Illinois State Representative Brandon Phelps has sponsored a bill which would repeal the ban on silencers in the Land of Lincoln and allow them to be used while hunting, to boot. What are the odds that Democrat Phelps’ bill will pass, allowing more people access to a bit of common sense firearm safety equipment? Hard to say, but probably less than the chances that a news outlet could run a story on the subject without including some feckless non-sequitur from an anti-rights organization . . .
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, said gun owners want silencers for a simple reason: to avoid hearing loss.
“There are a lot of veterans, a lot of hunters and shooters, who have suffered hearing loss,” Phelps said….
Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said Illinois has about 1,000 deaths annually from gunshots, including homicides and suicides.
“Adding silencers to that mix, I think is a bad policy,” Walsh said. “It’s a bill that we would be opposed to.”
For the life of me, I can’t imagine why anyone has a serious objection to the ownership of silencers. In notorously gun-squeamish places like continental Europe or the UK, silencers are considered to be…good manners.
This Democrat from Illinois has a good idea, said not many people ever in the history of the world. I’m sure this bill can use all the calls to Land o’ Lincoln legislators it can get in order to get it on Governor Rauner’s desk for a signature.
As someone who is the proud new owner of his first silencers, I hope Land O’ Lincolners will soon be able to join me!
we’re chipping away
we got SBR/SBS for reenactors and C&R recently
another win! man, we are stacking them up here lately. no reason to drop our guard though.
FFS, will you retitle this to use the word “suppressors” instead of silencers?
We’re in a war here in IL, and sloppy use of language to include the semantics of our opponents is just unhelpful.
Take it up with Hiram Maxim
He’s dead. Probably because he used the wrong word.
John, I the understand the importance of framing a debate by controlling the language of the debate. A lesson learned from the opposition. However, this time I think we have to stick with the word silencer. From the original Maxim invention, to the language of the National Firearms Act, the word silencer is used. The built in bias from Hollywood about what they are capable of is already there, no matter what we call them. We’re just going to have to work to educate people about the benefits, using both terms. I think it is possible to get this legislation passed, depending on what the new Governor does.
Unless I am mistaken, “silencer” is the legal term for the device. I totally get where you’re coming from… as “suppressed” guns are still loud as f*ck (barring subsonics). That having been said, the legal term is what it is. Sorry.
Errr… what Chuck said.
The legal terminology is “silencer”… so GTFO with your whole trying to act smart thing
Well, shut my mouth and call me bi-partisan! LOL! We’ll see how many of the good legislator’s Dem brethren and sistren line up with him…
Many Dems from rural Illinois have more in common with Republicans than they do with the Dems from Cook County and Chicago.
Many Dems from rural Illinois have more in common with Republicans than they do with the REPUBLICANS (RINOs) from the north east part of the state too!
LOL! but sadly…
100 % correct, sir.
Coming down to Southern Illinois, there’s a lot of blue-dog Dems that vote Dem at the state and local level for one thing only: tradition/family history. Get them actually talking about what they believe and they’re somewhere between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage (just don’t actually mention their names).
Phelps is a good guy where 2A is concerned. He’s fought hard on CCW.
My apologies to those Democrats who are fighting for freedom. Godspeed.
Oh, no worries. I’ll admit that it gets frustrating sometimes with those Blue dogs. The biggest problem is that to many of them don’t get how much different it is between some of the local Dems and the national level.
It can be real hard to not just yell at them to quit complaining – your getting what you voted for. If I do that though, they quit listening. If I stay patient, I get to plant seeds.
How True!! Who Do I need to write to pass this bill?
Just another sign of the apocalypse…
Umm you can only hunt with Shotguns, revolvers / single shot hand guns, and muzzle loader. This is voter click bait. Yes I know there is a supressor for a shotgun.
You can hunt game with a rifle in Illinois been doing it for years, just not deer.
Coyotes, coon, squirrel etc etc. Lot of uses for a rifle in Illinois. And you can use a rifle on deer with a nuisance permit.
You see, according to the gun-grabbers this is a slippery slope. Silencers today seems harmless enough, then those crazy gun nuts will want to hunt deer with (GASP) rifles!
Next thing you know, we’ll have constitutional open carry and people in Illinois will start electing Republicans! The horror! We have to nip this in the bud! Say no to quiet hunting!
“Silencers” today will lead to open carry tomorrow – after all, that’s just too big to tuck under your shirt. Next thing you know, people will demand short barrel rifles.
Sounds good to me.
I don’t know what the legitimate argument against them would be. It’s not like they’re concealable so bangers sweats won’t be holding them up. And, would still have to pass background checks, ATF stamps etc, so not just anybody can acquire one. But, I’m sure they’ll find some reason…for the children.
It was a victory. they can’t stand to give up a victory, no matter how trivial, pointless, unnecessary or counterproductive.
Anti gun extremist Mark Walsh:
“Adding silencers to that mix, I think is a bad policy,” Walsh said. “It’s a bill that we would be opposed to.”
Since anti-gunners like Walsh are inherently eevil in their conduct with anything to do with guns and gun owners by lying about and demonizing them and their intentions, it’s not surprising that they would project that frame of mind onto anything at all related to gun activities and participants – even with regards proven measures for health, safety and nuisance noise suppression.
In addition, being generally inexperienced uneducated dolts on anything having to do with guns, they actually believe the movie and TV fantasies showing silenced guns making a very slight pfft noise rather than a muffled BANG, and that silencers are only used for homicidal activities.
Suppress loud noise from engines, but not guns. Why? Because the antis lack logical aptitude.
I had something to say, but my good friend Admiral Akbar would like to add something first. Go ahead, admiral.
“It’s a Trap!”
Phelps is legitimately pro-gun, routinely works with the NRA and ISRA, and was the leading advocate for concealed-carry in the Illinois legislature for years. He may have a “D” after his name, but he is a bona fide person of the gun.
A Democrat defending gun and silencer rights!? Crap… Where’s my hat? And some salt… This isn’t going to taste very good, but a promise is a promise.
In the last race for Governor in my state, the Democrat challenger had an A+ NRA rating while the incumbent Republican had an A (and recently vetoed a strong pro-gun bill). Using consonants to define politics is not very accurate.
Phelps was also the author of the concealed carry bill that passed a while back… He’s good people IMO. I coulden’t care less what party he belongs to.
It’s not a trap for us. Downstate Democrats are not your typical Chicago liberal types. Brandon was the tip of the spear for years on concealed carry. This will happen, if not this year, soon.
Having grown up in Southern Illinois I can attest that a lot of State Democrat lawmakers are very conservative and pro 2nd Amendment. To all outside Illinois, Brandon Phelps indeed led the charge for ccw in the state. From what I understand from down south, he is a no nonsense type of guy who is not afraid of Madigan.. So Gunowners, their friends and families in Illinois start burning up the phone lines.
It’s been sent to the House Rules Committee, which is where legislation often goes to die.
I’m not holding my breath, but if the committee actually holds hearings on it I would love to be there to see what arguments the hoplophobes come up with.
the rules committee is where everything starts out. give it a chance. and let us work things out.
We got SBRs a couple of years ago. Lets see what happens here after we get done lighting up the phones and talking to our legislators.
Otherwise I’ll ship you a pacifer and pampers.
^^^^This guy^^^^^ He gets things done in Springfield. Thank you Todd.
That’s right. POTG in IL know who Todd is. Thank You, Todd.
Well Todd I don’t need any infant care supplies but I will personally speak with my State Senator and both Reps in my county. All three are pro-2A types so it won’t be an issue getting votes from my part of the state.
I will also be in Springfield on March 18th and will do my part to help get the message across.
Cool, thenI will buy you a beer
I’m in Chicago, and I can see one very important part missing from that bill: PREEMPTION!
Even if passed, this bill won’t do you one lick of good when you live in a city that not only outlaws silencers (or “suppressors”, since we’re being proper here), but prohibits a semi-auto rifle as an “assault weapon” simply because it has a threaded barrel.
Good point. It may have been omitted as a sop to the Chicago Dems, but they won’t vote for it regardless.
preemption would require 71 votes. its gonna be hard enough getting 60
The CCW bill included preemption for all firearm laws in the state. The only stipulation was to grandfather in existing AWBs and allow home rule communities a 30 day window to enact them. Maybe I’m not remembering that correctly, but I think I am.
That’s my recollection, as well. And, now, thankfully, we have a governor who will not reflexively veto any and all pro-gun laws so we hopefully do not need a supermajority overcome a veto.
We’ll need a few more elections to get there and that is going to depend a lot on how Rauner does. Assuming the mob doesn’t off him first.
I can hear the thundering herd of pants loading metrosexual “experts”, all well-schooled in Hollywood gun handling, from here.
“For the life of me, I can’t imagine why anyone has a serious objection to the ownership of silencers.”
I’ll give you three reasons:
(1) Gun grabbers think we are all assassins and will use our suppressors to assassinate people.
(2) Gun grabbers want our target practice and hunting to be annoying to neighbors so that neighbors will oppose our right to keep and bear arms.
(3) Gun grabbers want our right to be as irritating as possible to discourage people from actually engaging in the hobby/sport/right.
You’re spot on with #2 and #3. Since they can’t take our rights, they make it as expensive, inconvenient and unpleasant as possible to enjoy those rights.
I’d add this to #1: because Hollywood. Many people genuinely believe that silencers’ sole purpose is to kill people without being detected. Have you seen silencers portrayed in movies any other way? Idiot politicians think the same is true in reality.
More changes needed in Illinois:
QUINCY, Ill. (WGEM) –
One Quincy counselor is pushing for changes to a little-known part of the Illinois Concealed Carry Act.
This law says mental health workers have to report any patient who poses a danger to themselves or others.
“We felt that was very discriminatory for these individuals, because these individuals are probably the safest individuals in the state of Illinois, and the most compliant in terms of following Illinois laws,” Johnson said.
The Illinois Department of Human Services released data this week that said almost 140,000 potentially dangerous patients were reported last year.
Wow my Illinois brothers, keep this up and you’ll be burning your FOID cards in the streets!
Yaaay for you all!
I can’t imagine why anyone has a serious objection to the ownership of silencers.
Because wingnuts who know nothing about guns watch Hollywood movies.
Good for this Illinois Dem. Yes from Harrisburg which is way south and has more incommon with Kentucky or S. Indiana. Don’t have a strong opinion living in Illinois but as I pointed out this week we get 3000 people on a weekday to protest in Springfield. With a few hours notice…Rauner is already defying the unions and we shall see how pro-2a he really is. Let’s keep it up in the land of Lincoln…
I don’t think he is pro 2A at all, but I don’t think he is anti either, I would hope that if it passes both chambers, he would just sign it. The fact that he is working on busting unions and wasn’t specifically anti-2A (Quinn def was) is the reason I voted for him.
Good luck, Illinois!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean this sincerely.
I’d like to see congress scramble on a bill to take suppressors off NFA. Of all the NFA items this should be a real no brainer. Sound moderation is healthy!