An Illinois bill that purportedly targets responsible firearms ownership is nothing more than just another way for the government to chisel more money from the hands of lawful firearm industry members in the Prairie State.
House Bill 3320 is called the “Responsibility in Firearm Legislation (RIFL) Act.” But according to the Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms (CCKRB), instead of having anything to do with responsible gun ownership, the measure would require law-abiding gun makers and gun sellers to pay a fee that would go toward programs helping victims of so-called “gun violence,” actually criminal violence.
Ultimately, of course, the cost would be footed by lawful gun owners, who have nothing to do with violent crime.
“This bill requires firearms manufacturers, importers and retailers to obtain a state license in order to sell their products to Illinois residents,” Alan Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman said in a news release about the measure. “It’s nothing more than a massive revenue generator to feed the state coffers at the expense of everyone in the firearms industry, starting with gunmakers and ending with gun dealers, who will pass these costs onto consumers.”
Although it is completely illogical, it is common for anti-gun legislators to blame law-abiding gun owners for the heinous acts of violent criminals. Other states have tried similar schemes to have gun owners foot the bill for carnage caused by criminals.
A synopsis of the Illinois legislation states: “Beginning January 1, 2028, a manufacturer of firearms may not operate in this State without a license from the Department and that a manufacturer who violates this provision is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000,000 per month. Beginning January 1, 2028, a retailer may not sell a firearm to a consumer in this State from a manufacturer who does not have a license from the Department and that a retailer who violates this provision is subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation, with certain requirements.”
The synopsis also states: “Establishes a financial assistance program in the Department with moneys from the RIFL Fund for financial assistance to victims of firearms and for other purposes.”
According to CCKRBA’s Gottlieb, it is unjust to penalize lawful firearm companies to fund health costs related to violent crime.
“The legislation essentially penalizes law-abiding businesses and individual gun buyers to finance the public health costs and financial burdens incurred as a result of violent crime in the state, for which gun makers and dealers, nor their customers, are responsible,” he added. “Essentially, honest business people and their customers are being financially scapegoated by politicians in Springfield who have repeatedly failed to prevent or even reduce violent crime, much of which is caused by repeat offenders who shouldn’t be out on the streets.”
we’re almost there.
ILL annoy may die by 2028. Or at least the porcine governor🙄
Has all the hallmarks of a barely legal extortion racket.
The Chicago Outfit would be proud.
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee…’
-Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
comes to mind.
Dear Mr. Chesnut,
Thank you for highlighting HB 3320, the RIFL Act, but key facts about the bill are misstated. This legislation isn’t a “cash grab” by the government; the government would neither levy nor receives a dime from this law. RIFL is about ending the free ride that gun manufacturers—including foreign giants like Glock, Sig Sauer, and Beretta—have enjoyed at the expense of American taxpayers–including responsible gun owners– for over 20 years.
Illinois taxpayers pay $625.5 million annually to cover medical costs of gun injury that corresponds to roughly 7,000 suicides, homicides, and shootings that occur every year when a gun does what it was intended to do.
So, here’s a question for your readers: Are you okay with footing the bill for a private industry’s liability?
Six hundred twenty-five and a half million dollars paid, year after year after year. We were shocked by these numbers—and so were the people we met in Peoria, Kankakee, Litchfield, Paris and other towns who weren’t aware of these costs or that they helped pay them. When we asked residents whether taxpayers or manufacturers should cover this expense, not a single respondent agreed that taxpayers should keep footing this bill.
Some members of the gun industry are fighting this law, of course, by casting the law as anti-Second Amendment, though responsible gun owners support it and the RIFL law supports citizens’ rights to lawfully bear arms. And to be clear, the RIFL Alliance supports the right of any American citizen to establish and run a lawful profitable business. We also agree that every corporation must act accountably and not pass along the costs of its products harms to the public.
Your blog post objects to the RIFL Act on the grounds of “government overreach,” even as others argue the contrary– that The PLCAA was a government overreach created to give an unfair advantage to a for-profit industry. Many, including you, have framed it as a problem caused by criminal use of firearms, when we know that roughly one-third to gun deaths in Illinois are self-inflicted. Here are the facts: No matter who pulls the trigger or for what reason, the Illinois public foots the bill for the injury and death by firearms.
Imagine what else we could do with $625.5 million: Fund veteran services, improve and expand early childhood education; provide grants to small businesses; improve senior care and mental health services; expand rural broadband; restore services after government cuts—any or all without raising taxes. Instead, we throw good money after bad for no one’s long-term benefit except the owners and shareholders of the multi-billion-dollar gun industry.
No other industry in the U.S. is shielded from the harms of its products when used as intended. Not auto, not tobacco, not big pharma. Why should the gun industry be different? The PLCAA, passed in 2005, was said to protect small businesses in the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits. Instead, it provided the industry with blanket immunity from nearly every legal claim and shifted the cost of ifs liabilities to the American public, largely through taxes paid to Medicaid.
In response, the RIFL Alliance arose as a multi-state movement that seeks to restore standard liability in the firearms manufacturing while protecting U.S. citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment.
We’d welcome the chance to meet with you and Mr. Gottlieb to clarify any remaining concerns as we work with lawmakers on the revised bill. The Truth About Guns supports gun owners’ rights. Why not advocate for relieving them of an unfair financial burden?
With appreciation