Illinois Would Face Semi-Auto Ban Under New Senate Bill

UPDATE:  At the bottom of this post.

Illinois has a new governor in JB Pritzker. Neither he nor the Democrat super-majority legislature particularly like guns rights or gun owners. Really, they dislike gun owners almost as much as they hate President Donald Trump. So it should surprise exactly no one that a Prairie State Democrat Senator has introduced Senate Bill 107 to ban almost all semi-automatics.

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess an assault weapon 300 days after the effective date of the amendatory Act, except possession of weapons registered with the Department of State Police in the time provided. Provides exemptions and penalties. Effective immediately.

What, specifically, does the bill ban? Any semi-auto pistol or rifle that can accept a magazine holding over 10 rounds. Thanks to 10+ round aftermarket mags, that includes your Colt 1911-style handguns. It also includes your GLOCKS, Rugers, Smith & Wessons, and even your new, really nice SIG P365 concealed carry pistol.

Illinois Faces Semi-Auto Ban Under New Bill

Base image Courtesy Ruger.com

The bill also has language mentioning features that make your tubular-fed semi-auto .22 rimfire rifles verboten as well. Thanks to .22 shorts.

Illinois Faces Semi-Auto Ban Under New Bill

Courtesy TTAG

Shotguns, you ask? SB-107 bans every semi-auto shotgun that can accept 5+ rounds. “Oh, but my shotgun only holds five rounds!” you say. Slow your roll, kemosabe. Thanks to the existence of shorty shells, your 5-round tube can now holds about eight or so rounds. Banned! Class 3 felony – up to five years in prison!  Merry Christmas!

Yes, this includes most semi-auto hunting and competition shotguns, too.

Hey, it’s not all bad news for existing gun owners. Yes, the bill allows current owners to register their guns with the Illinois State Police. For $25 each.

The bad news? I can just about guarantee Land O’ Lincoln Democrats will introduce a magazine ban this spring which will outlaw the magazines for your registered guns. No doubt gun-grabbing Illinois Dems will look at this coming magazine ban for registered guns as a feature, not a bug.

And don’t worry. A couple of years from now, they’ll be back to confiscate the registered guns, too (assuming you haven’t had any tragic boating accidents). You just watch.

The odds of this bill passing? Pretty strong since Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the Illinois legislature. You can do the math.

Not only that, but we had also a handful of Republicans sell us out last year on gun control votes. Gun rights folks like Guns Save Life worked with the NRA to remove one of those — Peter Breen — who in past years campaigned as pro-gun.  But a couple remain.

Gun owners in Illinois face a difficult future. Unless, that is, the NYSRPA suit comes down in our favor later this year at the US Supreme Court. If that happens, we could be looking at a whole new ballgame when it comes to state and local governments respecting our constitutional rights. Until then, hold your breath.

UPDATE: 

First off, thanks to eagle-eyed reader Douglas V. who caught a big mistake on my part.  I read right over the word “fixed” in the description of pistols that this bill would ban.

(B)     a semiautomatic pistol or any semi-automatic
7        rifle that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity
8        to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

Frankly, while I regret making a big mistake like this, I must say I’m thrilled he caught my mistake.  I and hundreds of thousands of my fellow Illinois gun owners won’t have to spend $25 each to register our defensive handguns to remain legal.

Other commenters pointed out that the bill bans possession of “components”, including parts kits.  I didn’t even tackle that aspect of the bill in the original post as I saw the gun bans as intrusive enough.  However, yes, possession of things like a simple flash hider, collapsible stock and barrel shrouds would give you a felony conviction in the Land of Lincoln if this bill passes.

 

comments

  1. avatar Ironhead says:

    So glad I left.

    1. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

      Coming to Washington State in the very near future.

      “CAN POSSIBLY ACCEPT” magazines over 10 rounds. So even if you can FIND 5 rounds mags for your gun (an OEM or aftermarket someone stamps out a bazillion real quick for every know semi), if your gun can POSSIBLY hold more…you”re under arrest.

      Come on SCotUS

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        “Come on SCotUS”

        If this passes (likely), what’s the fastest way to get it to SCOTUS?

        Can the Court pre-emptivly just rule “You can’t do that”?

        1. avatar DDay says:

          File in federal court. The good news for those in Illinois, you are part of the 7th circuit court of appeals. There are currently 9 republican appointees (4 trump judges, one G W Bush) on the 7th and only 2 dem appointed (one obama and one clinton)

          They have been very pro 2A in recent years.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          We’ll see how the latest local level ban shakes out. It’s already on its way up the appellate ladder.

      2. avatar Pg2 says:

        I think I just saw that WA state became the first state in the nation where the state can enter the home without a warrant to any household that has a newborn? Is this accurate?

      3. So even if you can FIND 5 rounds mags for your gun (an OEM or aftermarket someone stamps out a bazillion real quick for every know semi), if your gun can POSSIBLY hold more…you”re under arrest.

        Espeecially if you are black.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Espeecially if you are black”

          Life-long goal for Dimwitocrats.

    2. avatar arc says:

      IIRC there are sanctuary cities for guns now in IL

      1. avatar Asdf says:

        Counties.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      only the courts can save us from these jerks…the one saving grace is they always go too far and leave themselves vulnerable to court action…

      1. Just like the segregationists after Brown v. Board of Education.

  2. avatar Omer says:

    300 days? Plenty of time to move to Indiana.

    1. avatar O. Hell No says:

      I’d rather lose my guns.

      1. avatar Nick Pacific says:

        Good, you guys have screwed up your state, don’t need you coming over the border screwing up ours.

      2. avatar CCityGuy says:

        Please dot ell, whats wrong with Indiana? Especially considering the comparison to IL?

        1. avatar Ozzallos says:

          “Gary, IN.”

        2. avatar The Grey Man says:

          Compared to Chicago? Bwahahahahahaha

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Court? Is that you?

  3. avatar Kyle says:

    oh look, another law about to be ignored.

    Compliance with gun laws has been dropping like a stone and will continue to drop.

    Governments are committing a gross malfeasance in that they are passing laws they know will not be followed and only irregularly enforced and will be amongst the first to be “plea-bargained” away at the earliest possible point.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      i agree- the majority will likely quietly not comply, as did the people in Morton Grove and Winetka 35 years ago. This, along with the expenses of trying to enforce it drove the Candians nearly over the brink years ago. It may be tough to take the guns out and shoot at a public range or to the hunting fields.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not really. Prove that a given gun isn’t registered. Good luck.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Cop watches you leave the range. Pulls you over and does a search with probably caused based on where you left. Pulls gun out and runs serial number over the radio.

          Busted.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Leaving a range is not probable cause. Besides, most cops aren’t that eager to get shot.

        3. They’re confident that we will obey. If they pull you over, what are you going to do? Right. Everyone talks tough until the politicians threaten your job, family, friends. When I hear “They’ll have to take it from my cold dead hands” I think. “They don’t care about killing you”. Anyway, I’m too chicken to fight them. We need to vote! It’s not hopeless. Remember, a few years ago we didn’t have conceal carry. There’s hope.

        4. avatar ozzallos says:

          Honestly, how many articles have we seen where police from certain states will pull you over for search based on suspected gun ownership from another state based on databases and such? Not even probable cause or proof, just that are known to own a gun.

          There’s no end to the ways this can be abused.

    2. avatar Pmac says:

      I agree. There will be almost no compliance. I wouldn’t. They only have look at a couple of enlightened east coast states to see how well their recent legislation has worked.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        depends on how you define “worked”….if the goal is to make us all subject to becoming a convicted felon…then it has “worked”….

    3. avatar Huntmaster says:

      First they’ll hold up your tax refunds. Then suspend your driver license. Then your electrician’s or HVAC license. No building permits for you. That sort of thing is coming. Your Social Credit score is going to be in the dirt so your kid isn’t going to get into the nursing school at the State College. About that time things are just going to fall apart and we’ll have to sort it all out and put it back together.

      1. avatar James says:

        What the hell is a Social Credit score?

    4. Of course, we all know exactly which type of people the police will go after to enforce this law.

      I heard it requires a paper bag test.

  4. avatar D says:

    Anyone supporting Senate Bill 107 should be Imprisoned for life for treason.

    These politicians are the exact reason that the 2A was written

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    Illinois actually has one of the rarest breeds of unicorns… pro-gun Democommies. It’s the only reason the entire state outside of crook county isn’t a solid red. Given that the bill has exactly three sponsors, I’d give it less than even odds. There’s a reason Madigan had to pull procedural shenanigans to get the dealer licensing bill into law.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      True enough, many of Illinois’ Democrat legislators are in the south end of the state, which has been turning towards red lately. It’s a coal mining/union membership legacy. While the blue wave hit the Chicago collar counties last fall, many Republicans were elected in traditional Democrat strongholds down south.

      Many Southern IL Democrats are actually fairly conservative. And they’ll vote against this unconstitutional garbage if they want to keep their jobs.

      Interesting times.

      1. Thanks Curtis. I hope the people south of I-80 save the state from my Cook county hypocrites. They’re antigun except for THEIR guns. I was sad to see that DuPage is turning Blue.

        1. avatar Lincoln says:

          @ Victoriaillinois…Dupage, you can thank “Karen” and soccer moms like her for Dupage. They are the new face of tyranny. They rather be sweetly lied to, and have a terrible economy and future (like Barry Sotto did), than told the truth and have a booming economy.

        2. avatar Ironhead says:

          I was in DuPage until a few months ago. Moved to TN for a job. Best move we ever made. I had it out with Michelle Mushmouth on a couple of occasions. Shes as nasty as they come. Petty, vile, and just smart enough to be dangerous. Madigan part 2

    2. avatar Binder says:

      Madigan will not allow this to even make it onto the floor. There is no way he is going to risk the ire of non-machine democrats. If he wants to lose his power, this is a great way to do it.

      I bet the bill ends up making all this stuff a felony is you are a Illinois resident and DON’T have a FOID card, if anything makes it.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Kinda the way I’m leaning… Madigan’s cronies wouldn’t have played footsies with the dealer licensing bill last session if he had the votes to pass something remotely like this this session. Still going to do my best to kill every one of these bills, but I’m cautiously optimistic.

        1. avatar Chi_City says:

          Illinois GDL passed twice and was vetoed by the Republican Gov twice. This will sail through both chambers and be signed into law. Unless Springfield Armory can lean on the right politiciand ….Noncompliance and partial compliance are the default. I would love to be wrong!!

  6. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    I have news for the state of Commienois,if passed it will be found to be repugnant to the Constitution and thus UnConstitutional.

  7. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

    e-Edition Subscribe Locations NIE Español Calendar Jobs Housing eDeals

    Search…
    Ad Circulars Newsletters
    H&N Podcasts
    46°
    News
    Sports
    Obits
    Forum
    Limelighter
    Multimedia
    Publications
    Classifieds
    Vote
    Q & A
    Get Outside

    PREVIOUS
    Jordan Cove a good opportunity for the county
    Those who know me, know that I have been a dedicated champion of economic develo…

    NEXT UP
    Checks and balances has failed us
    The democratic system of checks and balances has utterly failed us when one tyra…

    ‘Petty tyrants’ want to take our guns

    Klamath Falls Oregon Herald and News: Thursday, January 17th, 2019
    Letters To The Editor

    Responding to, “Bill would require permits to buy guns, limit ammo”: Tuesday, Jan. 15 Herald and News, naturally angered, but didn’t surprise me. I predicted the socialist, elitist, Bolshevik legislators in Salem would perpetrate their anti-gun “class warfare/people control” agenda against autonomous Oregon gun owners.

    Jeffrey R. Snyder’s “A Nation Of Cowards: The Public Interest Quarterly 1993 states it best under, The Unarmed Life: The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this Utopian (socialist ) zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts of the state. “It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that statement with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state’s totalitarian reach.”

    Freedom in America (and Oregon) is more than an illusion. Is further proof required the socialist treasonous elite in Salem want us common citizens disarmed? It doesn’t matter if firearm is a matchlock or flintlock musket, a handgun, or AR-15 type rifle: these petty tyrants don’t want us to own any firearm, period!

    Class warfare? Absolutely! Two Ashland Daily Tidings commentaries of mine bears this out. They include: : “Anti-gun agenda is class warfare” (Friday, Jan. 9, 2009) and “The war on America’s gun owners” (Monday, Aug. 3, 2009), respectively. These remain archived via the Ashland Daily Tidings at http://www.daily tidings.com.

    Finally, “Gun Confiscation for Dummies: ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are Glorified SWAT-ing: Sunday, Jan. 13, 2019, at http://www.thetruthaboutguns. A YouTube video courtesy of a pro-Second Amendment woman attorney is likewise posted at this same site and is titled: “Paying (bribing) states to confiscate guns.”

    Write and urge your local state representative/senator to oppose Senate Bill 501.

    James A. Farmer
    Merrill, Oregon (Klamath County)
    Long live the State of Jefferson!

    Note: To date I haven’t seen an anti-gun politician yet who wasn’t deceitful crooked immoral treasonous and socialist! From Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) and his then corrupt
    lieutenant then in the U.S. Senate: Thomas Dodd (D) of Connecticut, Ted Kennedy, the
    Clintons, Bloomberg, etc. they were collectively sworn enemies of American gun owners
    and rightly deserved to be impeached, charged with high treason, and removed from
    high office and/or including the high judicial bench such as Earl Warren and his nine
    justices who set themselves against our republic! Same for the Warren Burger Supreme
    Court who followed.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “I haven’t seen an anti-gun politician yet who wasn’t deceitful”

      Which means that they have a lot in common with every other politician.

  8. avatar Mark Wauck says:

    Here’s how the law defines what pistols are “assault weapons”. It appears to allow typical semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines, even if those magazines hold more than 10 rounds. Since those pistols are not “assault weapons” they would not need to be registered. OTOH, the law clearly seeks to ban modern sporting rifles of all sorts. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong.

    (B) a semiautomatic pistol … that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
    (C) a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
    (i) … a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger
    hand;
    (ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
    (iii) a shroud attached to the barrel, …
    (iv) a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; or
    (v) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip;

    1. avatar Grumpster says:

      I believe Mark Wauk is correct from what I have also read. I assume that a shroud attached to the barrel would include any hand guard. Still it is a horrible bill and if enacted as is, one would be committing a felony for possessing a grandfathered AR-15 that was not registered. Also simply having an spare AR-15 grip in possession would be committing a felony even if bought years ago. So one better hope they never have a damaged grip, hand guard, adjustable stock on their registered AR-15.

      In other news Crook County is not doing much of anything to crack down on violent repeat offenders with their current Hug A Thug attitude per Kim Foxx the SJW Cook County State’s Attorney.

      From NRA-ILA website: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190124/illinois-bill-introduced-to-ban-many-firearms-accessories

      Some examples to be banned include:

      Any semi-automatic rifle or handgun that can accept a detachable magazine greater than ten rounds in capacity and has one or more features, such as a protruding grip for the support hand; a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; a handguard; or a muzzle brake or compensator.
      Any semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more feature such as the ability to accept a detachable magazine; a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; or a protruding grip for the support hand.
      Any fixed magazine semi-automatic rifles or handguns greater than ten rounds in capacity and fixed magazine semi-automatic shotguns greater than five rounds in capacity.
      Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
      Any part or accessory that would configure a firearm as above.

      1. avatar chi_city says:

        The cook county boss will be our next mayor in Chicago. She has come out hard against more cops and stuffer sentences for violent offenders, so as to stick with tradition, our gun laws get tighter our murderer rate goes up ……..

    2. avatar Xcom says:

      I believe this is right.

      As an Illinois resident, I think this bill is absolutely awful. However, I do believe it is being misrepresented. I could be wrong. The pistol section appears to me to be directly targeting AR pistols, not common handguns, thus the last line of accepting a magazine outside the pistol grip.

      Someone let me know if I am mistaken.

  9. avatar J says:

    It is worst than what the author of this article is reporting. Senate Bill 107, proposes to ban all semi auto rifles, parts and parts kits, and accessories. The parts and parts kits ban to build an AR style rifle means no more ordering online to upgrade anything on your rifle. This legislation is very similar to other anti-2A legislation making its rounds through Democratic controlled states right now. Wording in the legislation is similar to what they used in the California bill to ban AR style rifles. It is all part of the DNC helping state legislatures propose gun control bills. I posted some of this information on Jan. 24 in the Illinois George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin article when I found out early that day of this proposed legislation.

    Here is the link for more information. The end has begin in IL.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/101/SB/PDF/10100SB0107lv.pdf

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190124/illinois-bill-introduced-to-ban-many-firearms-accessories

    Parts Ban:
    (F) a conversion kit, part or combination
    of parts, from which an assault weapon
    can be assembled if those parts are in the
    possession or under the control of the same
    person.

    IL, Senate Bill 107. Felonies for the following:

    (1) A person who knowingly delivers, sells, purchases,
    or possesses or causes to be delivered, sold, purchased, or
    possessed an assault weapon in violation of this Section
    commits a Class 3 felony for a first violation and a Class
    2 felony for a second or subsequent violation or for the
    possession or delivery of 2 or more of these weapons at the
    same time.

    (2) A person who knowingly delivers, sells, purchases,
    or possesses or causes to be delivered, sold, purchased, or
    possessed in violation of this Section an assault weapon
    attachment commits a Class 4 felony for a first violation
    and a Class 3 felony for a second or subsequent violation.

    (3) Any other violation of this Section is a Class A
    misdemeanor.

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      Exactly J , they want to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. Yet I wonder how many criminals will be affected by this scheme ? I’d venture to guess “none” so what is the point. Tyrany plain & simple.

    2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      “Parts Ban:
      (F) a conversion kit, part or combination
      of parts, from which an assault weapon
      can be assembled if those parts are in the
      possession or under the control of the same
      person.”

      Hardware stores will be closed since they sell common machine screws…

    3. avatar chi_city says:

      This could be the angle to oppose or for legal action. Spare parts, parts that can be used on nonassult rifle?

  10. I guess eventually history will repeat itself and THEY’LL be another Amercian Civil War for Liberty 🗽 and Freedom! And Traitors who infringe upon the US Constitution /Bill of Rights will be judge by We the People…For those who would use Tyranny in the name of public safety…

  11. avatar tdiinva says:

    The wording doesn’t say 10+1. It says 10. Your standard 1911 is safe — for now.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        Yep.

        And since *any* detachable magazine could theoretically be made to accept 10 or more rounds, *every* detachable-magazine firearm will be illegal.

        I hope they pass this. What a wonderful test case for SCOTUS to slap down…

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I’ve said this for years. Eventually they’ll figure out that someone can take two 8 round mags from, say, a Star BM, cut the top off one, and with a TIG welder combine the two springs and two bodies with one follower. Prolly lose a round in the process but you would turn two 8 round mags into a single “high capacity” 15 round mag.

          The gun “could accept” the new frankenmag, so the gun is illegal.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        Well that sucks. At least Springfield didn’t do it.

        Anybody make more a 10 rounder for 9 and 10 mm?

  12. avatar Southof16 says:

    Ah yes good ol Illinois. No I will not move. I will however do all I can to fight this and all the other bills coming. I also will not comply when this becomes law same as I have not complied with any of the other laws King Mike has passed. In the meantime, myself and others are busy cranking out rifles in our basements and shops on our Ghost Gunners and such. Hey Mike, FOAD!

  13. avatar tdiinva says:

    Question for all you Springfield haters. Is Glock threatening to blacklist Illinois Law Enforcement Agencies if this law passes? Same for S&W and SiG? Doing business with the State after enacting such a law is worse than what Springfield did.

  14. avatar RA-15 says:

    Meanwhile in New York State of Gov Soprano. Hi point rifles with pistol grip magazines are not allowed for us peasants , Leo’s only. Make any sense , no it does not. Further , any AR-15 STYLE RIFLE must have a non removable magazine holding 10 rds or less of ammunition. Oh those evil guns. What good is a rifle with a non removable magazine ? NY is a cold cesspool of a place to live. Unless you are a criminal , then it’s just dandy . time to pack up and move to a state that understands ” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ” I believe there are 14 such states left in this once great nation. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. Sopport your FPC , GOA , SAF. and any other protectors of our 2nd Amendment rights. While we still have a few of them.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      There are two ways to make an AR not an “assault weapon” under California law, one of which is by installing a fixed magazine. There are of course workarounds to make that fixed magazine reloadable, one of which is a device that loads the internal magazine through the ejection port. (the other is building a “featureless” rifle that doesn’t have the “evil features” that define “assault weapons.”)

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Does everyone grok “5+ rounds”? For folks in Rio Lindo, that means more than four (4).

    Does everyone grok “accept magazines of XX rounds”? For folks in Rio Lindo, that means every semi-auto firearm that can accept detachable magazines. (The wording is intentional for the gun-grabbers; gun ban.)

    “Unless, that is, the NYSRPA suit comes down in our favor later this year at the US Supreme Court.”
    – – The SC can overturn New York, without applying to every state in the union (manage your expectations).

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Can? Yes. Will? I don’t see that happening. Such narrow rulings are highly unusual. The SCotUS doesn’t like to waste time granting cert for limited scope cases. I predict a strict scrutiny standard being the result of this case. (I don’t see the usual suspect agreeing to grant cert without assurances of some major movement in our direction.)

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The SCotUS doesn’t like to waste time granting cert for limited scope cases.”

        What, then, is the issue presented to the SC?

        My reading is the matter is strictly an NYC law/regulation/restriction regarding transport in and through NYC. How does the SC ruling affect transportation of firearms outside NYC (or maybe NY state)?

        Suppose, for a moment, the SC rules that states and municipalities cannot totally prevent the transport of legally owned firearms, but can pose restrictions that do not prohibit any and all means of transport? What is the wider implication for 2A supporters? That people may only possess, and transport firearms to/from a single domicile – regardless of how many domiciles the gun owner owns? That people may transport firearms to/from however many domiciles the gun owner owns?

        Maybe the SC will rule that a gun owner may transport to any legal location, and from any legal location, but with notification to relevant authorities along the route of travel at least 10 business days in advance of the movement (in both directions).

        The SC will not declare the Second Amendment absolute, and certainly will not list all the gun restrictions that are permitted under any level of scrutiny.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          We’ll see… Again, I don’t see the SCotUS wasting the time to grant cert on a case that just affirms the FOPA.

        2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          It can affirm the FOPA and incorporate it to apply to all 50 states and territories, no?

          Even if all it does is that, it will be a win.

          I hope the Court does better than that…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It can affirm the FOPA and incorporate it to apply to all 50 states and territories, no?”

          I did not see anywhere in the brief that FOPA was at issue, in and of itself. Even then, the SC can rule entirely and specifically on the case at hand, and whether or not the NYC ordinance can be overturned on the basis of FOPA, or Heller. Either way, neither of those prohibits “reasonable” restrictions, and the SC can find that transportation limits must be reasonable enough that transportation is not completely and utterly banned.

          Regardless of the ruling, and opinions, it will be entertaining, instructive and predictive.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          I don’t see the court taking the time to JUST say “yes this is federal law”, “no you can’t just ignore it”… That wouldn’t be a cert case, that would be a summary judgement case. (As we saw with the stun gun ban.)

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I don’t see the court taking the time to JUST say “yes this is federal law”, “no you can’t just ignore it”… That wouldn’t be a cert case, that would be a summary judgement case.”

          As one not permitted to be a member of the SC (nor a nominee), I have no idea how the court will rule, but am familiar enough to point out that we had best not put much faith in the NYC case as overturning virtually all gun control laws.

          When it comes to narrow, the SC ruled three times in four years regarding union rights to force non-members to pay dues; three times in four years. In all three cases, the review and the ruling was quite narrow. The entire issue of unions being allowed to force non-members support union activity at all was not part of any of the three rulings.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          Remember, Heller simply declared a right to keep and bear arms INSIDE the home. My educated guess regarding the New York Rifle and Pistol Association case coming up at the U.S. Supreme Court is that the court will find a right to keep and bear arms (in common use) OUTSIDE the home AND declare that any restrictions on said right are subject to strict scrutiny.

          Also remember: at issue here is a Constitutionally enumerated right. The standards for a Constitutionally enumerated right are significantly higher than the standards for other conflicts such as right-to-work laws.

          Thus, laws banning broad classes of firearms, such as semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns will be nullified if the U.S. Supreme Court declares a right to keep and bear arms (in common use — which includes just about all semi-automatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles) outside the home.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Also remember: at issue here is a Constitutionally enumerated right. The standards for a Constitutionally enumerated right are significantly higher than the standards for other conflicts such as right-to-work laws.”

          That idea has not protected the Second Amendment to date. What in the NYC case would change that?

          All enumerated rights (of which there are untold numbers of unenumerated rights noted in the constitution) are subject to the Kryptonite of “compelling government interest”. Thus infringements are permissible when convenient to the government. All that is needed is proof that the interest exist, and the infringement is the least burdensome measure available to reach the intended goal of government action. NOTE: “least burdensome” declares, implies, endorses, justifies infringing (burdening) constitutionally protected rights. This notion is a judicial fiction, not supported anywhere in the constitution, but only in the rules, processes, procedures of the federal (and SC) courts. The SC already declared that their internal operations are not subject to congressional or executive oversight, management, or approval. In essence, the SC declared itself outside the legislative powers of the congress that created the courts.

        8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am,

          That idea has not protected the Second Amendment to date. What in the NYC case would change that?

          First of all, there have only been three U.S. Supreme Court cases on the Second Amendment in the last 130 years. The reason that the first ruling was bogus is because no one showed up to argue the defendant’s side of the case. The reason that the second ruling was less than stellar is because Justice Kennedy was the swing vote and insisted on a ruling that neutered the Second Amendment. And the third case merely applied that second case to the individual states.

          The reason that I am optimistic about this case: there appears to be a solid 5 justice majority that will rule justly.

          In other words, when the courts have majorities that elevate government above the people, we get garbage rulings; when the courts have majorities that elevate the people above government, we get decent rulings. As always, it comes down to whether or not we have quality people in power positions.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “As always, it comes down to whether or not we have quality people in power positions.”

          Don’t disagree with your theme, but….

          The NYC case is a transportation matter that could only logically extend beyond NYC as a declaration that government cannot prohibit transport, but may regulate (control) how it is done in such a manner at to not effectively prohibit transportation of legal firearms. Cannot think of any logic that would result in the SC overturning all gun control laws – even if there were 9 pro-2A justices.

  16. avatar possum says:

    America, where are you now, don’t you care about your son’s and daughters, America, where are you now, don’t you know alone we can’t fight against this monster

  17. avatar Tim Toroian says:

    What the hell happened to no ex post facto laws? Banning something you already own is ex post facto. If they get away with this what keeps them from banning the model car you drive and taking it from you?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      They “only” require you to register any firearms you already own. (At $25 a pop.) Spare accessories? Better get rid of them or you’re a felon.

      Yeah, I’m with Binder on this one… Madigan doesn’t have the time to waste on this shit show. He’s already got to figure out how to get past the floor fight Jabba’s “progressive” tax bill is going to cause. If he thought he could pass something like this, his cronies would have never pulled the shenanigans of putting a gun control bill from last session on the desk of a new governor.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What the hell happened to no ex post facto laws?”

      Making illegal today, that which was legal yesterday, is not “ex post facto”. Think about it. DDT was once a legal pesticide. Then it was found to be deadly to humans as well. DDT is now banned in this country. This sort of thing happens quite frequently.

      “Ex post facto” is a legal concept wherein you can be held criminally liable for engaging in an activity now illegal, before it was illegal. A related example: law is passed that AR-15s are illegal tomorrow, and anyone who possessed an AR-15 within the last five years is guilty of possession of a now-banned firearm. Such a law makes criminal the possession of AR-15 BEFORE the AR-15 ban was in effect. Such a law would be “ex post facto”. You could be charged with a crime before the activity was a crime.

      In the case of making illegal today, and after, that which was legal yesterday is not the same as making a crime of what was legal yesterday, but a change in law that makes anyone in violation from the date of the law and forward, guilty of being in current (not past) violation of the law.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    I’m keeping what I got…and if the satanic demoncrats pass a “we’ll need to see your social media son” law I be off everything-including TTAG. My AR will be SHTF ready. I’m too old to be on my knees. F##k ILLinois!

    1. Is not the purpose of a social media check to determine if an applicant for a pistol permit is a gang member? Sometimes, the NICS check fails to uncover gang members.

      Why would anyone oppose common sense, sensible legislation designed to cut down on gang violence?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Why would anyone oppose common sense, sensible legislation designed to cut down on gang violence?”

        Because it is politically ignorant to let a good crisis go to waste?

  19. avatar TC says:

    OK, time to set the record straight after reading so many ignorant comments how this Illinois Bill violates the 2nd Amendment, or we need to the Feds or SCOTUS (which is part of the FedGov) etc. Let’s start with the erroneous premise a State law violates the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not apply, since the 2nd Amendment as with the rest of the Bill of Rights only applied to FedGov.

    “THE BILL OF RIGHTS: PLACING LIMITS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    First, it is important to understand the limitations enumerated in the federal Bill of Rights weren’t originally intended to act as prohibitions against the states. A careful reading of the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear the amendments were added because the states sought to limit the scope of federal authority.

    “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

    Many of the Constitution’s ratifiers believed the new general government would usurp powers of the states without additional unambiguous prose. Because of this, many of the state ratifying conventions suggested specific amendments as a way to make these principles overt, and insisted on their inclusion as a condition of ratification.

    None of the state ratification ordinances included language asserting that any proposed amendment would inhibit any state powers, nor those of the their fellow states. However, the states did include text that articulated their wishes that amendments provide explicit limitations against the federal authority.”

    There you have it the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict FedGov. Further evidence comes from Supreme Court Justice John Marshall from 1830: “The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated.”

    Bet 99.9% of the those who’ve posted a comment are completely unaware that the Bill of Rights even had a pre-amble which explained the purpose. And why is everyone so anxious to run to the Federal Government, they’re not superior to the States. Seems so many of you want run to “Daddy” to spank Illinois.

    The Constitution is a contact, the States were the parties to the contract, the Federal Government was the product of the contract. The States delegated a small number of powers to it’s creation to be “exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce” as James Madison said.

    Bottom line this is an Illinois issue, which the good citizens of Illinois must solve and ignorance is not a solution. Here’s what the Illinois State Constitution states with respect to the right to keep and bear arms: “SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
    Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed.”
    This bill would appear to violate Illinois State Constitution.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      You completely ignored the 14th Amendment, circa 1868. Why?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Because democommies are still pissed we took away their slaves.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Because democommies are still pissed we took away their slaves.”

          The 14th applies the constitution to the individual states. Indeed, recently Kavanaugh or Gorsuch question why incorporation of the 8th Amendment to the states was still a question.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        Whether or not the 2A applies to the states via the 14A was exactly the core question in MacDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) where Illinois and the city argued that the 2A only applies to the federal government and not to the states.

        The SCOTUS decided that the 2A did indeed apply to the State of Illinois via the 14A Due Process Clause.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The SCOTUS decided that the 2A did indeed apply to the State of Illinois via the 14A Due Process Clause.”

          Exactly. Which is why I question leaving out the 14th. Prior to 1868, the Second did apply only to the central committee.

        2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Exactly. Which is why I question leaving out the 14th. Prior to 1868, the Second did apply only to the central committee.”

          In the early days of this country, it was commonly understood the 2A applied to the citizens. There was never any question that the Continental Army had to ask permission to kill the Redcoats. Any citizen with cash could, and did, buy guns. Even concealable ones. Keep them at home or carry them with them.

          The idea the 2A applies *only* to the Fed is a relatively recent perverted re-interpretation of the 2A by the Leftists. My hope is, Clarence T. and the gang can ‘read the writing on the wall’ concerning the current growing politicization of the 2A by the Leftists and plan to do something about it.

          Or, I’ve picked a bad time to quit sniffing glue… (Airplane!)

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The idea the 2A applies *only* to the Fed is a relatively recent perverted re-interpretation of the 2A by the Leftists. ”

          Not so.

          Actually, very little of the constitution and BOR “applies” to the citizens. (*more on that, later)

          The 2A prohibited “the feds” from infringing on the rights of the people. It did not extend to prohibit the States from regulating firearms as each saw fit. The entire constitution was a delegation/assignment of agency to a national government, not to the States. Limits to the power of the national government were also declared, and applied to the national government. The States were sovereign, not the central government (as in the central government did not create itself, and devolve permissions to the States).

          The 2A prohibited the national government from infringing on the citizens of the States. The constitution did not represent surrender and submission, in general, of the State-held powers (see 9th and 10th). It was only after the advent of the 14th Amendment that there was any notion that the same document that limited national government also limited State governments. After the 14th Amendment, the status of the States was reduced to “the states”, as in provincial governments subject to the national government, not superior to the national government the States created.

          *When one is discussing the “application” of law, the general theory is that “application” means adhering something onto something. Thus, the “application” of the constitution is a laying on of a layer of restrictions and limits. The constitution protects the people, as opposed to layering on some set of restrictions on the people.

          If one maintains that the Second Amendment “applies” to the citizens, such a claim is internally crippled, rendering the statement illogical (because the “application” of the constitution presupposes setting limits on the people). Now, it is correct to say that the constitution “applies” its protection on the people, and remain internally logical. However, the more clearly appropriate description of the relation between the constitution and “the people” is that the constitution protects “the people”.

          We must always be aware, and clear, about the original concept and purpose of the constitution as ratified, and the purpose after 1868. The reality is a division in history that has adverse implications for “the people”.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      TC,

      OK, time to set the record straight after reading so many ignorant comments how this Illinois Bill violates the 2nd Amendment, or we need to the Feds or SCOTUS (which is part of the FedGov) etc. Let’s start with the erroneous premise a State law violates the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not apply, since the 2nd Amendment as with the rest of the Bill of Rights only applied to FedGov.

      You do realize that the U.S. Supreme Court has been steadily incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states thanks to the 14th Amendment, right?

      Furthermore, you do realize that the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the individual states in the 2010 McDonald vs. Chicago decision, right?

      Those two reasons are why people on this forum are claiming this proposed law in Illinois would violate the United States Constitution, Second Amendment.

  20. avatar Trooper Sam says:

    That tree is looking mighty dry. I wonder what would be good for watering it?

  21. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Illinois: Venezuela with better pizza.

    I am SO glad I got out in ’86.

  22. avatar Adam says:

    This law is DOA. SCOTUS has already declared that states can not ban handguns and since this bans essentially all effective handguns it won’t last. Not to mention that IL is represented by the 7th Circuit Court which is a supermajority Republican court. We might get back luck and have all the Democrat appointees on the bench if this case comes up but even then, it would not survive en banc review.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “SCOTUS has already declared that states can not ban handguns…”

      SCOTUS is irrelevant, federal courts are irrelevant. The disruption is the ride, and the ride is the punishment. All part of making gun ownership so onerous that most people will just give up trying to comply.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        “All part of making gun ownership so onerous that most people will just give up trying to comply.”

        Yep. My hope is Clarence T. is contemplating some strong antibiotic for that infection…

  23. avatar little horn says:

    once again you lied when you didn’t have to. you show a picture of a 1911 that only holds 7-8 rounds in the mag yet go on to say, “ban on anything with 10 round detachable magazine”. with every word i read you become less and less reliable. all it does is hurt your credibility unless you expect blind allegiance.

    1. avatar Jerome says:

      I believe the point is that the proposed bill bans any semiauto that CAN ACCEPT a mag greater than 10rds. There are such magazines on the market for 1911s, hence, they would be banned.

  24. avatar John says:

    Make a list of top Anti-2A in the state…Doxx’em.

  25. avatar John Galt says:

    THE PRESIDENT COULD STOP THIS EVERYWHERE BY DIRECTING HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SUE THE STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION for violating the second, fifth and fourteenth amendments AND HE could cut off funds to states not honoring the BILL OF RIGHTS as the supreme law of the land.

    WHERE IS (our great ally) THE PRESIDENT???????????????

  26. avatar Jbw says:

    Governor toilet man could care less about law, anybody’s constitution, the gun dealer licensing bill he signed was passed in a previous illinios legiststive session, the Illinois constitution says that bill was dead when he signed it, he didn’t care neither did madigan or the other Chicago Dems. Corruption and stealing will be at an all time high with new taxes to steal from.

  27. So if assault weapons are bans, criminal gangs like the Vice Lords and the Latin Kings will have a monopoly on the assault weapons market.

    Care to guess how peacefully these gangs would resolve disputes over turf?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email