Gun ban updates
Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A Senate committee approved two bills yesterday. One was a ban on “assault weapons,” which the NRA claims would actually ban a whole lot of other guns…
“These military-style weapons have no use in our cities,” said Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said he believes the assault weapons bill goes too far.
“This will ban every semi-automatic handgun that accepts a magazine,” he said.
Jay Keller, executive director of the Illinois Firearms Manufacturer’s Association, said some weapons banned by the bill “are pistols or shotguns purchased by the average homeowner or the average hunter.” He also said the ban would cause some of the nearly 60 gun manufacturers located in Illinois to move to other states.
The bill was approved, but with no support from Republicans on the committee.
More…
Earlier, Vandermyde ridiculed how Democrats were aiming to restrict responsible gunowners from protecting themselves in the same manner as police officers or the state’s top elected officials, like Gov. Pat Quinn or Mayor Rahm Emanuel, are through their security details.
“I don’t understand why certainly the only ones who think their lives and their families, like the mayor and governor, are worthy of armed guard protection 24-7, yet now they want to dictate the terms and conditions I or my family use to protect ourselves when I have gang members living down the block in the suburbs,” Vandermyde told the panel.
* The other bill would ban large ammunition magazines. A similar bill passed the Senate in 2007…
In the wake of the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech, the Senate approved legislation banning ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
At the time, it garnered the support of a handful of Republicans, including state Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale, who ran for governor in 2010, and Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, who ran for lieutenant governor.
It did not advance in the House.
* The two bills have been sent to the Senate Executive Committee for a couple of amendments this morning to move up the effective dates of the bills by six months from Jan. 1, 2014 to July 1, 2013.
* What happens next…
Late Wednesday, Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) told the Chicago Sun-Times that he expects both measures to get full Senate votes on Thursday. Senate Democratic sources predicted ultimate narrow passage of the contentious legislation, but Cullerton was not prepared to publicly handicap things that way.
I don’t know yet. We didn’t do any roll calls yet,” Cullerton said when asked to assess the measures’ likelihood of passing the full Senate. “We just got them out of committee. People are working them.”
* Background from the Tribune…
[Sen. Kwame Raoul] said he doesn’t know whether there will be enough votes in the Senate to pass the assault weapons ban. “It’s one of those lame-duck roll calls where you don’t know what is going to happen,” he said.
The assault weapons ban is a perennial issue in Springfield, pushed repeatedly by former Mayor Richard M. Daley and now by Emanuel, who plans to hold a Thursday afternoon photo opportunity at St. Sabina Church to drum up public support for the bill. It has been a tough sell in a state divided by regional politics and ideologies, where the gun-control tendencies of Chicago-area lawmakers are generally canceled out by the gun-rights stances of downstate hunters.
This time out, the question is whether the Newtown massacre, with innocent children gunned down by a shooter who killed himself, is enough to garner a few more votes from those who typically would oppose an assault weapons ban.
The Senate could vote on the assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition bans on Thursday or Friday before senators are scheduled to leave town for the weekend. Should it get out of the Senate, the measure also would have to pass the House, which is scheduled to come back Sunday.
* As always, keep a close eye on our live session coverage for updates on this and other breaking stories.
* Related…
* VIDEO: Illinois Senate Returns to Springfield
* Mentally ill say more suburban housing options needed
- Sideliner - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:49 am:
Does citing as illegal any handgun with barrel shroud mean every pistol with a rackable slide is illegal? That’s every semi auto handgun, maybe 90% of what is made.
- anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:49 am:
your assault weapons ban link connects to a change in the sex offender code
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:49 am:
Not that I don’t think some of these gun ban bills are an overreaction, but it always amazes me that the NRA invariably takes the position that any gun laws are bad. Especially given recent events NOBODY, except the hard core gun rights advocates, is on their side. They only hurt their cause and make themselves look bad. Their PR machine is horrible.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:51 am:
anonymous, check the amendments.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:52 am:
This may shock some people, but as a liberal I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the guns in question to know which ones I want banned.
- Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:59 am:
Cheryl44, The bad guys will still have access to all the guns. This ban will not make any of us safer.
- save a horse ride a harley - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:03 am:
The last one left in Illinois after all the Big Brother legislation, turn the lights out. We can’t get jobs to come here with the tax structure and now we want to force more manufacturers to leave? Criminals don’t care about laws.
- downstate commissioner - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:04 am:
Cheryl, that’s the problem-neither do many of the legislators pushing for gun control-”do something (anything) now!. The ten-round + magazine ban is something that gun owners can live with, as long as it exempts .22s with integral magazines. The assault rifle ban is based too much on cosmetic appearances, and affects too many firearms with legitimate hunting and sporting purposes. The biggest problem is that registration of firearms will lead to confiscation; and before you blow that statement off, study some history; it has happened too many times in this world…
- corrected anon still confused - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:06 am:
Thank you Rich although now Im confused. Why would they add them to nuke safety and sex offenders bills?
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:10 am:
Under this legislation, my .22 semi-auto pistol could be banned while my .357 magnum revolver is legal. And I’m going to have to check the shotgun capacity to see if it would exceed the limit if it wasn’t plugged for hunting.
If I want to keep my .22 pistol (and maybe the shotgun), I have to provide proof of legal purchase and register it with the police so the State can compile a list of the guns people own.
I’ve had all my guns so long I can’t begin to find a purchase receipt or I’ve inherited them, so no purchase receipt exists. Not going to happen …
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:13 am:
Wonder if this is just an attempt by Chicago pols to get around their losing McDonald? This way they could say it is now State law and start the clock / lawsuits all over again … but with the State paying the bill?
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:14 am:
>>>>> but as a liberal I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the guns in question to know which ones I want banned.
Neither do the urban senate dems, they glom onto someone else’s legislation.
This is typical:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:15 am:
corrected anon still confused,
They were “shell” bills that were introduced a long time ago with some title and language. The GA keeps a bunch of these sitting around so they can change them via amendment at the last minute to try to pass whatever they want to in a hurry. But as Rich noted on the gay marriage issue, they kind of flubbed which shell bill they picked for that issue.
- Charlatan Heston - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:16 am:
I have read both bills. The same language appears in both. I agree with Demoralized, the NRA broken record of “any” firearms management is bad is just off. By the same token, the polar response of ban everything is equally as shallow. Personally I am tired of the 1 dimensional headline grabbing responses of most involved. Neither a ban on assault weapons nor armed security guards in schools will solve the complex problems of gang shootings or a mentally ill person responding to command or other hallucinations. Folks may feel good with passage but this is not just about firearms management….it is far more complex
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:16 am:
Interesting reading on the former “assault weapon” ban.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
The main point is that the old law banned a lot of cosmetic (foldable stocks,)unused (silencers), misundersttpd (shrouds), or common (magazine clips larger than 10 rounds) features that created no added death toll on the crimes committed. The law was based upon perceptions of what an assault weapon would look like if there were really such a thing as an assault weapon (the law created the category). It further points out that most crimes are NOT committed with such weapons.
I can’t imagine that proposed law is based on any better information.
- to confused anon - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:16 am:
To do exactly that. Confuse you and everyone else in this state. They are basically hiding their true agenda behind those titles. They are not adding to the bills, but completely re-writing them!
- Both Sides Now - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:16 am:
Thank you Cheryl44 - and that’s the problem! This is a knee-jerk reaction to appease the public and help the legislators feel that they “have done something” to make the world safer. In reality, by definition some of the guns this would ban are those used by legitimate hunters and some that are more than 50 years old. I don’t think that’s really the intent, but because the legislators know little to nothing about the subject they are willing to go along with the hysteria.
Further, if enacted, who is going to confiscate these currently legal guns from their FOID card carrying owners? Would the owners be compensated? We don’t have enough Illinois State Police to do this, we don’t have the money to pay more ISP, we don’t have the money to compensate the gun owners for taking something that is legally theirs, we will lose money on the state-owned recreational shooting facility in Sparta, lose money because of fewer FOID cards needed, lose money on fewer deer permits issued (because we won’t have the guns to shoot them with) and the public’s insurance will go up due to the increase in deer population since fewer are getting shot!
This is the problem folks - our legislators don’t think things through and consider all the consequences. I’m not a member of the NRA or the ISRA. I don’t own a gun but my husband does. And I have no doubt he’d use it if we had an intruder because if he didn’t we’d be dead before the Sheriff covered the five miles from town to our house. He also uses it on the coyotes that want to eat our cats, and the occassional possum or skunk that wanders up to the back porch.
We don’t all live in Chicago folks and the issues aren’t the same south of I-80. Guns are owned by law-abiding citizens and used for protection and sport here - not for killing the guy walking down the street with his hat turned a different way than yours. And do you really think that gang-banger is going to turn in his gun if a law is enacted? Get real!
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:19 am:
===They are basically hiding their true agenda behind those titles. ===
You must be new here. Amending bills like this is as old as Illinois. Take a breath.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:26 am:
@to confused anon:
The legislative process has always worked this way. People need to educate themselves. The synopsis of the bill never changes from the introduced bill. That is why you always have to look at the amendments. And, nobody is hiding anything. If you look at the summary of actions on the main page of each piece of legislation it will walk you through the process the bill has been through. I don’t know of anything more transparent than the record the GA website provides of ALL activities that have occurred with a bill, including all of the original language and the changes made.
- Mike M - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:29 am:
How many people died in Illinois last year due to assault weapons? We talking hundreds?
- Leave a Light on George - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:31 am:
I’m retired law enforcement. Purchased my service weapon when I retired. (S&W .40 cal model 4043). Wanted it for self defense. It holds 11 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. Little did I know I carried an “assault weapon” all those years!
Looks like I’ll be a lawbreaker soon.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:34 am:
Leave a Light on George,
yeah, but as retired LE, you can at least apply for concealed carry … so you can legally carry your illegal semi-auto
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:35 am:
Mike M -
No where near that. Unless you call any semi-auto pistol an “assault weapon”
just google Chicago 2011 murder analysis report. Pages 22 and 23 are real interesting.
Well from the CPDs own 2011 Murder analysis report we have some data…
433 Total murders in Chicago
361 were shooting victims 83% - Page 22.
Then it gets confusing for the mayor (and cops since the numbers change a little on page 23, but are close, they state 361 shooting murders, then on page 23 say its 362).
Breakdown:
351 were shot with a pistol.
1 was shot with a rifle.
5 with a shotgun.
and 5 “unknown”.
Assuming ALL of the unknowns are rifle shot. We cant say these are even “assault rifles” but lets assume even though statistically all unknowns being rifles and all being assault rifles is a reach.
That’s 6. SIX total, as compared to 351 with all the assumptions in the mayor’s favor. More than likely none of them were rifle shot (seeing how known incidents show a 1:351 ratio of rifles to pistols).
So basically an assault weapons ban does nothing, even if you could magically collect them all right?
1 out of 362 is 0.27% of the murders…
6 out of 362 is 1.6% assuming all of the numbers fall the Mayor’s way.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:48 am:
“the bad guys will still have access to all the guns”
And no matter what laws we pass, the bad guys will rob banks.
Forget it. Let’s legalize bank robbery.
That being said, from my reading it does seem that the bill goes to far in terms of banning specific weapons.
I like Todd, but I blame his organization. By opposing nearly all restrictions on equipment (he’s back just a few restrictions) he’s given up the field.
We need to do something about assault weapons. The federal ban did not work because the definitions were not effective.
The gun lobby can either work with people like Cullerton to draft a narrow bill, or just give up and walk away.
Looks like they’ve just decided to walk away.
- Molon Labe - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:48 am:
Go ahead and pass whatever you want. I will not register any of mine nor relinquish them or their magazines.
I refuse to play the scapegoat any longer for those that would ignore our laws against murder and mayhem. Politicians who continue to regurgitate legislation designed only to make criminals from law-abiding citizens who enjoy a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights are to be ignored and held with nothing but contempt.
- Pro-gun - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:53 am:
The number of people killed in Illinois in 2012 with “assault weapons” is ZERO! I follow this very closely. In all occasions, a small caliber handgun, rifle, or shotgun was used. In all gun crimes in the united states, only .82% were done with a “assault Rifle” stats obtained from the FBI crime statistics web sight. Check it yourself is you have any questions.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:55 am:
Pro-Gun, what is your source for that zero figure?
- Dirty Birdy - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:55 am:
I wonder what Sheila Simon thinks about this.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:56 am:
Was there not general agreement among the legislature and the ISRA on a new gun bill that got trumped by the Governor’s disapproval and the resulting Constitutional court cases?
- Motambe - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:56 am:
As a hunter and recreational target shooter I own a number of the firearms which would be banned. But given the senseless killings in our nation in recent years, a debate on meaningful changes in gun owner restrictions is merited. But I mean a serous debate, not a rushed, two day, end of term, shove-it-down-their-throats passage of bad legislation that will end up in the courts for years.
Gun control advocates state that firearms have changed since the Second Amendment was written, so the Amendment needs to be interpreted differently. Maybe it is time to examine its meaning in modern society.
But if we “update” our interpretation of the Second Amendment, then why not the First, or the rest of the Bill of Rights? In 1791 Freedom of the press meant exactly that - newspapers and pamphlets were printed on a press. There was no concept of the electronic media. Maybe we should license journalists, require registration of their computer terminals and IP addresses, and mandate background checks for anyone who works for the media, print or electronic.
Caution is required in taking a carefully considered, well-reasoned step in the right direction, as opposed to the hurried, reactionary step that leads down a “slippery slope.”
- Molon Labe - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:58 am:
“We need to do something about assault weapons. The federal ban did not work because the definitions were not effective.
The gun lobby can either work with people like Cullerton to draft a narrow bill, or just give up and walk away.”
No - we don’t.
Not a single firearm that I own - many of which fall under the erroneous definition of ‘assault rifle’ has ever been used to commit a crime. The same may be said for millions of firearms nationwide.
If you want to fix the issues of school shootings and rampant violence, deal with the causes - not the tools. Banning a semi-automatic, magazine-fed weapon will not make one iota of difference in these events. They will continue to happen so long as we ignore the consequences of overuse of psychotropic pharmacopia combined with the desire to mainstream mentally-deranged individuals into society.
Stop attempting to criminalize legal behavior by those who have no criminal intent and fix the underlying issues.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
ML,
More changes in magazine means fewer bullets per minute and a great chance a magazine will jam.
In contrast, a large magazine does nothing when a bad guy comes through your door and if you need a 30 round mag to take down Bambi, you need to get out of the woods.
Yes, getting rid of large magazines makes us all safer. I realize some people think they are fun, but our safety is more important than your good time.
- Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:10 pm:
Actually Skeeter, high capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than the 10 round. And as I said on the other post, reloading with a second magazine takes VERY little time.
Someone with 10 - 10 round magazines can very likely get more rounds on target in less time than 1 - 100 round magazine or even 3 - 30 round magazines.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:12 pm:
=== Not that I don’t think some of these gun ban bills are an overreaction, but it always amazes me that the NRA invariably takes the position that any gun laws are bad. Especially given recent events NOBODY, except the hard core gun rights advocates, is on their side. They only hurt their cause and make themselves look bad. Their PR machine is horrible. ===
Actually, the opposite is true. According to a recent Gallup poll (taken after Sandy Hook), 54 percent of Americans maintain a favorable view of the NRA. That is a very strong number considering it was taken right after Sandy Hook. Moreover, I imagine if the question was on preserving gun rights, not specific to the NRA, the numbers would go up from there. This is a pro-gun country.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:12 pm:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159578/nra-favorable-image.aspx
- USMCJanitor - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:13 pm:
Skeeter. They are not talking about 30 round magazines.. they are talking about 10 Ever been in a gun fight? I have. Probably more gunfights than most cops have been in. you need more ammo.
No one needs 30 rnds for bambi. I want 30 rounds for sport and just in case.
You dont believe in civilians owning firearms, ok. I get that. But 30 rnds or 10 makes no difference other than to turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
BTW, any of these laws will cost Illinois Millions in legal fees and will be struck down.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:16 pm:
Skeeter, extremist attitudes like yours are why law abiding gun owners don’t trust advocates for “reasonable” gun control. Your tendency to belittle anyone who disagrees with you is sadly common among the antis.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
Ken, what exactly is extreme about my views? To most people, they would seem moderate.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:24 pm:
Not, so high capacity mags are slow and they jam easily? So why are you clinging to them?
- Aldyth - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:27 pm:
When was the last mass shooting we had in Illinois? NIU in DeKalb. The perpetrator used a shotgun and a Glock. I’m supporting legislation that will reduce the likelihood of these mass killings. Hunters, defenders of family and home, and other sane uses of pistols and rifles, I have no problem with.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:28 pm:
I have speed loaders for my .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver. With a little practice I can reload that firearm quite quickly. This attempt to control firearms by banning high capacity magazines will effect nothing. Banning “assault weapons” will effect nothing. Folks got around the previous ban quite easily.
The fact that the most recent incidents involved noticeably mentally ill persons is being ignored. I saw in another posting where a seriously mentally ill person wasn’t chaged with a crime after having threatened to kill his children with a bathtub filled with gasoline.
The blind are leading the blind. Or maybe I should say it is the obtuse are leading the obtuse. I shouldn’t compare these grandstanders to the legitimately disabled.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:34 pm:
Ken in Aurora - VERY well said!
- Molon Labe - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:52 pm:
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
ML,
More changes in magazine means fewer bullets per minute and a great chance a magazine will jam.
In contrast, a large magazine does nothing when a bad guy comes through your door and if you need a 30 round mag to take down Bambi, you need to get out of the woods.
Yes, getting rid of large magazines makes us all safer. I realize some people think they are fun, but our safety is more important than your good time.
Obviously, you have never shot competition or have any concept about the true nature of guns. I can load and fire a 6-round revolver at a cyclic rate of 30-40 rounds per minute under simulated combat conditions. It is nothing but training and practice.
Nice straw-man argument about Bambi and my good time though. This has nothing to do with either; it has everything to do with lazy politicians who always take the easiest way out and solve nothing. So long as people like you can wring your hands and agonize that ‘we must do something’, nothing of substance will be addressed.
If you think for one minute that you are going to ‘get rid’ of high-capacity magazines (another misnomer since for rifles such as the AR-15A2 the 30-rnd. magazine is STANDARD capacity) you are woefully naive. If you think that most law-enforcement officials (other than pseudo-politico chiefs-of-police) support this, you are mistaken.
Debate with the ‘we must do something’ crowd is pointless.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
ML,
What?
- Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:23 pm:
= Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:24 pm:
Not, so high capacity mags are slow and they jam easily? So why are you clinging to them? =
I have a 6 shot revolver and a 5 round pump shotgun (with a plug that keeps it limited to 3 rounds for hunting). I don’t “cling” to either.
I am for sensible legislation not knee-jerk reactions that bypass sensibility for immediacy.
- Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:24 pm:
The extreme and uneducated arguments from Skeeter simply make me shake my head. The viewpoint is extreme because the ’solutions’ proposed have no rational relationship with reality. It is uneducated because of the lack of knowledge on how guns are used. e.g. in Illinois one cannot hunt Bambi with a rifle, regardless of the number of bullets it may hold or style it may be.
In my view, it is magical thinking to believe that criminalizing various forms of weapons makes anyone safer. The basis seems to be a basic fear of weapons of any kind, coupled with a belief that making legal guns go away is going to it make all better.
When the politicians all give up their own weapons permits, (especially their bogus security job based permits) and eschew any kind of armed personal protection - no armed guards at public buildings or escorts, I will start to listen to their ideas.
If there are sensible loopholes to close, so be it. Claiming that the previous AW ban did not work because it was not strict enough is a fantasy.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:25 pm:
Pluto,
If you think “banning 30 round mags” is extreme, you should not be around guns.
Or sharp objects.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
Notacop,
I notice you ignored the question.
You claim that high capacity mags are slow and they jam.
Then why are you so in love with them?
If I had tool that didn’t work, I would toss it.
- The Ghost in The Darkness - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:38 pm:
Guess you didn’t like my comment. Ban all guns! NOT!! If these people want to ban guns then Quinn and the Mini GOD in Chicago need to give up their ARMED Bodyguards, nothing to fear by law abiding citizens.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
Skeeter you are really digging yourself in deeply on this issue, lol.
Discretion is the better part of valor, yo
- Liberty_First - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:04 pm:
According to the FBI there were 12,664 murder victims in 2011. Of those 323 people killed from rifles. 1694 were murdered with knives. Half were handguns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:09 pm:
Anon,
Bite me.
- Judgment Day - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:12 pm:
This gun control legislation will be a ‘good faith’ effort to pass something, as noted it will need bipartisan support to go forward - of which there will be none, and that doesn’t even begin to take into account all the downstate Democrats who want no part of this mess, and are increasingly unlikely to support it.
This might just be Democratic leadership’s way of telling all the gun control advocates that it’s a stupid play, and it’s going nowhere. And getting the message out early, so they can then move on to other bigger, more important (and more achievable) agenda items.
If the legislature were really serious about gun control, wouldn’t it be more likely that the legislation wouldn’t have been so poorly drafted?
IMO, this whole effort by the Senate Democrats has been an unbelievable gift to the NRA and all gun rights advocates. Because from here on out, everybody is going to be able to point to this legislation and say, “See, this is what these anti gun fanatics want to do when they get control”.
Not a smart move. And as a btw, the marketplace is speaking really loudly. 30 round (and larger) mags are pretty much sold out, and when for sale, the prices have skyrocketed. And semi auto rifles like .223 Bushmasters are right at two grand, with Colt .223 units even higher (that’s a lot higher in price than 2 months ago).
Confiscating all that iron is going to cost the State of Illinois a whole lot of money we don’t have. Just what we need, something to spend even more money on, which we don’t have.
- Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:18 pm:
For the record, the bills that are out there make no mention of confiscation.
Existing equipment is grandfathered in although it is supposed to be registered with the state police by providing proof of purchase.
How you are supposed to provide proof of purchase for guns that may be decades old and purchased by your grandfather is beyond me. I guess if you sell it to your spouse or other family member before the ban goes into effect they would then have proof of purchase to be able to legally register it. This would allow the licensed gun shops to make LOTS of money for FFL transfers.
- downstater - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:25 pm:
Skeeter and those like him are the reason that you can’t argue with libs about guns. They don’t have the knowledge about guns and only know how to regurgitate the talking points that their Dem leaders throw out to sensationalize the issue.
The problem is not the guns themselves. It is the people that get access to guns and do illegal things. What we need to do is shutdown access to guns by people that shouldn’t have them. This includes the mentally unstable, felons, habitual drug users and the like. We need to toughen penalties for being a straw buyer and providing access to guns for people that shouldn’t have them.
I had a conversation with a cousin of mine over the holidays and it was quite astounding. He is a suburb dweller and not a gun owner. We were discussing the coming CCW legislation. At one point he actually said, “What happens if the gun goes off?” I had to explain that guns don’t just go off. This from a 44 year old adult.
It is not the size of the magazines. A person with practice makes reloading any size magazine very fast. It is not restrictions on law-abiding citizens that our politicians need to worry about. Concentrate on the root of the problem and not the flashy stuff that the media likes.
- sarsenior - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
Guys it is not just about the amount of shells. This Bill is about all Semi Auto type weapons. Which I can say that for those that hunt, many times it requires a very quick shot, or the game is lost to suffer, and food is not on the table. Then comes the “I wonder how many that voted Nay”, actually do have a weapon of choice, but voted Nay, so they can gain support from the other Nay Sayers for other items on the table, but all at the expense of the legal gun people that are not going out a shoot everyone in sight. From my standpoint, I do not agree with the Ban. If you own a weapon of choice, ok. If you are in the minority that do not, then your facts are considered Here Say from others. And that folks is why these Bills come up for a vote, as it is a side with by buddy.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:34 pm:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:37 pm:
Downstater,
Nice rant.
If large mags are not a benefit, why have them?
And yes, I do worry about you. So many of you gun people are, to be frank, paranoid and delusional. You think people are out to get you. You need to stay away from guns and sharp objects. You need therapy.
- Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:43 pm:
Personal insults are always a good way to get people to change their opinion and agree with you.
Also really a great way to convince bystanders that your position is the right position…
Skeeter, I notice you tend to skip over the rational arguments and pick at little statements rather than address the real issue. Hard to have a constructive conversation that way.
I think I am going to have to chalk this one up as an “agree to disagree” and bow out of this discussion.
- AnotherAnonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:46 pm:
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:09 pm:
Anon,
Bite me. -
Ah, the last ditch statement of one who has lost an argument. What comes next - name calling and suggestions that your opponent has mental issues? Oops! Already happened (”So many of you gun people are, to be frank, paranoid and delusional. You think people are out to get you. You need to stay away from guns and sharp objects. You need therapy.”)
- Madison - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:51 pm:
Why does anyone need more than a single shot weapon anyway? Furthermore, when the second amendment was framed, our forefathers framed the amendment around single shot muzzle loading weapons. How many shots do you need to dispatch either a criminal or some poor deer?
- railrat - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
I love this “give and take” and the clock ticks to Judge Posners date….tick tock I look forward to waching Todd walk from the Statehouse Inn to the Capitol with his AR shouldered and LEGAL !!! come on folks get down and negotiate a legitimate bill for Illinois…sheesh
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
Fascinating post, Not.
I note that you have yet to explain why, if big magazines are so terrible and ineffective, you need them.
Before screaming about lack of facts, review your own work.
Also great to see that you think Anon 1:48 rant, which ended in “yo” was kind and polite.
Looks like we have different standards.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
Rail,
A quick head’s up — Judge Posner’s ruling dealt with conceal carry.
None of Cullerton’s bills deal with conceal carry.
- Liberty_First - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:00 pm:
Skeeter, Only 14% of murders are by strangers and most murders occur in the city, so if you don’t know anyone who owns a gun and you don’t live in an urban poor area, you don’t need to be afraid.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:03 pm:
LF,
Tell that to the Newton parents.
- Liberty_First - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:13 pm:
You don’t need to be afraid Skeeter.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
=== Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:24 pm:
Not, so high capacity mags are slow and they jam easily? So why are you clinging to them?===
I read notacop’s post. He never said the high capacity mags are slow - YOU did. Read his post. He also said that the capacity of the magazine would not likely change the outcome of a melee because anyone can reload either a semi-auto handgun or a revolver quite easily and quickly. Your arguement, then, is about preference. Why DO we “cling” to the high capacity magazine. Answer - preference. Since banning same won’t have any effect on the incidents, why do YOU cling to the worthless arguement?
- downstate commissionet - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:18 pm:
Madison @2:51, am not getting into how many shots it takes to do the job, because it is irrelevant. The framers of the constitution did not frame the 2nd Amendment around single shot weapons. They framed it around the need for self-protection, for protection against governments, and the right to own such protection. These people had just won a revolution against the most powerful military nation in the world. And basically, the opposing army and the revolutionaries were all armed the same(single-shot muzzleloaders). Why do you think that they would be against civilians being armed with the same weapon as the military? In fact, back before Heller, there was a certain element that felt that if only militias were covered by the 2nd Amendment, then the only protected weapon was a full-automatic M-16.
- reformer - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:22 pm:
Even if Kotowski’s bill get out of the Senate, there’s no reason to think they could get 60 votes in the House. Downstate Dems except Naomi are all opposed.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:26 pm:
Du Page Dan,
Do you often prefer an inferior product?
- downstate commissioner - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:28 pm:
Concealed carry-wondered when it was going to be thought of again. Does anyone think that Judge Posner will agree that allowing only single-shot weapons for concealed carry will comply with his mandate? (note-”single-shot weapons” is sarcastic)
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:38 pm:
Skeeter,
I hope you aren’t posting from your phone while driving 120+. School just let out and I think we’d all agree your self professed driving habits are a greater danger to children in this state than a 30 round magazine.
- titan - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:44 pm:
@ Madison - “How many shots do you need to dispatch either a criminal or some poor deer? ”
I missed it, does the new legislation require that all criminals operate solo? Will “gangs” then be a thing of the past?
- Maxine on Politics - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:09 pm:
It is so sad that many in Illinois miss the point, the cause is not the guns but MENTAL ILLNESS. Wake up! Not one person that has committed the horrible mass shootings is sane, they were mentally ill or a terrorist. It is easy for Chicago/Quinn to paper gun laws that stop their foolish spending and put their money where their mouth is and …it is MENTAL HEALTH.
- downstater - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:27 pm:
Skeeter,
To blame an inanimate object for problems is simply not logical. To do so over and over might be considered insane.
BTW, the reason why we need 30 round magazines-because we can. The Constitution of the United States says so and if you don’t like it, move to some socialist hellhole you traitorous piece of $hit.
If you want to resort to name calling we can. Rational adults have rational arguements. I see you dismissing everyone else with childish comebacks. When you’ve lost an arguement, be a man about it.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:36 pm:
Down,
The idea that you view your argument as rational is odd at best.
Since inanimate objects can’t be blamed, people should have access to nukes.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:50 pm:
Skeeter,
Lets address root causes; let’s outlaw:
gangs
drugs
murder
assault
battery
domestic violence
Oh, we’ve already got laws against all that … so we don’t need any more laws.
Guess what … compared to the rest of the country, Illinois has some of the strongest gun laws on the books … so we don’t need more laws.
Maybe what we need is some actual enforcement of the existing laws …
- Madison - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:55 pm:
Hand grenades don’t kill people! People do!
So why can’t we all have hand grenades?
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 6:20 pm:
Skeeter, FWIW, I agree with you and I like to shoot at paper bad guys almost as much as I like to hoon my car.
I have read the Constitution countless times and can’t recall seeing 30-round magazine in there.
- railrat - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 7:05 pm:
skeeter @2:59 sorry so long to reply …I was driving…I think you are astute enough to evaluate the big picture vs. piece meal nit picking…oh sorry I just read your responses from 2:59 on… my mistake
- SR1911 - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:03 pm:
The lack of logic displayed by the Chicago liberals is astounding. Gun bans only affect the law abiding citizen. Criminals and mental cases will always find a way to do their evil deeds. If this ban becomes law nearly every gun owner in the state will become a criminal. Even if our guns are gradfathered in I seriously doubt gun owners will be open to registration. Registration preceeds confiscation.
- imperial - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:10 am:
Hi Skeeter I totaly understand your oposition to guns so when you are being attacked and your wife is being raped don’t worry I won.t bring any guns to help you!!!!!!!!!!
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 6:11 am:
At 2:00 a.m., “Imperial” is fantasizing about rape?
Add him to the list of people who should never have a gun.
- imperial - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 7:21 am:
No Skeeter just has no clue about the real world.
- imperial - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 7:23 am:
I guess he Skeeter just could not come up with a better answer.
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 8:43 am:
Skeeter, late night must bring out the wingnuts, eh?
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 8:54 am:
AA,
No kidding.
Anybody wondering why I don’t post in my real name need look no further than that post.
- Both Sides Now - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 9:55 am:
Simple fact: For 28 years CHICAGO had a handgun ban which was subsequently overturned by the Courts in 2010. Yet in 2008, Chicago had more than 500 murders, the vast majority of which were by guns. The point here is that you can make all the gun laws you want and take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens who legally own them, BUT THE CRIMINALS WILL STILL HAVE THEM AND USE THEM!!!
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:02 am:
Both Sides Now,
You are absolutely right. Gun control limited to one city is destined to fail. Unless you put border guards up and a fence, guns are going to come in.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:23 am:
>>>>>> Unless you put border guards up and a fence, guns are going to come in.
I would ask my rep and senator to support such a bill.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:27 am:
So would I, John.
You people walk too slowly and you drive the wrong way down our streets. And you don’t get that street lights go from green to yellow to red. If it is yellow and the traffic has not cleared the intersection, don’t enter.
Maybe you people should have to pass a driving test before coming here.
- Endangered Moderate Species - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:24 am:
What is this irritation that itches?
Oh, it’s just a Skeeter bite.