* NPR this past October…
Kimberly Saunders was grabbing a gyro at a restaurant just blocks from the upscale Magnificent Mile commercial district near downtown Chicago in May when she heard rapid-fire gunshots around 10:30 p.m.
“I feel like I heard 20 shots,” she recalled. “I used to watch these war movies as a kid, so it sounded like one of those machine guns.”
The shots came from outside a nearby McDonald’s restaurant, prompting Saunders to go down the street to find out what happened. What she discovered horrified her: Sprawled on the sidewalk in a pool of blood was her 17-year-old son, Parnelius. He had been shot multiple times in his arm, shoulder and back as he walked home from the beach.
“Oh, my God, I just walked up there on my son bleeding out,” Saunders said. “So I took my shirt off, and I begin to put my shirt over his wounds.”
Parnelius Saunders survived. Police and prosecutors said Jaylun Sanders, 22, shot him and eight others. Two of the victims died. The shooting was related to a fight 20 minutes earlier, police said.
The firearm used was a Glock 19 handgun that had been converted to an illegal high-capacity machine gun with a device known as an auto sear, a square device about the size of a thumbnail. It’s known on the street as a “switch” that turns the gun from a semi-automatic to an automatic weapon.
The Glock came with an extended magazine, making the weapon even deadlier. The magazine held 34 rounds, according to court records. Sanders told authorities he bought the gun in Indiana and the switch for less than $25. […]
The number of auto sear-equipped handguns seized by Chicago police skyrocketed from zero in 2018 to 355 last year, leading federal authorities to declare that Chicago has one of the worst switch problems in the country.
Some House Republicans claimed during debate last night that the assault weapons ban proposal doesn’t do enough to address street crime. But there is a provision in the bill which takes aim at switches…
Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly: … Manufactures, possesses, sells, or offers to sell, purchase, manufacture, import, transfer, or use any device, part, kit, tool, accessory, or combination of parts that is designed to and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm above the standard rate of fire for semiautomatic firearms that is not equipped with that device, part, or combination of parts.
Discuss.
* Related…
* In Chicago, handguns easily turned into high-capacity machine guns fuel growing violence: The number of switch-equipped handguns and extended magazines seized by the Chicago police has surged over the last several years, an investigation by the Chicago Sun-Times, WBEZ and NPR has found. And so has the number of prosecutions by the Cook County state’s attorney’s office involving guns that have been turned into machine guns. The proliferation of illegal switch-equipped guns has made Chicago a hot spot for what federal authorities say has become a national problem. That’s happened as mass shootings — in which at least four people are killed or wounded — have become more commonplace in Chicago. Federal authorities say they believe the proliferation of these makeshift machine guns is one of the main reasons.
* Man Ran Business of Selling ‘Switches’ to Convert Pistols Into Fully-Auto Machine Guns: Feds
* Switch that turns Glock pistol into mini-machine gun popping up in Chicago
* Chicago area shootings made more dangerous by cheap, easy to buy ‘gun switches’
* How ‘gun switches’ make Chicago area shootings more dangerous
* Switch that turns Glock pistol into mini-machine gun popping up in Chicago
* Federal Charges Accuse Chicago Man of Illegally Possessing Handgun Equipped with “Glock Switch”
* Federal Indictment Charges Chicago Man With Illegally Possessing “Switch” Devices Capable of Turning Handguns Into Machine Guns
- OneMan - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 9:36 am:
Seems like making ’switches’ very unattractive with long sentences and not letting people easily plea down from that charge would be something everyone can get behind.
- Annonin' - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 9:44 am:
Hmmm Guessing GOPie & other 2A whackjobs are incorrect. Who woulda thunk. Meanwhile it was moving that CommodoreEddie Sullivan might need a different shotgun. We think a GoFundMe page should be launched.
- Chicagonk - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 9:53 am:
So they make it a class 2 felony? 3-7 years but probational so with time served on electronic monitoring and day-for-day credit, most of those arrested on this charge will not spend a day in prison.
- Constitutional Watcher - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 10:12 am:
@Annonin’
-Meanwhile it was moving that CommodoreEddie Sullivan might need a different shotgun. We think a GoFundMe page should be launched.
I watched that exchange and I think you completely missed the point of Sullivans testimony. The language of the bill bans most “Commonly Used” semi-automatic shotguns. He stressed the words “Commonly Used” several times. Please go read the SCOTUS Bruen case and you will understand why he probably used that example in his testimony.
- This - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 10:14 am:
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s House testimony just before Christmas emphasized the lethality of assault weapons with the converters / switches. Congrats to Rep Morgan for spearheading this which is long overdue.
- Todd - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 10:24 am:
more gratuitous grand standing they are illegal under federal law.
they are illegal under state law:
720ILCS5-27(a)(7)
(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or
carries:
(i) a machine gun, which shall be defined for the
purposes of this subsection as any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manually reloading by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, or carries any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting any weapon into a machine gun, ***or any combination or parts****from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
I marked the part to make it easier to read.
they’re also penalties for the use in another section
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 10:29 am:
If the Feds think it is a major problem (and it is), the Federal prosecutors should be going after those people.
- JS Mill - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 10:37 am:
= The language of the bill bans most “Commonly Used” semi-automatic shotguns=
Yeah, no.
=more gratuitous grand standing=
Jealous? That is your entire shtick here.
- Leap Day William - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 10:37 am:
== more gratuitous grand standing they are illegal under federal law. [and] they are illegal under state law ==
So you agree; the Second Amendment isn’t absolute and it’s very okay for the state to regulate certain types of guns and gun accessories?
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 10:41 am:
===The Glock came with an extended magazine, making the weapon even deadlier. The magazine held 34 rounds, according to court records. Sanders told authorities he bought the gun in Indiana and the switch for less than $25.===
I’d love to hear from Todd and our other frequent pro-gun commenters about whether this is a problem worth addressing or not.
Illinois gun owners will continue to pay the price because the firearms industry uses these loopholes to make millions of dollars. Anytime you guys want to address this problem would be welcome and not too soon.
But then again, I’m pretty sure many of you don’t see this situation as a problem.
- Todd - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 11:23 am:
JS — I suggest you read the bill. The bill will ban virtiually ALL semi-auto shotguns from the Browning A5, designed in 1898 to the Benelli Super Black Eagle. probably more than 20 million shotguns around the country. there were 3 mill, A5s made, 4 mill Remington 1100s made. thats 7 mill right there in case you were not counting.
So all of those become illegal to sell or transfer. and require to be registered if the owner wants to keep them legally.
- Constitutional Watcher - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 11:23 am:
@JS MIll
-Yeah, no.
Great retort. You must not have read the bill or don’t understand what you read if you did actually read the bill.
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 11:25 am:
“I’d love to hear from Todd and our other frequent pro-gun commenters about whether this is a problem worth addressing or not”
The Glock in question was modified prior to its use in a crime. The Glock 19 has a 15-round standard magazine when purchased new. Glock does not manufacture a 34-round magazine - those are aftermarket parts and I have never seen them at any range. They are preferred by criminals.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:08 pm:
===Glock does not manufacture a 34-round magazine - those are aftermarket parts and I have never seen them at any range. They are preferred by criminals.===
So you support banning them and making their possession illegal?
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:12 pm:
@Todd
What part of the bill would ban the A5? 24-1.9(a)(3)(F): “A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following…”?
Does the A5 have a collapsible stock, grip, detachable magazine, or revolving cylinder? It does not appear so to me, but I am no expert.
- Galena Guy - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:12 pm:
“I’d love to hear from Todd and our other frequent pro-gun commenters about whether this is a problem worth addressing or not.”
“The Glock 19 has a 15-round standard magazine when purchased new.”
Todd, please explain to us why any civilian needs a fifteen round magazine, let alone a 34 round one?
- Todd - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:14 pm:
47 == fully auto’s are regulated and in the wrong hands are certainly a problem. The 34 round mags simply fuel the gun. If they don’t care about a federal felony and doing 10 years there, why would they worry about a mag ban or FOID card?
We’ve seen the rise in these switches being used. It came about due to the airsoft models being so close to the actual Glock that parts are interchangeable and thats how the switches started getting here as they are legal for an airsoft guns but no boby understood the interganability.
They are a problem and I would be interested in seeing how many times Kim Foxx has charged the state statute on machineguns
- Jerry - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:18 pm:
I doubt this will make it pass the Supreme Court so why bother spending millions of tax dollars to defend it.
Lets require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. Those who choose this “lifestyle” should indemnify themselves from financial harm and the burden should be on them. We require drivers to do this and there is nothing in the Constitution about cars anyway. And since they didnt think of 200+ years ago it cant happen. (sarcasm intentional).
While I’m telling you kids to get off my lawn, our multi-national, for-profit insurance companies are well suited to price this product appropriately.
- Wonky Kong - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:21 pm:
= What part of the bill would ban the A5? 24-1.9(a)(3)(F): “A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following…”?=
That has me scratching my head as well.
One concern I have, for rifles there is a section defining assault weapon that includes the ability to be modified to accept a detachable magazine, but no info on what “modified” means. A talented machinist with a cnc machine, a plasma cutter and a tig welder could modify most anything to accept a magazine, but that seems a bit far fetched. That language needs clarified.
- JS Mill - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:21 pm:
=I suggest you read the bill.=
I have, in all their iterations. if I have an “illegal gun” I just have to register it. Then it is legal.
For some people the sky is always falling.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:27 pm:
===The 34 round mags simply fuel the gun. If they don’t care about a federal felony and doing 10 years there, why would they worry about a mag ban or FOID card?===
OK, thanks. Glad you see this as a problem. So can I conclude that you’re on board for limiting the “fuel” then? And since you’re telling me the modifications are already illegal, why object to this bill’s language on that?
- Todd - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:30 pm:
not that section Wonky, but you’re close
Galena — its not what I need. Its the bill of rights, I don’t have to justify a need. And in the day of modern mutli assailant carjackings, I prefer my 15 & 17 rounds mags.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:52 pm:
===not that section Wonky, but you’re close===
Which one then?
- A Jack - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 12:52 pm:
During the National “Assault” Weapons ban, my felon older brother picked up a banned weapon and high capacity magazine. Since the gun was black market, it was untraceable, unlike the Highland Park shooter’s weapon. So that is your trade off for making these weapons illegal.
- Left of what - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 1:23 pm:
==So that is your trade off for making these weapons illegal.==
No what you get rid of are these types of spree shootings where someone can max out a credit card buying a legal gun and go shoot up a parade or mall. These are not people who would commit gun crimes if it was harder to get a gun. Do you think white suburban teenage and 20somethings are typically aware of how to aquire an illegal gun?
- A Jack - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 1:40 pm:
Left of… Do you think white suburban teenagers know how to buy illegal drugs? It is the same market since illegal drug sellers generally have a few guns around or know where to get them. I would think LEO would want guns more traceable, not less.
- Jerry - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 1:51 pm:
Agree with Galena Guy at 1212. The only gun you could use when the 2nd Amendment came around was a single shot musket. What other kind of gun do you need? Lets all get on the 147 bus with our single shot muskets, gun powder, etc and if somebody grabs your wallet you can chase after them down DuSable Lake Shore Drive with the musket.
- Left of what - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 1:57 pm:
==a jack==
Are you serious?
- Mason born - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 1:59 pm:
Jerry
We going to use that standard for all of the Bill of Rights? 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. I don’t want my 1A rights restricted to a printing press and a quill.
- A Jack - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 2:12 pm:
Left of… apparently when I was a white suburban teenager, I hung out with a different class of people than you did. Anyway if this bill passes, we can see in a few months if it really did anything worthwhile or just drove gun sales underground.
- Jerry - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 2:16 pm:
@mason born. Of course. You had to ask?
- Galena Guy - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 2:22 pm:
Galena — its not what I need. Its the bill of rights, I don’t have to justify a need.
Todd, what “well regulated” militia are you a part of?
- Left of what - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 2:23 pm:
=a jack=
I just have a pretty hard time believing people who are buying weed and pills would also try to buy a gun and are the same people who would go on a shooting spree.
- Left of what - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 2:27 pm:
Also, that still doesn’t even address my main point that if anyone with a a credit card can go buy a gun it makes mass shootings more likely.
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 2:52 pm:
“Todd, what “well regulated” militia are you a part of?”
Keep up - Heller, Mcdonald, Bruen. We now have three SCOTUS rulings that clearly affirm the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.
- Dotnonymous - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 3:06 pm:
Whenever I hear about guns…all I see are dead kids who were robbed of their lives by madmen…with guns.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 3:15 pm:
===We now have three SCOTUS rulings that clearly affirm the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.===
It might take decades, but that ruling separated the clauses of the 2nd Amendment to find that individual right. A future court may find that the two clauses are connected, the same way a future court ruled that there is no right to privacy.
Also, the Constitution itself offers the means to change or repeal any Amendment. That’s the beauty of self-government. Our Constitution need not be a suicide pact. We can change it even if the court does not.
- Galena Guy - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 3:23 pm:
“Keep up - Heller, Mcdonald, Bruen. We now have three SCOTUS rulings that clearly affirm the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.”
Overturning decades of precedent, including the right of women to choose their own destiny, is not a very good way to establish the moral authority of the court. In fact, overturning the rulings and concurrences of dozens of previous judges is the textbook example of how to lose moral authority and wreck the concept of “stare decisis”. We all know what they say about karma.
- Todd - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 3:34 pm:
Galena — you guys always fall back to that tired old line. In case you missed it here, let me tell everyone again:
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. Pp. 576–626.
(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
And you’re wrong about the precedent as well:
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the
militia, i. e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
And for the record, its 4 supreme court decisions
- Blue Dog - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 4:28 pm:
as avid gun guy. here’s my take. I don’t need a magazine that holds more than 12 rounds on cheap, low caliber high velocity ammo. I don’t need a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds. end this nonsense. commit a felony with a gun. 25 yrs no parole. the word will get out.
- Galena Guy - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 4:51 pm:
“And for the record, its 4 supreme court decisions”
Todd…
Gee whiz you forgot about Heller - in which Scalia did not say that there was an unrestricted right to own a gun. He merely said that there was a right to own a gun for protection of house and home - something YOU guys always seem to forget about.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was intended for state militias.[2]
- Todd - Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 6:21 pm:
Galena –
Point to where I said unrestricted. I’ve never made that argument. I’ve argued against the FOID and banning modern guns & mags
NO you guys forget that Heller said “and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, **such as ** self-defense within the home.
You guys always try to boot strap the argument that it is only in the Home well New York clearly refuted that as well did Moore/Shepard in the 7th circuit citing Heller Lawful purposes, SUCH AS or do I need a bigger font for you to read?
Next thing you know you’ll be saying dangerous OR unusual dropping the AND as your side in known for doing