45 Comments - Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 10:18 am: Trying to understand how the Senate missed the mark so badly with their first pass… - Donnie Elgin - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 10:47 am: Senate committee just finished - opponent witnesses clearly pointed out some of the problems with the bill- which effectively bans all semi-auto Shotguns which are the most popular for hunting (the hunting exception is not practical- and still requires registration). Adjustable stocks are essential for training kids and novices on proper shotgun/rifle use. Gun dealers will have an impossible time enforcing the rules and if passed there is an issue with the legal status of their current inventory. The list and groups of opponents are ever-growing. - vern - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 10:52 am: This saga is a great example of how coddling members can backfire on a leader. Harmon is taking all the heat for a position everyone knows isn’t his. It’s normal for frontline/vulnerable members to want controversial legislation watered down. But those negotiations are harder and longer when done anonymously through a proxy. The Senators who want changes to the House bill should speak for themselves instead of hiding behind Harmon. - Constitutional Watcher - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:23 am: Telling that the leader of each chamber takes the lead on the bill. Members don’t want to vote against their leader. Doubtful any version passes otherwise. Interesting exercise that will end up in court. - Thoughts - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:25 am: The House that Madigan built and then destroyed is finally starting to show leadership. Maybe next session won’t be solely the Senate’s show. - Precinct Captain - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:27 am: Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 10:18 am It’s what happens when Harmon and Butcher think they’re the next Madigan Mapes, but instead end up as Laurel and Hardy. - A Jack - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:30 am: Good luck getting compliance with serial number registration. I suspect most downstaters will take pride in ignoring that law. And good luck with keeping high capacity magazines out. Illinois can’t even keep banned fireworks out. - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:31 am: =which effectively bans all semi-auto Shotguns= Please explain. None of my auto loaders violates the rules. At most, I could load 5 rounds if I take the plugs out. My last one was purchased in 2019. =Adjustable stocks are essential for training kids and novices on proper shotgun/rifle use.= Where do you get this stuff?? Most of the manufacturers manufacture youth models that are smaller. Yes, you can change the stock to an adult stock later, (but you can do that with any gun), but an adjustable stock is definitely not “essential” for training. Sheesh. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:31 am: ===Maybe next session won’t be solely the Senate’s show.=== Friend, it seems as though the Senate is the forgotten or overlooked chamber. The House is where the action is, Welch and Crew, including the Dem caucus is far more engaged. Maybe you mean… Wisconsin’s or Missouri’s Senate? Also, Harmon, by miles and miles, is far more “Madigan-Like” than Welch… - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:35 am: === I suspect most downstaters will take pride in ignoring that law.=== Good luck when they get pulled over by ISP for speeding. - Blue Dog - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:41 am: I’ll be curious if the state will publish compliance rates after a period of time. I’m not an avid collector of the types of guns covered in this possible bill, but many of my friends do. maybe it’s bluster, but not many saying they will register. guess we will see down the road. - Todd - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:41 am: JS — you can read about when we file our pleadings in court. The broader the better since they want to make illegal for sale or transfer some of America’s most popular shotguns - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:48 am: =JS — you can read about when we file our pleadings in court. The broader the better since they want to make illegal for sale or transfer some of America’s most popular shotguns= In other words- nonsense. - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:53 am: Also…@todd…who is this “we” you mention? Or do you adhere to the practice of using the “royal we” (in which case, how majestic of you) instead of “I” or “me” which I suspect is the case. - A Jack - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:58 am: Speeding… On those rare occasions when ISP pulls over someone for speeding, they don’t search the car unless they have suspicion of drugs or alcohol. If someone is dumb enough to come speeding out of Missouri, stoned, and carrying a trunk load of high capacity magazines, well that is just Darwin’s law in action. - Mason born - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 12:05 pm: Blue Dog I suspect compliance will be similar to NY when they required registration in their SAFE Act. If there isn’t an injunction in place first. Before Bruen NY had a hard time getting compliance. I suspect if people aren’t hunting with them, therefore dealing with CPO’s, a lot will plead ignorance. As for Rich’s speeding ticket scenario unless the driver has it on his passenger seat in plain sight I’m not sure how it changes anything. A rifle case looks the same with an AR in it or a 700. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 12:07 pm: ===unless the driver has=== Luck is not a plan. - Mason born - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 12:11 pm: Rich I’m not advocating breaking the law but I have a hard time seeing how ISP is going to know if someone has an “Assault Weapon’ in the car on a speeding ticket stop. - Mason born - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 12:24 pm: As for compliance, I hope ISP is prepared for everyone to wait till the last day to register. Personally I’ll be waiting until the last week to do so I suspect I won’t be alone. Nor when there’s a good chance the courts throw it out. - RNUG - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 12:54 pm: == I have a hard time seeing how ISP is going to know … == They won’t know unless you have it out in the open. Or unless just having a Concealed Carry permit is enough grounds to overcome your 4th Amendment right that the courts generally have extended to your personal automobile. - RNUG - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 12:55 pm: == Personally I’ll be waiting until the last week … == Ditto. Maybe even the last day. - Anotherretiree - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:15 pm: ==I have a hard time== Or your assault weapon is stolen and you have to lie on the report about the magazines it has. Or Todd uses it to blast the intruders. Need to swap out the mag before the cops arrive. Lying requires planning. - Flapdoodle - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:43 pm: I may have missed this in the draft bills, but how will one’s legal entitlement to possess and transport an “assault weapon” be documented for daily use? Suppose I’m headed to the range, get stopped by LE for some reason, and they discover I have an “assault weapon” with me. Don’t quibble about lawful searches, etc. How will someone in that situation be able to document their legal entitlement to own the weapon? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:45 pm: === How will someone in that situation be able to document=== Through the serial numbers filed with the state. - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:46 pm: =your 4th Amendment right that the courts generally have extended to your personal automobile.= Explain the permissible safety stops on Friday nights. The courts have backed those. - Flapdoodle - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:56 pm: @ Rich — Right, but in a “live” situation, how is LE supposed to access that? For example, the new FOID cards have a CCL endorsement on them. One glance and LE sees it. Something similar for legal assault weapons? Or does LE need to run a serial number database, say from the side of the road during a traffic stop? Also, some weapons need to be at least partially disassembled to access the serial number. I’m not against the requirement, just wondering how it will look on the implementation end. - Blue Dog - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:03 pm: Since Illinois FOID laws don’t pertain to out of state hunters, are we to assume that out of state folks can drive thru the state unimpacted. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:03 pm: === but in a “live” situation, how is LE supposed to access that? === SCMODS, of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwqwSukyBvg - froganon - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:15 pm: I suspect most downstaters will take pride in ignoring children’s screams as they run for their lives - fixed it for you. Because the freedom to own weapons of war is always more important than the 45,222 people who died in 2020 (pewresearch.org) - Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:26 pm: Thank you froganon… exactly right - Flapdoodle - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:26 pm: @ Rich 2:03 ==SCMODS, of course= Dang, shoulda known that one . . . LOL - Blue Dog - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:31 pm: Froganon and Lincoln lad. Are you suggesting taking all firearms. - Dysfunction Junction - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:39 pm: ==Please explain. None of my auto loaders violates the rules. At most, I could load 5 rounds if I take the plugs out. My last one was purchased in 2019.== JS Mill - Rich supplied a link to the legislation. Search on the language of the legislation for the following text, which may be what Todd is referencing: “a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept OR MAY BE READILY MODIFIED to accept more than five rounds” (emphasis mine) Then use the Google machine to see if there is something called a “magazine extension” tube available for your hunting shotguns. In most cases, that would be a threaded tube that screws on the end of your stock magazine tube, making it capable of holding a couple more shells. Does the existence of such gadgets turn your semi-auto shotguns (and mine) into subjects of this bill, even if you don’t now and never intend to own such an extension tube? Inquiring minds want to know. My suggestion would be for some lawmaker who understands hunting weapons to address this overly broad language, lest guys like Todd use it as a cudgel against the intended curbs on the types of weapons that actually get used in violent crimes. - RNUG - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:52 pm: == Explain the permissible safety stops on Friday nights. The courts have backed those. == Those, or at least the ones I’m familiar with, don’t include full searches of the vehicle, including the trunk. - Skirmisher. ft go be - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:59 pm: Semi-automatic firearms per se were never the problem. The crux of the matter are the large capacity magazines (as well as the nature of the actual military cartridge) that can be slammed into one of these things in about 2 seconds. The real danger is the virtually unlimited rapid fire from things which makes mass shootings easy. The magazines in excess of 10 rounds capacity have no legitemit non-military purpose and must be removed from circulation or this is all a waste of time. - curious one - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:31 pm: Why would anyone need to register legally bought weapons already in circulation? if anyone bought the guns legally the state already has this information. - Madigans Stateville Barber - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:33 pm: “Removed from circulation” Come gettem sparky - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:36 pm: ===Come gettem sparky === You’re planning to shoot at the police, are you? - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:38 pm: =Come gettem sparky= Oooh, you sounded just like Dirty Harry there for a moment. Not. Like other tough talkers throughout history, you will go quietly. - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:44 pm: =Then use the Google machine to see if there is something= I wonder if you can use that google machine to read the law yourself. Unmodified shotguns will not violate the law. Shotguns that are fed by a detachable magazine are not the norm. I actually have one that has a three round mag and is a bolt action gun used for deer. It is compliant if you carefully (being the key) read the law. =making it capable of holding a couple more shells.= The home defense intended guns have extended tubes. They hold a max of 10. Same if you modified my Benelli auto loader that I used for waterfowl. So again. No. - Dysfunction Junction - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 4:39 pm: ==I wonder if you can use that google machine to read the law yourself. Unmodified shotguns will not violate the law.== Easy JS, we’re on the same side. I read through the law and didn’t find a single instance of the word “unmodified.” If you did, I would love to know where. However, I *did* see the phrase “A semiautomatic shotgun … that MAY BE readily modified to accept more than five rounds.” The modifier “MAY BE READILY” is problematic (for instance, define readily). If these words are not to be taken literally, perhaps the lawmakers should change them to HAS BEEN in the proposed language for clarity. I sincerely hope you’re correct, but would be more comfortable if I saw your understanding reflected in the proposed legislation. If anyone can provide a page and line number that backs up JS Mills’ contention about “unmodified shotguns” I would be most happy. It affects the pheasant gun I inherited from my dad. And yes, I know that home defense shotguns & riot guns have extended tubes. My understanding is that those would be subject to the provisions of this law. Five shells seems to have been more or less the standard for sporting semi-autos since Browning invented the A5 in 1898. Which is, I assume, why they specified a five shell fixed magazine in the law. And as you know, even those need a plug to be legal for most hunting. - Enemy of the State - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 5:34 pm: I suspect the amount of compliance with serial number registration and surrender or modification of thirty round magazines will be about the same amount as those turning in FOID cards and giving up firearms so they can legally use marijuana. - RNUG - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 5:36 pm: Hmm … wonder where one of my antique shotguns will fall? It’s unmodified, but made to take both 2 3/4 and 3 inch ammo. Using 2 3/4 ammo, it carries 6 cartridges. - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 5:45 pm: @Dysfuntion- As I read the law- an unmodified gun is compliant. “Easily Modified” is in the bill, mine was an interpretation. But I believe accurate. There is no way to easily modify a shotgun to exceed the limitation. And I again base that on my understanding. Literally any gun (or anything else) can be modified. So what easily means is up for interpretation. - Dysfunction Junction - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 6:18 pm: All good, JS. It appears that the legislature has now deleted the “may be readily modified” language applying to fixed magazine shotguns. I suspect that one change kept tens of thousands of harmless waterfowl and upland game shotguns on the right side of the law, while taking away obvious points of argument from opponents of the bill. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.