking your guns.

      No Hoax, No Joke, Not Playing…

      The Shit Just Got Real.

    • avatarSatty says:

      You need to go the full text and then go to amendment 007 to get the full amended gun control BS for HB1263. This is truly sick sneaky and low.

  67. avatarRich7553 says:

    If i were Judge Posner, the Illinois State Police would already have warrants in hand for the immediate arrest on charges of contempt of court for any senator who voted for this travesty, whether in committee or on the floor.

  68. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    As others have said, this appears to be the grabbers last stand so they are going out with a bang, Randy

  69. avatarTis says:

    I’m going to have to leave my home and my family to move out of Illinois and avoid this ban…

  70. avatarJD says:

    Canada has no second amendment.
    And no AWB but a mag ban in which a 30 rd. mag is pinned to 5 rds….remove pin and back to 30 rds. {smart in terms of nat’l security, economically speaking if ban is rescinded}.
    Just 30 min. north of me, and how odd to flee to Canada for ‘more gun freedom’.

    Sen. Antonio Munoz…again a reminder about race politics-Canada not yet infested with bilingual, biracial, bi-culturalism via illegals, we’ve superceded Canada on stoopid-their devastating, decimating, 1970s Trudeau socialism just a drop in the bucket in comparison to what’s coming here.

  71. avatarTodd says:

    We will prevail, tuhis was a skirmish not the war

  72. avatarRoman says:

    Can someone site the section & lines where there is anything related to guns in these bills. I just don’t see it…

  73. avatarJustin says:

    I live in IL and this is scaring the crap out of me. My local state senate rep is R and pro gun. However he is out numbered. The only hope I see is the federal Supreme Court striking this down as they did the concealed carry ban not to long ago. Plan B is I only live 20 minutes from the WI boarder. Might be time to cross over

  74. avatarApril says:

    Hmm…. what is the harm in disarming the people, I am sure we will all be just fine living in our new ( safe gun free counrty ) because history has proven how well this idea works http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

    The NAZI FIREARMS LAW has Striking Similarities to our new proposed gun control laws http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Illinois-gun-ban-bill-1263.pdf

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Illinois-House-Bill-0815-see-amendment-1-.pdf
    and I will find myself unemployed!

  75. avatarGJ1 says:

    I git a call last night asking my thoughts about gay marriage. I was told to call suzi schmidt about my opinion.
    I said good god, youre calling me about gay marriage and theres a possible gun ban going down here? He hung up. Little twirp.
    Thanks for comments to find the amendments. I didnt see it before. Sneaky bastards, using old bill numbers!

    • avatarJeff the Griz says:

      It’s funny, the libbies want rights for people who go agianst the beliefs of the founding fathers, but are ok with taking away the rights the founding fathers granted.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I’m a classic liberal in the sense that I’m very much in favor of stronger individual rights and liberties for everyone. That includes marriage equality.

        The founding fathers had beliefs relevant to their time, but they saw truths that were universal and, to the best of their ability, set forth those truths in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. In their wisdom, they did not pretend that the world would remain unchanged, but instead gave us a foundation and guidelines for doing the right thing by our fellow citizens.

        In short, whatever you think their beliefs were is irrelevant. Marriage equality, and so much else that people decry as “progressivism”, are ideas fully in line with the founding fathers’ vision of a nation where all are treated equally and fairly.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.