Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » Question of the day
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Question of the day

Tuesday, Jul 12, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Synopsis of Rep. Maura Hirschauer’s HB5522

Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Makes it unlawful to deliver, sell, or purchase or cause to be delivered, sold, or purchased or cause to be possessed by another, an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge. Makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess an assault weapon, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge 300 days after the effective date of the amendatory Act, except possession of weapons registered with the Illinois State Police in the time provided. Provides exemptions and penalties. Prohibits delivery, sale, purchase or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Provides exemptions and penalties.

Full text is here. The bill now has more than 50 co-sponsors.

* The Question: Do you support this bill? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

* Related…

* Illinois Doesn’t Ban Assault Rifles. A Petition Demanding It Gains Rapid Support: Within 13 hours, as of about 9 p.m. Thursday, his petition calling on legislators to pass Hirschauer’s proposal and for Pritzker to sign it into law, had amassed more than 26,600 signatures.

          Click here to help buy presents for LSSI foster kids!

  1. - Rockford's Finest - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 12:45 pm:

    It will create a buying frenzy, and certainly won’t stop mass shootings/violence, but yes, it makes sense and should be passed. No one needs these types of weapons.

  2. - Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 12:46 pm:

    I still want to know how Todd would reduce mass shootings.

  3. - ;) - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 12:47 pm:

    Yay, another gun bill that won’t stop anything, doesn’t address the problem of criminals with guns, and doesn’t put a single person currently wreaking havoc in this state behind bars for a long, long time. Another do nothing bill.

  4. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 12:49 pm:

    I voted “No” but could support it with some changes. I am not sure why the bill goes after .50 guns. These are not used in mass shootings. They are incredibly expensive to buy and to shoot. I guess you could register them and be ok according to the bill but this just seems like wasted energy and time. I am ok with the rest.

  5. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 12:50 pm:

    ===These are not used in mass shootings===

    Um, yes, they are.

  6. - The Abyss - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 12:56 pm:

    I stand corrected. The bill spells it out pretty clear. I support this as introduced.

  7. - Baloneymous - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 12:58 pm:

    Whether it cause stockpiling or buying frenzies, something needs to be done. Mental health is not the only issue with mass shootings, it’s the guns and high capacity magazines too.

  8. - Curious citizen - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:00 pm:

    TOTALLY support this bill, because, right up to the moment that he pulled the trigger and shot people at a parade, the Highland Park shooter was a “law-abiding gun owner.” Time to control weapons of war.

  9. - IL4Ever - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:01 pm:

    Here’s a separate idea: A national firearm property tax. An annual renewal fee. That first requires a national registry to track all gun sales, which two-thirds of Americans support. But make the fee like $1,000 for assault weapons, $100 for handguns, $50 for hunting rifles. First payment at the time of purchase. Maybe people think twice about owning something that costs them money every year. Maybe fewer 18 year olds can afford it.

    But it’s a constitutional right… can it be taxed? Well free press is a constitutional right. The New York Times and Fox News pay taxes. The right to assembly is in the first amendment. You have to pay a permit fee to have a protest.

    This maintains the right to bear arms per this Supreme Court but disincentivizes ownership and we can use the money 1/3 for public schools, 1/3 for public safety, and 1/3 for mental health services.

    And for states that don’t want their gun owners to pay the tax out of some libertarian principle, they (the State) can pay for the total amount of firearm property tax collections out of their general funds directly to the federal government, and not tax individual gun owners. That’d be socializing the cost onto non-owners, if they so chose.


  10. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:01 pm:

    Voted “yes”, and here’s why, very pointedly and very specifically;

    For me, I’m at the point with this specific bill, I want to hear reasonable and substantive reasoning why it (or for me, “I”) should be against such a bill.

    I try not to wade into 2A issues, I like to read how each side makes their case to the issue within the 2A.

    To Rich’s question, and why I voted “yes”, I’d like to hear the case against it, outside the hyperbole, and outside the standard pushback. I want to hear why this is a bad bill.

    Until I hear/read the arguments for “no”, I’m a “yes”, and not a yes by any default.

  11. - The Young Gov - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:01 pm:

    Real, legitimate question:

    ===It will create a buying frenzy===

    Real legitimate comment:
    ===doesn’t address the problem of criminals with guns==

    Crimo was not a criminal with a gun until he started shooting or carrying without a CCL. If this bill passed, he would be a criminal before he started shooting.

  12. - ChicagoVinny - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:01 pm:

    Yes, there is a clear correlation between the federal assault weapons ban expiring and mass shooting deaths and injuries increasing. Bans work in other countries too.

  13. - phocion - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:02 pm:

    These weapons and bullets are not used for hunting of self defense. There are plenty of guns that will still be legal to purchase if these go away. The risk posed by making these weapons available far outweighs any Second Amendment consideration.

  14. - New Day - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:02 pm:

    Yes, 100%. And no, it won’t be upheld in court.

  15. - Amalia - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:05 pm:

    Yes. but I would like it to have some clarity. I don’t think it leaves up to the ISP to determine which firearms fall under the prohibition. It defines the weapons. what should happen is that it can generally state BUT provide a caveat that the ISP shall determine the types of weapons that cannot be sold. that way they can go into the back catalogue and move forward. the only product in the US which is not regulated/approved for sale should be approved. AND enforced. for the longest time in Illinois the ISP did not enforce a regulation from the 1970s on junk guns, a temperature melt standard. set laws and enforce them.

  16. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:06 pm:

    Read the full text. Have a number of questions. Here is one:

    Why are owners required to have a locking mechanism for an ‘assault rifle’ if it is stored in a gun safe?

  17. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:09 pm:

    Voted opposed.

    Don’t see the need to register an ‘assault rifle’ that was legally purchased through an FFL dealer where all the paperwork and background checks were already approved and on record.

  18. - DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:13 pm:

    I voted yes but will be tossed out by courts and to be a cynic probably just a fund raiser for both parties. But since the Democrats have a super majority they should keep passing more and more bills like this. How about mandatory insurance mandatory training. Keep trying something might stick

  19. - Seats - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:14 pm:

    I’m a “no” vote if the courts won’t uphold it. Will cause people to buy even more assault rifles during the 300 day window of legality out of fear of now or never. So if the courts won’t allow for the ruling to take place its not worth the passage.

    If the supreme court would likely allow it, then I would be a yes vote.

  20. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:15 pm:

    == That first requires a national registry to track all gun sales, which two-thirds of Americans support ==

    I question that number. Without knowing the details, I suspect it was from a push poll.

    I would definitely oppose a national registry. History has shown registration is often followed by confiscation.

  21. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:17 pm:

    Not to challenge your authority here, but can you share the last time a .50 BMG was used in a mass shooting?

    The rifles that I am aware of start at $10,000 and are used for long distance target shooting or as sniper rifles in the military. Full auto are not sold to citizens. These are not guns that are easily carried and about impossible to conceal.

    I could be wrong, I am just not aware of any that have been used.

    And I am not saying anyone NEEDS one either.

  22. - Illinois - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:17 pm:

    Without reading the entire bill, does this deal with high-capacity magazines that are at the root of this violence? This draft bill is a good start - not perfect - but a good start so I voted “yes”

  23. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:20 pm:

    ===History has shown registration is often followed by confiscation.===

    Citation needed.

  24. - mrothjr - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:21 pm:

    I could understand (not support, mind you, but understand), a ban on sales and delivery of more than 10 round magazines. But banning possession of ones we might already own today really bothers me as a law abiding person.

  25. - Shibboleth - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:26 pm:

    =History has shown registration is often followed by confiscation=

    I will echo 47th’s call for citation, but also…good. The US’s problem with gun violence is having too many guns. The average person doesn’t need one, and is statistically more likely to die if they do own a gun []. The fact that the US has more guns than people is the number one reason we cannot get a handle on gun violence.

  26. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:28 pm:

    ===History has shown registration is often followed by confiscation.===

    I’d need a citation as well, it’s these arguments where if I were to be swayed, I need to see these types of statements in a context

  27. - Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:30 pm:

    Yes, for the same reasons we don’t allow private pilots to own fully armed fighter aircraft or allow them to place surface to air, air to air missiles or bombs on their private aircraft.

  28. - Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:31 pm:

    -Citation needed.-

    Clinton and Obama took everyone’s guns. Don’t remember? /s

  29. - Downstate Sportsman - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:35 pm:

    I voted no and here is why:

    The commonly overlooked solution is more training. Specifically, residents that are under the age of 25 needs firearms training before they should be able own a firearm. The training and instilled fear of the firearm is non-existent anymore. I would like to see the state make serious investment in training courses for firearm ownership for those under 25. The money should go to ISP, who can bring in veterans and troopers to teach these courses as a requirement. There should also be a mental health portion of the requirement, which could help catch these domestic terrorists’ before they have a chance to carry out these heinous acts.

    In my humble opinion, if you truly believe that banning “assault weapons” for most residents is the right answer, then you are choosing to tell downstate they don’t matter and they’re too stupid to understand.

  30. - very old soil - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:37 pm:

    It’s a long list. But I didn’t see any mass shootings. Four federal agents were killed at Waco and Branch Dividians had .50 caliber weapons

  31. - well... - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:38 pm:

    Voted no. Criminal/improper use of .50 caliber weapons is vanishingly rare, especially in the United States.

    If the Dems want to have authority on this issue, they should focus on the guns that are actually being used to kill people - cheap handguns for gang killings and other street crime, and AR-15s for mass shootings.

  32. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:39 pm:

    Yes. Do not want Illinois to be associated any longer with these weapons of mass murder and injury. We can’t control what other states do, but these weapons and accessories should no longer be sold, delivered or bought in this state.

  33. - Steve - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:45 pm:

    I voted no. I read the detailed bill. I am not sure that the bill pass muster now that Clarence Thomas and the U.S. Supreme majority called gun ownership a 14th Amendment right along being a second amendment right. Can assault weapons be banned or partially banned ? Are assault weapons going to be treated different than handguns in federal court?

  34. - NickNombre - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:49 pm:

    I voted no. I think making possession of one of these items a felony for the first offense is excessive. I expect there will be quite a few people who fail to register existing guns and ammunition. Do we really want to make these people felons? This seems like the same overreaction we had with drug offenses.

    I think a misdemeanor for a first offense is more reasonable and would still accomplish the desired goal. Gun shops would no longer be able to sell them, people wouldn’t be able to use them at ranges, and if the police encounter them, they could seize them.

  35. - AlfondoGonz - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 1:52 pm:

    Voted yes.

    I don’t trust people who think they need this kind of artillery.

  36. - ddp76 - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:00 pm:

    I’ve long believed that the Heller decision laid out just such a road map. Of course the court has changed since then, but you know what? Let’s find out.

    Deerfield has a ban that has been upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court as well as by the Seventh Circuit Federal Court.

  37. - USMC - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:00 pm:

    It’s a start. But .50 Cal is not an AR style weapon. I don’t recall Mass shooter using .50 cal. Either way, IMHO, minors should not have access to this either.

  38. - Matt B - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:04 pm:

    “Deerfield has a ban that has been upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court as well as by the Seventh Circuit Federal Court.”

    That’s all pre Bruen. It’s a whole new ballgame with a new standard of review now. The two step intermediate scrutiny review that has been used by the circuit courts to uphold gun bans has been explicitly repudiated by the Supreme Court.

  39. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:04 pm:

    Germany pre-WW II. Selective against various groups.

    Russia - post Czar period

    there are more … but I’m traveling with the grandkids and not taking the time now.

  40. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:11 pm:

    I figured there’d be a reference to Germany. Pro-gun propagandists invented the “registration is the first step to confiscation” canard.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you take it as a fact because that’s how effective propaganda is. Lots of people agree with you too.

  41. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:13 pm:

    With incredible and unwavered respect for - RNUG -, one I’ve nominated numerous times for a Golden Horseshoe, a winner of the award too…

    If the examples are Russia and Germany…

    … that’s the type of conspiracy theory that now hollows the GOP, while also emboldening and empowering the GOP to think that totalitarianism is possible?

  42. - rtov - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:23 pm:

    Stricter background checks got voted down in a previous poll on this blog… this bill passed with flying colors. Go figure.

  43. - Baloneymous - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:24 pm:

    ===I figured there’d be a reference to Germany.===

    Godwin’s law has entered the chat.

  44. - Huh? - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:28 pm:

    No. The definition of an “assault weapon” is too broad such that it could include hunting rifles that have detachable magazines and bipods. It is too broad because it could include semi automatic shotguns used for hunting.

  45. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:32 pm:

    ===it could include===

    Is this the slippery slope argument or an ask that the bill be more specific to what is a definition for this bill?

    I’m asking, and not rhetorically.


  46. - Huh? - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:34 pm:

    So if someone legally bought a .50 BMG rifle 10 years ago. Shot it a few times and has it stored in a gun safe. within a year of passage, that gun would be illegal.

    Lawsuit in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  47. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:37 pm:

    ===Lawsuit in 3 … 2 … 1 …===

    As DeVore has proved, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna win.

  48. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:38 pm:

    ===It is too broad because it could include semi automatic shotguns used for hunting.===

    Current law limits hunters using semi-automatic shotguns to three shells even though many are designed to hold five or more. That’s been the law in Illinois since before I was born. I have never heard a hunter complain about needing a plug in his semi-automatic shotgun.

  49. - Minney Fourteen - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:43 pm:

    OW, calling out slippery slope arguments is pretty hypocritical when you did the same with abortion.

    I voted no because its unconstitutional, and it will be thrown out before the ink is dry on JB’s signature. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why any gun owner would support it.

  50. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:44 pm:

    =The definition of an “assault weapon” is too broad =

    You must not have read the full text of the bill. Exceptions/definitions for hunting guns (rifles and shotguns) are very specifically addressed. Your slippery slope is not in fact slippery. They did a pretty nice job in this area and that is the reason I would support the bill without reference to the .50BMG which I just don’t really get.

  51. - thisjustinagain - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:46 pm:

    NO. A rifle is a rifle, and SCOTUS just reversed as unconstitutional and remanded Maryland’s rifle ban, to be reheard consistent with the strict scrutiny legal standard. See There were also other cases sent back on high-capacity magazine bans, and Hawaii’s unconstitutional denial of carry permits. Time to stop passing laws which will be overturned, and do nothing to stop crime.

  52. - Flapdoodle - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:48 pm:

    Up front, current gun owner and former military. Favor more stringent steps to reduce gun violence. Emphatically not a fan of NRA,

    I voted no, but give Rep. Hirschauer credit for taking on the challenge.

    Every attempt to define an assault weapon that I’ve ever seen has focused on design features like barrel shrouds, pistol grips, folding/retractable stock, detachable magazine, and magazine size. But what really matters is the ammunition, particularly exit velocity and bullet design, then rate of fire.

    The rounds fired from an AR15 are similar in caliber to standard .22s but are longer, designed to inflict maximum damage, and have a more powerful charge resulting in higher exit velocities and greater effective range. These factors create the horrific wounds that have been described by survivors and first responders at recent mass shootings (I don’t have to imagine those wounds — I’ve seen them).

    My carbine looks to many people like an assault weapon — barrel shroud, pistol grip, red dot sight, scope. However, it fires a standard 9mm round, precisely the same round used in many handguns, with a much lower exit velocity and much reduced effective range compared to an AR15 round. Obviously these rounds can cause serious wounds, but nothing like the catastrophic wounds caused by AR15 rounds.

    There are so many different types of guns that trying to define assault weapon by design features is likely to be ineffectively narrow or indefensibly broad. But that’s not the case with ammunition and that (IMO) is the place to start.

  53. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:49 pm:

    =I voted no because its unconstitutional=

    1.It is in fact not unconstitutional since it has not gone to the court.

    2. There is a reasonable chance that it could be upheld given the National Firearms Act has been continuously upheld for nearly a century (should qualify as deeply rooted given the time span unless the just change their qualifications to suit their decisions). The NFA has long regulated the types of guns that a citizen can posses. The most recent decision has had zero impact on the NFA and there is no discussion to over turn it.

  54. - Huh? - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:50 pm:

    OW - given the emotional energy surrounding the issue of gun control, I fear it is a slippery slope. I am not sure refining the definitions will help.

  55. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:50 pm:

    ===when you did the same with abortion.===

    Nope. Didn’t. Sorry.

    How are abortion rights even congruent here?

  56. - The Dude Abides - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:52 pm:

    I voted no, in part because of some of the reasons given by RNUG. If it does pass and survives court challenges, which I doubt, at best the lives saved will be minimal.

  57. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:56 pm:

    ===given the emotional energy===

    Because of the emotional energy, a slippery slope applies?

    That makes no sense.

    Clarifying what is it is not constituted makes more sense, no?

  58. - Matt B - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:57 pm:

    “ There is a reasonable chance that it could be upheld given the National Firearms Act has been continuously upheld for nearly a century (should qualify as deeply rooted given the time span unless the just change their qualifications to suit their decisions). The NFA has long regulated the types of guns that a citizen can posses. The most recent decision has had zero impact on the NFA and there is no discussion to over turn it.”

    Bans on machine guns might still stand because machine guns are not in common use and can be regarded as “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Contrast that with the fact Heller protects weapons “in common use”. The ar15 is the most popular model of rifle sold in the US with millions in circulation. Clearly in common use and protected. You are comparing apples to oranges.

  59. - ChrisB - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:59 pm:

    Voted yes, but I would like to see a more creativity than a cookie cutter ban.

    Why can’t we tax the ammunition at high rates, like we do marijuana? Limit the amount that can be purchased at one time. Cash only purchases, no credit or financing allowed.

    Provide exemptions to registered and licensed shooting ranges, with the prohibition of taking any ammunition off site. That way, people who want to practice their aim, because the cost of a bullet is so high, aren’t penalized. You’re not violating 2A, just promoting responsible ownership.

    And to those complaining about definitions, read the full text. What is allowed and what isn’t is pretty explicitly defined.

  60. - Bruce( no not him) - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:03 pm:

    So it sounds like I can keep my AR-15 if I register it with the ISP
    So how does that make it safer?
    Most of the guns used in mass shootings have been legally purchased.

  61. - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:13 pm:

    ===I would definitely oppose a national registry. History has shown registration is often followed by confiscation.===

    Let us know when they come for Piper Cubs, large pickup trucks, Sherman Tank sized SUVs, and Hummers.

  62. - Aye Are Fifteen - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:20 pm:

    I’ll sell nothing, turn over nothing, and register nothing, sooo, cope and seethe.

  63. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:22 pm:

    ===I’ll sell nothing, turn over nothing, and register nothing===

    Another “patriot” heard from.

  64. - Todd - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:25 pm:

    England had a permitting system that included registration of firearms in 1997 they enacted a handgun ban and used it to confiscate those guns

    Canada had registration and used it to wndorce their semi auto ban1998

    California passed their ban required registration and when thw ag expanded the definition used the registration list to gon after new models

    Hows that OW?

  65. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:30 pm:

    ===Another “patriot” heard from.===

    You forgot “law abiding”

  66. - Some Guy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:35 pm:

    Has anyone here read the Bruen case? Or Heller and McDonald? An assault weapon ban isn’t going to survive judicial scrutiny under the new Bruen standard. So why do you want to pass a law that’s doomed to fail, and which will set a binding precedent on the issue? Is that really smart?

    Furthermore, there’s already a lawsuit over Cook County’s assault weapons ban. What happens when that gets struck down?

  67. - Elmer Keith - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:37 pm:

    Voted No. Don’t like the hypocrisy of left wingers seizing property from citizens, but leaving these firearms for police. If you support a permanent militarized criminal police state, then pass this bill.

    “Four federal agents were killed at Waco and Branch Dividians had .50 caliber weapons…” Notice how the commenter doesn’t mention the eighty people burned to death by feds at Waco? Blue Lives matter more, right?

  68. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:37 pm:

    ===England had a permitting system that included registration of firearms in 1997 they enacted a handgun ban and used it to confiscate those guns===

    And sporting rifles and shotguns, how did they fare?

    === Canada had registration and used it to wndorce their semi auto ban1998===

    Was there a house to house search, has Canada done a buy back program?

    ===Hows that…===

    Were all the examples given done through a legislative/government process, and was there electoral blowback?

    - Todd -, hope you’re well, bud. Appreciate the examples to consider.

  69. - KeepItReal - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:39 pm:

    It’s the best place to start. If this doesn’t pass or is struck down, I doubt anything else would fly.

  70. - Boone's is Back - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 3:59 pm:

    I voted yes. Phew, the “cold, dead hands” comments coming from the gun nuts is really reassuring. Glad you all can appreciate nuance.

  71. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 4:02 pm:

    Todd, England has allowed gun ownership in some form by citizens since 1689. Over time, laws have been changed by Parliament, some more restrictive, others less so, but the trend has been to limit the right, not deny it. And the result? After banning handguns in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre, England has had zero school shootings since then.

    The people of England may still keep and use firearms. They have not revolted against the tyranny of strict gun laws. In fact, the majority seems to prefer strict gun laws (without banning firearms completely).

  72. - Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 4:02 pm:

    Voted no. And throw Australia into the registry then mandatory buy back list. RNUG is correct. Again.

  73. - Todd - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 4:13 pm:

    OW —

    England had mandatory ownership certificates with serial numbers and renewals every few year 3-5 by memory they mostly complied but the ban was so severe even the Olympic pistol team could not practice in England hense the exemptions in illinois bills

    Canada has gone back and forth on the politics of it right after the conservatives won and one of the firearms registries was abolished but then brought back kinda like our congress

    I doubt illinois would see a sea change like congress in 94 but i could see a couple of dems loosing over it. Naperville is set to release something tomorrow ill get to bill specifics in a bit

  74. - Todd - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 4:23 pm:

    47– there is a reason we are not under the crown. Yes the english can own some firearms some rifles and shotguns with a proper cause requirement and police approval hardly a right and they don’t have our constitution

    Lets not forget that DC and chicago tried thw bit they can still own rifles and shotguns in the cases and the argument was rejected by the court

  75. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 4:30 pm:

    - Todd -

    Thanks, as always for the drop of knowledge. Appreciate it.

    Be well

  76. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 4:47 pm:

    ===comments coming from===

    You should see the ones that aren’t making it through the screens.

    Here’s part of one: “Anyone enforcing this crap if it passes (Bruen set the standard very high in which this law is blatantly unconstitutional) deserves any resistance they may encounter”

    From someone who chose the screen name “MomsDemandActionAreCommies”

  77. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 4:56 pm:

    To me it’s less about the weapon and more about how you can limit the usefulness of that weapon in a mass shooting situation. To me you do that by limiting the size of magazines available. So, I support that part of the legislation. I think that’s where the focus should rightly be and that’s the only part of this legislation I support.

  78. - Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 5:02 pm:

    Scary. I agree with a Demoralized at 4:56.

  79. - We've never had one before - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 5:11 pm:

    You take all the high-profile rifle killings and all the ones that you don’t hear about, add them up, and it still is far less than the number of fatalities from hands and feet, according to FBI stats.

    Handguns are involved in almost all firearm fatalities. No one is going to ban handguns, we’ve gone way past that.

    Banning rifles is poor public policy when there are 2.3 million FOID holders in Illinois, and some untold friends-of, kin-of, married-to people close to them. Compare that against 8.7 million registered voters in Illinois, and the object of the ban is protected by the US Constitution, and even then, not outright banned.

  80. - Amalia - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 5:50 pm:

    ooooh, scary with the under the crown and inability to own guns. like I said, fear. they are always about fear. fear that not having a gun that literally says Military and Police in the name of it means you can’t have any guns at all. scared. Assault Weapons Ban in Illinois. Now.

  81. - SNBI - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 6:02 pm:

    Shall Not Be Infringed. It really is that simple.

  82. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 6:19 pm:

    =pecifically, residents that are under the age of 25 needs firearms training before they should be able own a firearm.=

    I get where you are coming from but that may have the unintended consequence of making someone a more effective killer. And it could be watered down over time by NRA lobbyists or legislators.

    =Clearly in common use and protected. You are comparing apples to oranges.=

    No it isn’t. It is a law in force that has been deeply rooted, far more so than the existence of AR or their rapid proliferation in the last 10-15 years. It is a more recent proliferation that does not hold up to Heller’s common use argument. But does when looking at the existence of the NFA in the united states and the ability to stand the test of time which Heller may not.

    apples to apples if you are willing to look on balance.

    Heller and Bruen are now being seized upon by gun fanatics of all types. This is the same USSC that is now looking for additional security. You are not seeing the complete picture. As the court becomes more immediately political their decisions will become less predictable and their rationalizations will become less rooted in real law.

    =Shall Not Be Infringed. It really is that simple.=

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

    It IS that simple. Especially if this court starts to feel threatened, as they clearly do, none more so than justice Thomas.

    But you do you.

  83. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 6:30 pm:

    -OW-, et al, with due respect, I spent an entire year in school studying nothing but the rise of National Socialism and the methods employed. Did a really deep dive on it. Gun control was part of it.

  84. - Pundent - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 7:03 pm:

    =I spent an entire year in school studying nothing but the rise of National Socialism and the methods employed.=

    Recent history shows us that we’re much closer to autocracy than we are to socialism. And one party in particular seems perfectly fine with that. And the faux threat of socialism is hardly a reason to continue to bury our heads in the sand on our gun problems.

  85. - Dmak NE-IL - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 7:56 pm:

    The recent Bruen decision set a new strict scrutiny test for any law concerning the 2nd amendment. An AWB will not survive this new level of scrutiny. The FOID will soon be found unconstitutional as well. The 2nd amendment is now a civil right with constitutional scrutiny of the Supreme Court behind it.

    Democrats may get a “we did something” victory, but it is going to be nothing more than a speed bump on the way to a full restoration of 2nd amendment rights in IL.

  86. - FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 8:01 pm:

    I voted No.

    I have not committed a crime with any of my firearms, my use and possession of these firearms have not caused any crimes, and they are my property that I responsibly use and present no danger to society.

    I would argue that those of you who buy street drugs contribute more to the violence than I and other firearm owners do. Yet I supported your desire to legalize marijuanna to help take profit and motive away from suppliers and gangs. Funny how you are selective about freedoms for responsible people.

    If this Bill becomes Law, I cannot transfer my property to another, not even my heirs. This makes the Bill punitive for legal responsible owners and does nothing to stem violence.

  87. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 8:05 pm:

    - FormerParatrooper -

    No snark, I really appreciate your comment. Sincerely.

    Thank you for doing so.


  88. - FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 8:26 pm:

    Thank you OW, I really appreciate your opinion.

  89. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 8:39 pm:

    - FormerParatrooper -

    As I yours, bud.

    Be well.

  90. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 8:47 pm:

    =Gun control was part of it.=

    With Respect…your comment is a serious over simplification.

    Post WW1 Germany and Europe in general, Fascist or otherwise, has never had a “gun” culture.

    A global depression created a landscape that was ripe for the rise of demagogues and they got it in spades. Appeasement by weak governments that were in a process of transition from monarchies to democracies emboldened dictators. These were nascent totalitarian regimes. Titles like national socialist were in reality a disguise as they were not socialist in any way.

    These days, the book burnings are happening, but are conducted by the right. Those that are fighting against gun control. Too many on the right are fighting against gun control because they wish to have an armed movement.

    Authoritarians hide behind a lot of titles and always use “freedom” and “liberty to disguise their movement which is diametrically opposed to those terms. The USSR did the same thing.

    The proposed gun control is an effort to prevent the wholesale slaughter of Americans that is happening with incredible frequency. It is not an attempt to install a dictatorship.

    Folks here, that see Heller et al as preventing any regulation of the 2nd Amendment didn’t read everything. Guns have and will continue to be regulated. Every aspect of the constitution has and will continue to have limitations. We will go back and forth as to what those may be, but they will be there.

    =The 2nd amendment is now a civil right with constitutional scrutiny of the Supreme Court behind it.=

    You must be new to American history and the US Constitution. The first 10 Amendments are commonly referred to the Bill of Rights and the Court has always been their guardian. Welcome to our country. I encourage you to explore our constitution. It is the best that has ever been.

  91. - Union Thug Gramma - Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 10:39 pm:

    Let me first say, we have firearms, both of us have been TRAINED on use, have been on a pistol team, have fired (on a range) an ouzi, AK-47, Mini-14 (for work) and numerous pistols(including semi-automatics). Oh, BTW, I always shot expert.
    There is NO reason citizens need military weapons, there is NO reason civilians need magazines over 20. They also should be banned.

  92. - Joe - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 12:25 am:

    At some point we need to surrender our individual rights (be they real or perceived) for the commonweal.

  93. - Kraaaken - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 7:51 am:

    I voted no as the bill stands. I like Dupage Saints comment: How about mandatory insurance mandatory training. I have both and encourage it. I’m ok with the .50 cal restriction. I do not like the limitation on possessing high-capacity magazines which I believe is defined as 11 rounds or more. Criminals and thugs especially in Chicago area ignore the law regardless for me to be properly protected with my concealed carry of choice I would feel most comfortable with 15 rounds in my Glock 19. One question is what about “assault style weapons” that are in plinking .22 caliber to those also count? As it’s written I think it is which i disagree with …the .22 round is a great training aid for shooters not to mention a great hunting round and typically not used for mass shootings

  94. - rtov - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 7:55 am:

    ===Former Paratrooper ====

    That is a perfect summation of this issue.

  95. - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 7:57 am:

    OW — is he definitions are pretty open and will grab up a lot of firearms

    While DNR may issue exemptions for hunting no mention of self defense a key part of both heller and bruen

    I guess all those who read the bull missed the part where non residents are given 24 hours to to stay in illinois or be in violation of the law so impeding the ability to travel visit family vacation take training …..

    Yup the capfax karens really comprehend how this bill will get past the courts

  96. - TheFlynDutchman - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:06 am:

    No, an AWB is nothing but window dressing. It doesn’t do anything to stop these types of people, many of which could have been denied access had the government done it’s job.

    I see many people say “ he was law abiding right up until he wasn’t” well, I’ll tell you: my rights aren’t subject to the actions of criminals. To say that I should have my rights limited because someone else abused theirs, means the criminal now defines what you can own. That not how freedom works.

    Also not how freedom works: taxing a right. I see a lot of people here who would Ostensibly be ok with bringing back the poll tax, if that were the case. Murdock v Pennsylvania made it illegal to tax a right.

    And no, .50 BMG is not used in these types of crimes. The 94 AWB didn’t make sales illegal, it banned certain cosmetic features. This ban is “feel good legislation”, and is an attempt to legislate morality. It would fail much like the 18th amendment failed, because it did more harm than good.

    Politicians like to vilify the AR15 but it’s really just a semi-auto rifle. Nothing more, nothing less. Statistically, the majority of weapons used in mass shootings are handguns. Rifles of all varieties are used in around 300-400 shooting deaths per year (per FBI) and AR’s are a subset of those.

    Let’s be smart about this; it’s not the guns, it’s not the high cap mags, it’s the people wielding them, and the inability of government to do its job. They knew about this kid, just like they knew about the Pratt shooter in Aurora, and did NOTHING.

    P.S. to those who subscribe to the bandwagon fallacy: it doesn’t matter how many people want a ban. My rights aren’t up to a popular vote. You still have to respect and adhere to the 2nd amendment, and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

  97. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:10 am:

    === Politicians like to vilify the AR15 but it’s really just a semi-auto rifle. Nothing more, nothing less. Statistically, the majority of weapons used in mass shootings are handguns. Rifles of all varieties are used in around 300-400 shooting deaths per year (per FBI) and AR’s are a subset of those.===

    Cite please.

  98. - TheFlynDutchman - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:22 am:

  99. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:29 am:

    The FBI cite is only “murders”, as seen from the heading.

    The other cite stipulates that …

    ===These figures are calculated from a total of 132 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings.===

    There have been, since 1982 only 132 mass shootings?

    According to WaPo…

    ===Mass shootings have been on the rise in recent years. In 2021, almost 700 such incidents occurred, a jump from the 611 in 2020 and 417 in 2019. Before that, incidents had not topped 400 annually since the Gun Violence Archive started tracking in 2014.===


  100. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:31 am:

    Your FBI cite only goes from 2015-2019?

  101. - TheFlynDutchman - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:47 am:

    Mother jones has different numbers.

    PS: since you support this type of legislation, what’s your plan for the millions that exist currently?

  102. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 10:53 am:

    ===what’s your plan for the millions that exist currently?===

    Canada, I believe had a buy back, the legislation would need to pass with a likely provision for such a thing.

  103. - TheFlynDutchman - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:08 am:

    You can’t “buy back” something you never owned. That and you want to use my taxes to buy something from me that I legally bought with my own money? Absurd.

    Couple that with the fact that the government would never pay what I paid. Nowhere near it.

    The US has 423 million guns owned by 100 million Americans. 20 million of those guns are what some people call “assault weapons”

    This isn’t Canada. We have a constitution, and a right to own these firearms. Canadians don’t.

    Those darn “Libertarian ideals” again I guess…

  104. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:13 am:

    === You can’t “buy back” something you never owned.===

    Your question was a tad open-ended, maybe purposely?

    Ones not sold, that’s up to his the legislation is finalized.

    At this point, your ramblings begin to sound like the in-law uncle.

    Good luck.

  105. - TheFlynDutchman - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:22 am:

    Ramblings? Is that an attempted insult?

    I’m engaging you with legitimate arguments. Is it not a legitimate argument that using tax money (money we give the government) to buy something from people who used their own hard earned money to buy, is inane on its face?

    You ignored my comment about the government doing it’s job, and then support more government oversight.

    Good luck indeed.

  106. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:27 am:

    === Ramblings? Is that an attempted insult?===

    No. I’m moving on.

  107. - TheFlynDutchman - Wednesday, Jul 13, 22 @ 11:34 am:

    Well, since the admin is deleting my posts,

    I’ll say good day to you sir.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Pritzker signs unemployment insurance agreement into law
* Respiratory viruses leading to highest hospital bed usage since January, but ICUs not yet flooded
* Unfunded pension liability rose, but state payments still scheduled to fall slightly
* Afternoon news roundup
* Sen. Bennett hospitalized
* Poll: Large majorities of Illinoisans support assault weapons ban, increasing FOID card age to 21
* Stop pointing fingers and do better now
* Question of the day: 2022 Golden Horseshoe Awards
* Local elections news coverage roundup
* Republican state central committee member says Gay Pride tree is a "sex tree," calls Black legislators "idiots"
* GOP pollster: "The Republican strategy of screaming 'the sky is falling' and 'all is lost' is clearly not working"
* Rate the new Lightfoot TV ad
* State's attorney says he may drop out of lawsuit challenging SAFE-T Act
* Morning briefing
* Open thread
* Live Coverage
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...








Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller