Image by Boch via
Previous Post
Next Post

On Monday morning, Illinois began the penalty enforcement phase of the new ban on possession of popular guns and magazines on public property. For both residents and visitors staying more than 24-hours in the state, it is now a criminal violation to possess a “prohibited firearm” outside of your own property or licensed gun ranges. In fact, possession of two or more of these firearms in public is now a Class 3 felony.

Most gun owners have no idea just how expansive the new law really is in terms of the guns that are banned. The list includes even pump action shotguns like the Remington 870, America’s favorite shotgun. And that’s before the issue of “shorty shells.”

Then there are the problematic characteristics of the Ruger 10/22, America’s favorite .22 rifle, which is also now a prohibited firearm. Frankly, most of the legislators who voted on the ban don’t actually know which guns have been outlawed and they don’t really care. And that’s when they’re sober.

What’s more, most magazines with a removable baseplate also now fall into the prohibited category when the law is implemented as written. You may possess those anywhere you want, as long as it’s on your property, or if they’re unloaded and encased while traveling to or from a range or gun shop.

So much for carrying a loaded semi-auto handgun as a concealed carry license holder.

Here’s the law.  From page 97. . .

Beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 102nd General Assembly, a person authorized under this Section to possess an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge shall possess such items only…

Only on your own private property, or at a gun range, or gun shop. When not on your property, the firearms must be transported unloaded and encased. Possession of two or more of the prohibited firearms is a Class 3 felony.

And the relevant section from page 105 of the file at the link above concerning magazines . . .

“Large capacity ammunition feeding device” means: (1) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns (emphasis added).

The “readily converted” language is what effectively bans most magazines with removable baseplates if a prosector chooses to interpret the law that way.

Here’s more from page 106 . . .

(c) Except as provided in subsections (d), (e), and (f), and beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 102nd General Assembly, it is unlawful to knowingly possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

So, ladies and gentlemen, let’s see a show of hands: How many Land of Lincoln gun owners ignored the new law’s provisions and carried a gat with a removable baseplate magazine in public today?

Raised hands

As one of the affected individuals, did I carry today? No, I didn’t carry a gun loaded with a magazine with a removable baseplate today despite what I wrote last week pledging not to comply with the new law.  Instead, I carried two. And two spare magazines.

There are also a couple of happy sticks in the back of my ride and a couple of 17-rounders in the glovebox. And probably a couple of others here or there as well.

In fact, among a considerable number of Illinois’ card-carrying good guys I’ve encountered in recent weeks at Guns Save Life meetings in various regions of the state, I don’t know a single one who was going to put his or her pistols in the gun safe and break out the revolver(s) because of the new law.

Governor J.B. Pritzker and his merry band of gun control jihadists have made criminals of most of Illinois’ 400,000-ish concealed carry licensees and fair portion of the two million other gun owners in the state. Mass non-compliance seems the common reaction to the new law.

The Center Square has covered this mess, taking the IFOR press release warning hunters and sportsmen of the new law’s provisions and building on it.

The provision of Illinois’ gun and magazine ban beginning Monday is affecting resident and nonresident hunters. 

The ban on semi-automatic guns and magazine enacted Jan. 10 says 90 days after, gun owners can no longer be in public places with certain firearms. This is not just affecting what guns concealed carry license holders can carry, or what kinds of magazines they can have with their carry firearm, it is also affecting hunters. 

Illinois State Police say on their frequently asked questions website, prohibited firearms are still allowed on private property for hunters. 

Greg Bishop led off with that yesterday morning on capital city’s most listened-to talk radio show.

The good guys who are challenging this new gun ban law have a hearing set for this Wednesday in the Southern District of Illinois federal court. We expect a ruling on a preliminary injunction blocking the law shortly after the hearing.

Frankly, it can’t come soon enough.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The referenced bill reads alot like the new gun law in Wash. state; all semi-auto long guns are effectively banned, and pistols are in danger, as well.

  2. Obviously In The Land of Lincoln there was a complete and total failure to define Gun Control according to its History of Rot. Defining Gun Control for the history illterate public makes the public much wiser than they are now.
    As it stands Gun Control Rot is on the doorsteps of law abiding citizens exercising a Constitutional Right. Better hope a court throws zipped lipped Gun Owners a rope.

  3. Well Boch&(TTAG) I never got the king’s permission slip to “legally” carry in ILLANNOY. Just carried a gat in the console encased & threw a micro 9 in my pocket occasionally. And I bought 2 -10round magazines that CAN’T be altered. And my offending magazines can be stored at my best friends home in nearby Indiana. Including my AR if I don’t chose registration. I knew CCL holder’s would be a target year’s ago🙄🙁. Moving east can’t come soon enough!

  4. I doubt if law enforcement will enforce these laws unless in the commission of a nother crime.
    Most law enforcement is cognizant of the danger of going out of their way to collect people’s firearms. I have two friends who are police officers and years ago even before all this hysteria got out of control I asked them what they would do if they were told to collect people’s firearms. One said he would call in sick and the other said a lot of cops would get shot. I think that says it all.

    • At minimum, Law enforcement will be compelled to enforce these laws by their administrative masters to persecute people that endanger/annoy the politicians who appoint the administrators. Individual police officers will enforce the laws without being forced too, think Rena Rojas.

    • Interesting. I always figured if I were a cop, I would salute smartly and say “Yes, Sir!”, then troop out the door and go take in some movies. Next day, report I checked all the homes I was assigned and there was not a single firearm in even one of them.

  5. I’ll keep doing today what I did yesterday. And the day before. And tomorrow. You get the idea.

    I always taught my kids to stay away from drugs. To follow the law. And respect other people. Sadly this POS state has legalized drugs, enacted unconstitutional laws and made heroes of the feral scum that has populated inside and outside of Cook County.

    Yeah. I’ll pass.

    • The states need to pass an electoral college law so large marxist filled cities cannot rule over the rest of the state.

  6. now they can finally incarcerate all these kids runnin’ around about here with full auto switches and xtra hi- cap mags. already not s’posed to have laser sights in the city (you might cause retinal damage to someone you’re going to shoot).
    no? they want jail me? in that case, me no likey.
    i’m goin’ back to packin’ a flare gun. love a fresh cauterized channel… and that scent.

    • and we all know “those people” will obey any law…right?…so just who is being targeted here?

      • Those people? Do you mean the Canadian Amish that do all the drive-by shootings from their buggies? We all know the g********** aren’t going to be the ones this is enforced against. F*** JB pritzker and the rest of those c**********

    • I shot a flare gun once, have to say it’s not a good weapon. I missed an outhouse at about 20 feet. Yeah, I was drunk, but hell …

    • ^ Re the article… i started to read it but couldn’t get past the whine of the author.
      He writes from the supposition that he is right, when the fact is he’s all about “feelings”. Couldn’t get past the fourth paragraph.

      My phone texted me (!) and told me it wants a bath. And to not ever go back to that website again.

      • I got to paragraph 7. After the line about giving teachers (who are almost all extreme leftists) qualified immunity like the police and then they would be blowing away mouthy black and hispanic kids was just too much cognitive dissonance.

        How do these people get through life with this degree of disconnection from reality? I used to laugh when Michael Savage would say “liberalism is a mental disorder” but the evidence is stacking up that he was right. Literally. I used to (like until right now) say things like “put the Crack pipe down” to people like that, but now I think they may actually be smoking crack.

      • He is a she according to the note at the bottom of the article, happily living with her wife and children. Lol couldnt have guessed that

    • From the (now bookmarked) article, I found this gem :

      “Proposals to arm teachers are obviously infeasible: If you don’t give teachers immunity from prosecution and lawsuits, they won’t carry and nothing changes. And if you do give them qualified immunity like cops, then you have the same problem you do with police: namely teachers blowing away mouthy eighth graders (who would be disproportionately Black or Hispanic), which is even worse than the status quo.”

      He obviously wants disruptive students mouthing off distracting the kids that want to learn.

      I say, if a teacher head-shot a few that smart off at the beginning of the school year, watch aggregate test scores for the school improve dramatically.

      I like the way that guy thinks! 🙂

      • Well said.

        Personally, I like the subtitle ….

        “There are more unregistered guns in this country than are possessed by the Pentagon, DHS, and police departments combined. And Republicans want more of them.”

        This … this brings a tear to the eye. Absolutely beautiful, and as it should be. My heart leapt when I read it.

      • It is not necessary to grant teachers ANY type of immunity. That kind of thinking is part of the problem. Many of them actually want to be armed and are qualified to be. All we have to do is stop disarming them.

        • No immunity, but without carrying every day you have no job, you are fired. Looking for the win-win in that the liberal crazies will QUIT rather than carry the hated gun.

    • Brynn Tanehill naval academy grad aviator (awesome) lives with her wife and 3 children (sigh).
      3 children being indoctrinated.

    • *Results may vary based on location see appointing official and judicial integrity history for details.

      With that said hoping so as having legal games played with your rights sucks.

  7. Riddle me this:

    “… a person authorized under this Section to possess an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge shall possess such items only…”

    Those key words “authorized under this section” have me thinking about a novel legal theory: what if someone claims that the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment authorizes them to carry those scary rifles rather than that particular section of Illinois law? Then those restrictions do not apply since that person would be carrying under the different “authority” of the U.S. Constitution?

    In other words does that law trick people into unknowingly subjecting themselves voluntarily to that law–when they could carry whatever they want under the Second Amendment?

    This is akin to a couple going to their state to get a marriage license rather than simply declaring themselves married according to Common Law and thus not subjecting themselves to whatever marriage license requirements a state has created.

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is NOT legal advice.

    • “Then those restrictions do not apply since that person would be carrying under the different “authority” of the U.S. Constitution?”

      It is settled science: the SC already declared that nothing about the US Constitution is absolute; the SC declared, at least twice, that “reasonable” restrictions on 2A are permissible, federal or state.

      Never forget….the judicial branch, state or federal, is an integral part of “government”.

      • And as recently revealed vis-a-vis Roe v Wade, the SC can declare something 180 degrees opposite at any moment they like. I, for example have already declared on numerous occasions that 2A most certainly IS absolute, and I stand by with my loaded gun to back that declaration.

        • “I, for example have already declared on numerous occasions that 2A most certainly IS absolute…”

          There is academic absolute, and reality-based absolute. Being arrested and tried for violating an infringement is real world. Resisting arrest and trial due to use of a firearm in a prohibited location can become a terminal event, and at that point one reaches the final absolute…the dead no nothing.

  8. Just what is there about the Bruen Decision that means a psychiatric doctor can’t notate NICS?

  9. Just like the Federal GFSZA, it’s a law that hangs over the head of the law-abiding, but cannot be meaningfully enforced.

    Millions of people violate the GFSZA every day, but the Feds know if they try to enforce it (especially as a stand-alone charge) it would be found unconstitutional. They don’t care.

  10. We’ve heard for years, every time a state considered a “permitless carry” bill, how it will be the “Wild West” if we pass them. Hmm. A majority of states (and a HUGE majority of the country, in size) now have permitless carry. Where are the convoys of hearses, carrying away all the dead bodies. If ANY, they are in blue cities in those red states. The empirical reality is that, outside of “blue” cities, more guns have little or no effect on crime rates. I want the ability to protect myself and my family – what tools I choose for that purpose are literally none of anyone else’s effing business. I am responsible for when/how I deploy those tools, and the outcome. That is ALL anyone else needs to know.

    As for the author of this opinion piece, other than to snicker at her hyperbolic histrionics, my only comment is “about time you figured that out, dumbass; we’ve been telling you that for years”. Sorry, not sorry. I would suggest you could solve your “blue city” crime problem by either moving out (but we don’t want you, either) or actually ENFORCING THE DAMN LAWS, instead of giving violent felons a pat on the head and sending them out to rob, maim, and kill again. Try it – it can’t be any worse than the blue-city s***holes you’ve created.

    • “We’ve heard for years, every time a state considered a “permitless carry” bill, how it will be the “Wild West” if we pass them.”

      Florida in 1987 was among the first that passed ‘shall-issue’.

      The local rag was full of letters to the editor on how there will be gun battles in Wal Mart parking lots for spaces. Literal predictions of ‘streets running with rivers of blood’ crap.

      Then it passed, and *nothing* happened…

      • Vice versa, the AWB in 1994 was predicted by just EVERYBODY to save millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of lives every year, perhaps each week. Then it passed, and *nothing* happened …

  11. I will be really interesting to see if we start hearing reports of CCW holders getting their magazines checked by police when they are pulled over for something or even being pulled over by police just to check their magazine.

  12. Not quite sure which state is violating the our RIGHTS more? Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, the list of violators is ridiculous, as are the laws they are forcing upon Responsible Firearm Owners. Laws which will do next to nothing to prohibit what they moronically believe them to achieve.

    Hello SUPREME COURT, PLEASE take charge and Abolish ALL these Infringing Laws, before people begin to be arrested for practicing a right that is NOT TO BE INFRINGED.

  13. -“The law is also affecting the hunters.”- but but but, what about the second amendment?

  14. If you violate the new law even in a self-defense situation you will end up in the same jail cell as the criminal that attacked you. The law is designed to let you get to know your neighbors better.

    • dacain, the DUNDERHEAD. I have some very bad news for you. The Illinois new “law” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

  15. I’ll keep doing today what I did yesterday owning and carrying whatever I like in the great state if Florida since I sold the condo in the Logan Square neighborhood of Chicago and left six years ago. I moved my residency to Florida and haven’t looked back.

    I’m tired of hearing people whine about ill noises yet doing nothing about it. Pick up and leave -we aren’t welcome in hell anymore. Leave it to the damned -they deserve to be there.


  16. i moved to wisconsin from illinois in 2012
    because i suspected all this was coming
    there are so many guys i work with in chicago
    who live there or in the surrounding area
    that have moved to wisconsin or indiana
    in the last five years
    theres a lot of piece of mind
    living in a state
    thats run by grown ups
    and not marxist revolutionaries

    • Not for long as it seems Wisco is turning blue. My first 25 years there I always felt it leaned to the right and Ill was a weird other country feeling place but it’s eroding into a $hithole.

  17. “…a person authorized under this Section to possess an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge shall possess such items only…”

    Notice the key words above “authorized under this section”. That immediately prompts me to ask a serious legal question: why does the state have to “authorize” someone to possess those items? Doesn’t a person have the pre-existing right to possess those items (codified in the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment) and thus does not need the state to “authorize” them to possess those items? In other words, doesn’t the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment authorize us to possess those items and is Illinois therefore suckering people into unwittingly volunteering to subject themselves to state requirements?

    I am thinking of a similar situation where Illinois suddenly mandates restrictions on talking to friends. What if Illinois passed a law which said, “… a person authorized under this Section to talk to friends shall talk to such friends only…” Clearly, Illinois could prosecute anyone who violated their restrictions on talking to friends–and win if the defendant submitted to that law without invoking their First Amendment right to Free Speech.

  18. As always with the disarmament crowd. Restrict and punish those who have not committed a crime while allowing the actual criminals to run free and continue to prey upon the now disarmed and defenseless. Illinois is only the beginning of such laws in the upper mid-west. Wisconsin and Minnesota, and perhaps Michigan will follow suit soon enough.
    Alabama went permit less carry, not truly Constitutional Carry, back in Jan. Florida has managed to do the same. Would like to see them drop the rest of the restrictions imposed by the state, but not likely anytime soon.
    Real simple solution to much of the violent crime in most cases. Actually enforce the current laws, and actually prosecute for the crime without plea bargains or lessening charges. Anyone too dangerous to buy, possess, or carry a firearm of any kind is also too dangerous to be allowed to be outside of prison or a mental hospital.
    Commit a crime with a weapon, do an extra 5 years over the sentence for the basic crime. Simple robbery becomes an armed robbery and you get more time no time off or reduced sentence allowed. Actually injure someone during a felony level crime, and get an extra 10 years. Kill someone committing another crime, or commit 1st or 2nd degree murder and you go away for life, or face a death sentence in those states that still use it.

  19. In other Illinois news…the Department of Corrections received emergency funding in the amount of gazillions of dollars from the state legislature. Illinois projects the prison population to grow exponentially over the next few years.

  20. Maybe a bunch of gun owners should put on multicolor wigs, fishnet gun gear, labor union pins, blm/antifa flags and start a “non” violent riot…While doing such, blame the rich, the religious, conservatives, capitalist and whites for all your so called issues in life….Finally, they should make sure they say “raycisssm” a lot… …Maybe that will spook them into surrender…

  21. Anyone complying with this new law is a clown.

    You know the gang bangers certainly aren’t modifying their behavior.

    • “…how can we protect our self without firearms.”

      You have a moral and societal duty to the nation to die proudly, and patriotically for your luck in being born into the freest country on the planet. Your moral obligation is to die without causing some else to be harmed, or killed.

      Only through voluntary, sacrificial surrender can you glorify Dear Leader, and the People’s Republic of Delusion. Your demonstration of thankfulness for the good fortune of being a random victim, rather than a fascist bent on taking the lives of others, will be revered throughout the eternity, an example for all who understand the importance of service to the public. You will be a living testimony (ok, maybe not actually living) of how talk therapy will triumph over use of force.

      Your nation thanks you.

Comments are closed.