There’s been sort of an unwritten rule the past several years in Springfield to stay away from doing things like ban assault weapons.
The votes to pass one have seemingly been there in both chambers, but the will of past Democratic leadership seemed to be to not overtly poke any big, cash-rich bears, like the National Rifle Association, or to alienate or electorally imperil conservative members of their Democratic caucuses.
Perhaps more importantly, Democratic leaders also haven’t wanted to unintentionally set off a pro-gun judicial tripwire that could not only kill the state law they passed but expand national gun owners’ rights even further and perhaps imperil other laws here and elsewhere.
Under duress from the federal judiciary several years ago, Illinois legislators approved a law allowing for concealed carry of firearms. Tucked into that law was a short, 10-day window allowing local governments to pass their own ordinances to ban assault weapons. Highland Park passed such an ordinance within the time limit, but other mayors figured that the state would eventually get around to banning the weapons, so they waited. Five years later, in 2018, Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering and other suburban leaders went back to Springfield and asked, in lieu of statewide legislative action, that the local option to pass a ban be reinstated. Their proposal went nowhere.
Fast-forward to this past summer, when Highland Park was the scene of a horrific massacre at its Independence Day parade. A man fired an assault weapon 83 times within seconds and killed seven people, wounding 48 more.
Freshman Rep. Maura Hirschauer (D-Batavia) introduced an assault weapon ban this past January, but she had only picked up one co-sponsor before July 4. After the Highland Park shooting, Hirschauer signed up 55 more co-sponsors in quick order.
Hirschauer was not able to round up the 71 House votes it would’ve taken to pass a bill with an immediate effective date in the summer and fall. But I’m told it’s quite safe to say that she had lined up more than the bare majority of 60.
House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch convened several working groups over the summer, including the Firearm Safety & Reform Working Group, headed by state Rep. Bob Morgan, who was at the Highland Park parade. Morgan (D-Deerfield) and the working group rolled out House Bill 5855 last week, the Protect Illinois Communities Act. Among other things, the bill prohibits the sale of assault weapons and requires existing owners to register their weapons with the Illinois State Police.
The bill’s first hearing is Monday, Dec. 12. It’s widely assumed that Morgan has more than enough votes to pass his legislation after Jan. 1, when approval will only require a simple majority of 60 votes. Hirschauer is also helping line up votes.
But gun law reform groups aren’t taking any chances. A new not-for-profit group called “Protect Illinois Communities” has been formed to push for passage of the bill in both chambers.
The group will use “paid and grassroots engagement,” including TV ads, phones and direct mail, for a “well-funded” campaign that is apparently designed not only to counter groups like the National Rifle Association, but also to prod legislative Democrats to move past their reluctance and take some action. Expect a significant expenditure.
In the past, we’ve seen things like nearly identical bills advanced by each chamber, with nothing ever actually getting through both chambers and to the governor’s desk, or (as under former Gov. Bruce Rauner) only advanced to the governor’s desk in the face of a guaranteed veto that couldn’t be overridden.
So, keep an eye on the Senate, where the presiding officer has been a vociferous proponent of gun law reform his entire career, but whose caucus contains a sizable number of moderates who have wanted to shy away from such legislation.
Meanwhile, the Illinois Freedom Caucus issued a press release attacking Morgan’s Protect Illinois Communities Act proposal.
The group, composed of far-right Illinois House members, called on legislators “to fulfill their oath of office by standing up for our Constitution, even the parts of that document they don’t like.”
So, I asked the group’s spokesperson if members, who are all avowed Donald Trump supporters, had any thoughts about Trump’s recent claim that the 2020 election, which he still falsely claims was stolen, “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
It may not surprise you to learn that I never heard back.
- Suburban Moderate - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 9:15 am:
-The group, composed of far-right Illinois House members-
I wish Rich would have talked to the far-left Illinois House members concerning handguns. Do they exist?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 9:33 am:
===far-left Illinois House members concerning handguns===
Huh? To what end?
- RKFD guy - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 9:37 am:
If we wanted to get connected with this PAC to help convince our moderate Dem State Senator, how would we do that? A search didn’t reveal a website or anything yet.
- We've never had one before - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 10:08 am:
>>>>> A new not-for-profit group called “Protect Illinois Communities”
Sounds like Astroturf to me.
Let’s see what it takes to get legislators to vote to take away civil rights from the people of Illinois.
- JS Mill - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 10:09 am:
=It may not surprise you to learn that I never heard back.=
Rich, I am just shocked. Maybe if you signed on to one of their FaceBook parties you could ask?/s
- Norseman - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 10:22 am:
=== … even the parts of that document they don’t like. ===
It’s not the document folks don’t like, it’s the latest interpretation of it by far right justices folks don’t like.
- Demoralized - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 10:30 am:
==to vote to take away civil rights from the people of Illinois.==
Oh please. Gun ownership may be a right but it certainly isn’t a civil right. Try understanding what that language means before you say something so dopey.
- We've never had one before - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 10:49 am:
>>>> Gun ownership may be a right but it certainly isn’t a civil right.
A civil right, recognized and protected by the US Constitution in Amendment 2, and by the Illinois Constitution, Sect 22 in the Illinois Bill Of Rights.
Not granted by the two constitutions, mind you, but protected by them.
Thank you.
- ZC - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 10:52 am:
I understand the concern about not poking the Supreme Court bear. But there are strong counter-arguments.
In _Bruen_, Thomas’s opinion makes it very clear that only “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be now banned, under the 2nd Amendment. And if no state takes the time or courage anymore to state, “Actually, we think an AR-15 in the hands of an 18-year old is pretty dangerous and unusual,” then eventually this Court will say, oh look, nobody’s actually banning these things or protesting, they must be OK today - so let’s make it formal that everyone can have an AR-15. Under their stated rules, lack of new laws = emerging environment where society now embraces these things.
Second, here are some signs of dissent even within the _Bruen_ decision - Brett Kavanaugh for one wrote a concurrence which, read between the lines, seems to suggest, “I’m not ready yet to authorize everyone to own an AR-15″ so that reduces the legalize-everything coalition to 5. And then I’m not Justice Roberts is going to want to be the 5th vote to put an AR-15 into the public hands of every white supremacist in America.
So third, there’s a decent chance if IL bans AR-15s, the Court won’t take the case - yet, and maybe not for some time. The Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch wing probably really wants that ruling. But they don’t want to suffer a defeat either, a wrong precedent. They can overplay their hands, as they likely have in the case of the “independent state legislature” doctrine. It was the same thing after the _Heller_ and _McDonald_ gun decisions. The Court went quiet, for a very long time, as regards the 2nd Amendment, because as long as Kennedy was on the Court, the then-Scalia wing wasn’t sure what else they could get a majority to agree on concerning the Second Amendment. So they just voted not to hear cases like for over a decade, not until Trump solidified their margins.
It’s not a bad time legally to ban AR-15s in IL, and moreover it will most likely save some lives, so let’s do it.
- ZC - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 10:54 am:
“We’ve never had one before” - what you are referring to in at least the Constitution’s Second Amendment, is what everyone in the legal profession calls a -civil liberty- , is Demoralized’s point I think.
- Demoralized - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 11:10 am:
==A civil right==
It absolutely, positively is not. I can’t help you if you have no idea what the term civil right means. As I said, it’s a right but it is absolutely not a civil right. Period.
- Demoralized - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 11:55 am:
Hi, my name is Eaton Johnson and I have no clue what a civil right is.
- Donnie Elgin - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 11:56 am:
“Brett Kavanaugh for one wrote a concurrence which, read between the lines, seems to suggest, “I’m not ready yet to authorize everyone to own an AR-15″
The Supreme Court in Heller has stated that the Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear those arms that are “commonly used for lawful purposes”
Kavanaugh has already written about semi-automatic rifles
“semi-automatic rifles unlike automatic “machine guns,” have been considered lawful for civilian possession for over 100 years, and are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens today. In fact, the Supreme Court already stated in the 1994 case of Staples v. United States that semi-automatic firearms (and in that particular case, the AR-15) “traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possession[s].” Their recent prohibition by a handful of jurisdictions is therefore, according to Kavanaugh, not rooted in history and tradition, as required by Heller”
https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/brett-kavanaughs-defense-second-amendment-hardly-extremist
- ChicagoVinny - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 12:00 pm:
I don’t see the logic in letting the supreme court dodge politically damaging decisions.
I think it is clear at this point that overturning Roe damaged GOP electoral hopes in the midterms both here and across the nation.
Assault weapon bans poll very well. The supreme court making an ideologically-driven decision to overturn a state assault weapon ban will be very unpopular as well.
- Todd - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 12:02 pm:
ZC – interesting theory but wrong.
States are losing the restrictions on 18-20 year old’s in federal courts. It doesn’t matter what picture you attempt to paint about 18 year old’s with ARs.
While you try and categorize ARs as dangerous and unusual, you gloss over the issue of in common use. ARs and other semi-autos are in common use and getting around that is going to be tougher than strict scrutiny given the new test from Bruen.
Its not about new laws, its about the text, tradition and history from 1791 and there were not broad based categorical bans back then.
Evidently you don’t know Brett Kavanaugh’s history. In Heller II he authored a dissent on DC’s semi-auto ban. Based upon Bruen and even his dissent I don’t think he has changed positions to where he is willing to let broad based categorical bans stand even on just AR-15s. Roberts is the one who in orals suggested using Heller as the test to be used in determining if laws are constitutional. But nice try with the race baiting dog whistle.
We don’t need the Court to take this case. Cali is having hearings on their mag and gun ban today in federal court. Orals were held last week on the Maryland ban. They didn’t go well for Maryland. We then have two TRO implemented in Colorado on new local semi-auto bans. And a TRO was put in place on Oregon’s measure 114 and upheld by the State Supreme Court.
This Court is not the Kennedy Court. If we got 6 – 3 on carry with the new standard, I think we will do fine on the issue when it gets there. Remember, two mag bans and a semi-auto ban were GVRd from the Court with instructions to try again see New York. And all we have to do is get an injunction against the law while the case is litigated and one of the many others goes to the Supremes.
- Lurker - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 12:39 pm:
Demoralized, if someone disagrees with you, why go straight to belittling? You do not want to become like the main guy on these pages.
A civil right, according to the google machine, comes from the Latin term “ius civis”, which means “rights of a citizen.”
And further, what is the difference between a civil right and a human right? Simply put, human rights are rights one acquires by being alive. Civil rights are rights that one obtains by being a legal member of a certain political state.
Thus, being a U.S. citizen gives you certain civil rights, and for many, that’s their guns.
- Todd - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 1:13 pm:
Demoralized –
these guys disagree with you. . .
US INSTITUTE OF DIPLOMACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
USIDHR
Civil Rights
Civil rights are designed to protect individuals’ freedom from violation by governments, political and social organizations, and individuals. They protect against discrimination in civil and political society, but this protection depends on the state or nation in which the citizen belongs: ‘Civil rights are in place to protect citizens from discrimination and to grant them certain freedoms in that nation.’ For example, in the United Kingdom, Civil rights are protected by Common law and statute, whereas in the United States, the Constitution protects Civil rights.
https://usidhr.org/human-rights-vs-civil-rights/?gc_id=17921375684&h_ad_id=614129693975&gclid=CjwKCAiAv9ucBhBXEiwA6N8nYGCxKzX7cJUtbI5S5IvveK9EFG9iNGyzVf6U9FUu1gDUi8Pfvy4SlBoCORgQAvD_BwE
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 1:17 pm:
===Civil Rights===
This is getting repetitious. Move along.
- cover - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 1:48 pm:
= Its not about new laws, its about the text, tradition and history from 1791 and there were not broad based categorical bans back then. =
So if we’re going to go full “originalist”, then SCOTUS should authorize everyone to own muzzle-loading muskets but not semi-automatic rifles which didn’t exist in the 18th century, amirite?
- Anotherretiree - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 1:49 pm:
I’ve accepted the reality that we are hopelessly divided. The deaths of 1 million Americans wasn’t enough for CONS to want to put on a mask so no number of shot 3rd graders will make them give up their 30 round magazines. Their purist Constitutional stand is absolute. Unless of course if its about my Civil, oops LOL..Constitutional right to my pension. Then its OK to take away my rights. Its about money after all so that’s really serious !
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 2:22 pm:
===Its not about new laws, its about the text, tradition and history from 1791 and there were not broad based categorical bans back then.===
There weren’t a lot of choices in terms of available weapons in 1791. You had the single shot, muzzle loaded musket, the single shot, muzzle loaded pistol, the blunderbuss and…not much else.
Also, textualists like you always, always, always forget to include the first clause of the 2nd Amendment, which states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
An argument that our militia is poorly regulated, as evidenced by mass shootings of civilians with alarming regularity, including in schools and churches, is the definition of poorly regulated.
Regulated is in the text of the amendment that textualists such as your self use to fight against…regulations.
Granted Todd, the courts are on your side for now. But that isn’t inevitable. And the 2nd Amendment was not handed down by God. The Constitution itself provides the means to amend it.
- Back to the Future - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 2:27 pm:
Back to the article, it was thoughtful and insightful.
This is the kind of information that you just don’t get from TV reporters or anchors.
Newspapers are just better at covering this kind of topic. Hat tip to the Times for doing a deeper dive into the gun issue.
- Todd - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 2:36 pm:
47 –
==There weren’t a lot of choices in terms of available weapons in 1791==
True. Flintlocks were the “weapons of war” of the day. That little catch phrase that anti-gunner like to toss around. But Heller addressed that that all you like to forget and overlook – “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
And I have not forgotten the first part. Scalia delt with it too
“Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Regulated at the time did not mean regulations as they espouse now but actually meant well trained.
Yes I believe the Courts support the conclusions of Heller, McDonald and New York. It took them 50 years to overturn Roe. I’ll take that timeline. We will both be gone by then
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 2:53 pm:
===Held===
I would argue that Scalia fumbled that one. And textualists should agree if they are intellectually consistent (I’m not holding my breath). It may take 40 years, but Scalia was wrong to disconnect the two to find an individual right the way he found, which was legal gymnastics of the highest order. Someday a court will rule that he got it wrong. I only hope I live to see that day.
- Mason born - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 3:00 pm:
I think it’s fair to worry that changes to tge law will result in the underlying law being struck down. I think the foid changes are an obvious candidate. Right now the foid is an annoyance to gun owners but not much different than a shall issue ccw which Bruen says is ok, the standards are objective, it’s issued to anyone not prohibited by fed law from possessing a firearm, cost is low. Once these changes goes through the FOID becomes a blanket prohibition on firearm ownership from 18-21 yr old adults. That is a different beast than it is now.
2 things;
1. I understand why the law wants to restrict 18-21 as those ages are probe to illegal usage, however that doesn’t justify taking that right away from the law abiding 18-21 yr Olds. Esp as the law abiding are the majority.
2. There are already arguments against the FOID, this supercharges those arguments by eliminating the argument it’s a shall issue permit.
- Norseman - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 3:20 pm:
=== Yes I believe the Courts support the conclusions of Heller, McDonald and New York. It took them 50 years to overturn Roe. I’ll take that timeline. We will both be gone by then. ===
The problem is how many people, especially kids, will have been slaughtered in the meantime.
- Todd - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 3:28 pm:
Mason –
Mason –
The FOID is more than an annoyance. During covid we saw first time buyers and some who let their card lapse wait over a year to get their “right” to buy or possess re-instated. How would that fly with say voting? You know having to wait a year to register so you could vote.
Ask yourself this, if the fingerprinting for FOIDs had passed, do you think they would have not gone after their gun ban? Answer is of course not. There is no regulation, red tape or obstruction to great for people like Rep. Morgan. So fine, we’re done talking. There are no negotiations. Pass what ever you can pass, and we will go to court and roll the dice for all the marbles.
My goal is to make the Illinois statutes that infringe on the right and all the red tape and BS to get carved up and struck down as if Freddy Kruger went after the FOID and deadly weapons statutes. As I see it, there are maybe 3 sections of the FOID that survive. And the carry law is gonna get chopped up as well, the first suit challenging the ban on carry on mass transit has already been filed.
The AGs office was complaining about the 20 suits they are involved in. Well, they can look forward to 20 more. Since State Police dropped the ball on Aurora and Highland Park, they are now overcompensating in the other direction. Recently a guy got a FOID revoked for being arrested on a simply battery from an altercation at a bowling alley. A charge that even if convicted would not be a prohibitor from owning firearm. That makes no sense. After the judge realized this when presented with a motion ISPs answer was to file an appeal.
Nope we are gonna take the FOID card down and do away with 90% of the BS associated with it. And that is just the beginning.
- Dotnonymous - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 3:29 pm:
Guns…can’t live with them…can’t live without them?
Some problems have no apparent solution…and who wants to hear that?
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 3:49 pm:
===Some problems have no apparent solution===
The solution to the gun violence problem is to keep guns away from people who will use them to commit crimes. Gun manufacturers want no part of that solution and they hire people like Todd and a host of lawyers to keep the status quo.
The body count will continue as long as we tolerate an avalanche of guns with no accountability to continue. With rights comes responsibility, and the pro-2nd Amendment professionals refuse to accept responsibility because they aren’t the ones using guns to commit crimes. They consider that collateral damage and somebody else’s problem.
Everyday another criminal gets a gun in Chicago. All guns enter the market legally, and nobody knows how these legal firearms end up in the wrong hands? That’s preposterous. The gun manufacturers are making lots of money via straw purchasers and gun show resellers.
You can’t tell me there is no solution to this problem.
- NorthSideNoMore - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 5:18 pm:
The solution is based in heavy community help and engagement with people who devalue the life of another for a few dollars and a drug turf war. Figure out a way resolve that issue and lots of other things will take care of themselves.
- Mason born - Monday, Dec 12, 22 @ 6:19 pm:
47th
On the issue of Straw Purchasers this bill won’t have much effect but you’re right to point it out. A solution I’d like to see is a new charge for straw purchases. As it stands many straw buyers are people we’d routinely have sympathy for single moms at or below the poverty line, family, etc. people who were pressured/persuaded to purchase a firearm for a prohibited Posseser. Most people don’t want to see those folks in prison and their children in the hands of dcfs. A charge that offers a differed sentence but is a felony severe enough to make it impossible to pass a NICS check would make sense. Ideally after a decade of lawful behavior we’d let them petition to have that conviction removed.