43 Comments - 28th Ward - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 8:53 pm: “You don’t get to choose which laws you comply with”…..unless it’s federal immigration law, ignore that one….with impunity - James - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 8:56 pm: Bailey has an accurate assessment of the situation. Millions of people won’t comply. This has played out before in New York and Connecticut. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 8:56 pm: ===unless it’s federal immigration law, ignore that one….with impunity=== … and yet all the numbers about people crossing are about people stopped. How can they be stopped if they law is being ignored. If the “last year was the most persons stopped”, or whatever Ed talking point you want that much, to be stopped must mean someone is actually stopping them? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 8:57 pm: ===unless it’s federal immigration law, ignore that one=== Which binding federal mandate(s) on states is/are Illinois violating? Be specific. - Former ILSIP - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 8:57 pm: Two thoughts: A year is a long time. Maybe the law gets the fast track to approval by the SC, maybe it’s stuck in the courts, maybe a different SC decision makes the while issue moot. On the same day that 25 states now recognize “Constitutional Carry”, it does make for an interesting parallel. Secondly, even if everything comes up roses for the Governor and proponents, a year is a long time for State Police Troopers to talk with their friends and neighbors, who likely are affected by this. A year to talk to friends at the local range. A year to be griped at by their families. A year to talk about this with their county and local police friends. A long time to ponder enforcement of similar laws in other states and their very low reported compliance rates. Unfairly or not, it brings to mind the adage “never give an order that can’t be obeyed.” Either way, I hope that cooler heads prevail. - Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:00 pm: Illinois needs a law similar to Florida’s that allows the Governor to remove local officials who misbehave. If firing a state’s attorney for expressing a desire to not prosecute abortion or gender-affirming care is ok, then firing one who refuses to take action against slaughter weapons is a no brainer. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:03 pm: ===Secondly, even if everything comes up roses for the Governor and proponents, a year is a long time for State Police Troopers to talk with their friends and neighbors, who likely are affected by this. A year to talk to friends at the local range. A year to be griped at by their families. A year to talk about this with their county and local police friends. A long time to ponder enforcement of similar laws in other states and their very low reported compliance rates. Unfairly or not, it brings to mind the adage “never give an order that can’t be obeyed.” Either way, I hope that cooler heads prevail.=== So… a year to plan to not follow a law? It’s also a year, with petitions going out in September/October to remind voters that Republicans have no desire to protect families and children from assault weapons, voting against the ban. It’s a political loser. Go talk about not following laws, having a year to be non-compliant. Have at it. The Dems will continue to discuss how Republicans are dangerous to women, children, families… on multiple policies. They did it last cycle… - TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:05 pm: –unless it’s federal immigration law– States do not enforce federal immigration laws, so there’s nothing for the state to ignore there. To follow through on your logic, do you also believe the state police are ignoring the enforcement of penalties for the IRS? “Balkanization” isn’t just the preferred method of governing for the far-right, it’s also the preferred mode of thinking - where each thing stands independent of everything else no matter how obvious the contradictions are. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:06 pm: ===Unfairly or not, it brings to mind the adage “never give an order that can’t be obeyed.” === Man, you guys are all drama addicts. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:19 pm: With respect, OW and Rich, human nature is what it is. On the practical side, Police and the folks they would be called upon under this law are both human. A lot of conversations are going to take place in each group and between both groups that may have the end result of making this law very challenging to enforce, I’d guess. On the political side, I wouldn’t bet against the SC bailing out both sides, to a degree, at least. In which case, you can credit or blame “activist judges” and leave your local Rep/Senator free to shrug and promise to fight all the more for you after the election. Who knows, maybe we’re all just drama addicts. Either way, we’ve got at least a year to find out. - Former ILSIP - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:20 pm: Anonymous at 9:19 was me, apologies. With respect, OW, human nature is what it is. On the practical side, Police and the folks they would be called upon under this law are both human. A lot of conversations are going to take place in each group and between both groups that may have the end result of making this law very challenging to enforce, I’d guess. On the political side, I wouldn’t bet against the SC bailing out both sides, to a degree, at least. In which case, you can credit or blame “activist judges” and leave your local Rep/Senator free to shrug and promise to fight all the more for you after the election. Who knows, maybe we’re all just drama addicts. Either way, we’ve got at least a year to find out. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:24 pm: ===Police and the folks they would be called upon under this law are both human. A lot of conversations are going to take place in each group and between both groups that may have the end result of making this law very challenging to enforce, I’d guess.=== … and yet it’s the constitution and rule of law you want to be the arbiter? It’s a political losing point. Polling says it so, voting also says it so, otherwise Bailey would’ve touted being 100% 2A in the suburbs. He didn’t … “why” - OneMan - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:25 pm: == Millions of people won’t comply. == Illinois has a bit over 9 million people over 18, I will go out on a limb here and suggest that 10% don’t own weapons or other things that run afoul of this law. I would be more impressed if more people who own weapons covered by this admitted they own them because they enjoy them whereas I only have this to protect myself from the government. - Former ILSIP - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:41 pm: OW, as I said in that particular portion of my remark, the practical concerns with enforcement are worth noting, whether you agree or disagree with this law. Politically, the SC does have jurisdiction over the decision as to whether this law is in conflict with constitutional law. Losing point or not, it’s a fact. How the eventual decision to reject/accept/accept in part this law is handled by elected officials is up to them. I’ll leave the GOP guru angle to you. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:48 pm: ===practical concerns with enforcement are worth noting=== So law enforcement, according to you, would like to collude to not follow the law(s) they swore to uphold. That’s not a winning point here. It’s not even a logical point as seeming… reasonable. If anything, it’s a reminder why laws are needed because people won’t follow them unless they exist, according to you, including law enforcement. Whew. That’s a lotta assuming, prolly why Republicans see an insurrection to our democracy as “no big woop” ===Politically, the SC does have jurisdiction over the decision as to whether this law is in conflict with constitutional law. Losing point or not, it’s a fact.=== LOL Like I said, “see you in court”… but like abortion, Republicans could play a big role to Republican losses like abortion did. “But we’re right” Wonks don’t understand the politics. I read fine, I can’t believe you’re advocating and/or seeing this as not only ok but acceptable Drama indeed. - Original Anon - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:51 pm: Bailey and others posturing would be better if they had an argument explaining their non-compliance. The law doesn’t confiscate guns. And I thought every court to address similar laws has upheld the law as constitutional. I guess the Supreme Court could disagree, but that’s far from certain. - Pretzel - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 10:16 pm: Not going to pretend to know Bailey’s motivation. He is a bit crazy so that may be all there is. But all previous decisions upholding AWB’s did not follow Bruen and the state has taken the position in previous cases if you aren’t arrested under a particular law you have no standing to sue. So…get arrested and have standing to sue. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 10:22 pm: ===So…get arrested and have standing to sue.=== It’s a weird flex… considering others here are saying that law enforcement will refuse to comply and make those arrests. All this circus performance art, the reality is trying to save lives is lost upon Republicans because it’s not about what voters see in these policies. - Former ILSIP - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 10:25 pm: OW, as you know from my prior statement, I do not consider the situation police are about to find themselves in to be an “ok” or “acceptable” thing, nor have I said such a thing. As I stated before, “I’d guess” that this is going to be challenging to enforce. I have not made, and continue to make no assumptions about what police forces would “like” to do. What I am saying, as I have said before, is that police and the people affected by this law are both “people” and subject to influences beyond a pure and perfectly rigid adherence to the law. I don’t consider this situation to be a good or bad thing, but merely a statement of fact (and admittedly a layman’s guesstimate of human nature). I am not advocating for, and have not advocated for disobedience to this law, on the part of police forces or the people affected by this law. For you to state otherwise is putting words in my mouth that I have not said. Finally, as I said before, I hope cooler heads prevail in this situation. With that in mind, it’s getting late so I’ll wish you a good evening. - Frumpy White Guy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 10:29 pm: It’s mind blowing that we have elected official willing to go to jail in order to protect their Assault weapons serial number. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 10:44 pm: ===I don’t consider this situation to be a good or bad thing, but merely a statement of fact (and admittedly a layman’s guesstimate of human nature).=== A statement of fact in human nature you want me to accept you are not trying to say us one way or another. I mean, you keep typing but the hole keep getting deeper. I’m not putting any words in any mouth. The situation is seemingly you wanna say “it’s a fact”, but hedge on “I’m guessing” with nary any cite or fact to help you… meanwhile, polling on how voters feel about assault weapons and banning some or all is not the trend that’s your friend. ===olice and the folks they would be called upon under this law are both human. A lot of conversations are going to take place in each group and between both groups that may have the end result of making this law very challenging to enforce, I’d guess.=== That’s utter gibberish then, in any context to what you’d like to say… “now” Maybe just talk to exactly what you know by what you can prove to that knowledge? Like I know polling on this is awful for those willing, as a party, to reject any banning of assault weapons, no matter how the law is eventually seen by a court. - Cool Papa Bell - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 10:45 pm: People willfully speed everyday and most don’t get caught. There a plenty of criminals ignoring getting a FOID card. And now there will be some people who refuse to register a weapon. I accept that people break laws everyday and get away with it. But now when they break this law and get caught there is something to do about it. And I sure hope Republicans message for a year that they support not complying with the law, push that issue and keep shrinking the party. As Durkin said today - Republicans in Illinois are playing the game of subtraction. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 10:47 pm: This alone. (Sigh) ===I am not advocating for, and have not advocated for disobedience to this law, on the part of police forces or the people affected by this law. For you to state otherwise is putting words in my mouth that I have not said.=== Yet you wrote this… ===Unfairly or not, it brings to mind the adage “never give an order that can’t be obeyed.”=== Are you waxing poetic or why would you bring up an adage seemingly as a warning of what could occur? Unfairly or not. - ChuckIL - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 7:48 am: I’ll comply with the law. Because that’s the duty of all citizens of a civilized society. The representatives elected by the people have passed a bill into law. Protest if you would like, but follow the law. - 28th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 7:53 am: Yes the State of Illinois isn’t responsible for enforcing federal immigration law. But Illinois lawmakers has designed Illinois as a “sanctuary state”, and encourage people to come to their “sanctuary” cities. They do everything possible to shield people from federal authorities trying to conduct deportations. Point being it’s a law, if it’s a bad law elect enough people to congress to change it. But Pritzker taking moral high ground on what laws to follow should practice what he preaches. He supports open defiance of immigration law in his words and legislation. Along with most every democrat in Illinois. And yes I’m aware Rauner signed the sanctuary state bill but it’s irrelevant to this discussion. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 7:59 am: ===Along with most every democrat in Illinois. And yes I’m aware Rauner signed the sanctuary state bill but it’s irrelevant to this discussion.=== Tell me you watch FoxNews without telling me you watch FoxNews “And yes I’m aware Rauner signed the sanctuary state bill but it’s irrelevant to this discussion.” Pretty inconvenient when the want is to blame Democrats. amirite? - Tequila Mockingbird - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:26 am: “You don’t get to choose which laws you comply with in the state of Illinois. …” Sure you do. Speed limit, seat belt laws, all of them. You accept the risk if you don’t comply but life is all about choices. This law is a great big F-U to the firearm manufacturers and many jobs in Illinois in addition to the responsible gun owners. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:31 am: Everybody needs to take a deep breath, sit back, and see how this goes. Whether or not this is constitutional is going to be a couple of years or more playing out. From a practical matter, no one will be in violation of this law until a year from now. Even then, you won’t officially be in violation until you are cited / charged for said violation. Then, and only then, will someone have actual standing to file suit. And, given how previous challenges have gone, a case may not be brought even then if the person cited is not a poster child example with a completely clean criminal record. I expect whatever case is initially brought forward will have a combination of both venue / judge shopping and victim shopping to try to get the desired initial decision(s). So plan to bring out the popcorn for the show about a year from now … - Pundent - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:36 am: =This law is a great big F-U to the firearm manufacturers and many jobs in Illinois in addition to the responsible gun owners.= And what is it to the 60% of so that support such a ban? Because when your rant aligns with the majority of the voters your point will mean something. Maybe this isn’t the law you wanted but from where I sit you’re squarely in the minority. But as others have pointed out you can turn your passion into purpose. That’s what opponents of another law did and it gave us the Dobbs decision. And the predictable results that followed it. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:50 am: –responsible gun owners– You forgot to include ‘law abiding’ and ‘hardworking’. You are making it difficult for me to finish off my buzzword bingo card. The reality is you aren’t hearing anything from the responsible gun owners, because they are going about their day being responsible by following the law AND being responsible. One of the largest spigots in the flow of guns are irresponsible people telling everyone they know how many and what types of firearms they own, then leaving their house unoccupied and their guns laying around unsecured. Then someone within earshot of them in one of the times they were bloviating about their firearms decides to do a bit of B&E and remove those unsecured firearms from that unoccupied home. It doesn’t get nearly as much print in the news because its boring, but one of the most common events is a break in where guns are stolen - from those supposed ‘responsible gun owners’. Welcome to being an adult, where other people acting dumb has an impact on your life. - ChuckIL - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:54 am: ==This law is a great big F-U to the firearm manufacturers and many jobs in Illinois in addition to the responsible gun owners.== Responsible gun owner here. I don’t consider it an F-U. As a responsible gun owner I want to be a part of the solution. I feel it’s important we try something. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who think we need to do something. If it doesn’t work, fine. We’ll have a data point that says it doesn’t work. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 9:05 am: == There are a lot of responsible gun owners who think we need to do something. == While I’m not thrilled with the registration part of the law (would have preferred a requirement to prove prior ownership if questioned), I can live with this law. And, as stated, we’ll see in a few years if it really changes anything in terms of crime statistics. - Jerry - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 9:07 am: Why aren’t gun owners required to carry liability insurance (like drivers?) The financial burden should be on those who choose a gun “lifestyle.” - ReasonableGunOwner - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 9:20 am: The problem with all of the comments on here so far is this: everyone is talking about “well, this is a losing issue, 60% of voters polled say…” instead of looking at this as an issue of individual freedom. These “weapons of war” are most certainly what our nation’s founders wanted us to have. That’s actually the entire point. I don’t want mine for hunting, for target shooting, or for playing with. I want them as my last defense against any further tyranny of the state. The state should fear us, not the other way around. Please show me where assault weapons rank on the leading cause of deaths chart before arguing that they are a huge public safety issue worthy of violating individual rights over. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 9:28 am: ===my last defense against any further tyranny of the state=== lol You gonna shoot down an A-10 with that popgun, sonnyboy? So “reasonable.” - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 9:30 am: ===These “weapons of war” are most certainly what our nation’s founders wanted us to have. That’s actually the entire point. I don’t want mine for hunting, for target shooting, or for playing with. I want them as my last defense against any further tyranny of the state. The state should fear us, not the other way around.=== Tell me you support insurrections without “telling me”, but by actually typing a threatening thought to the government… It’s this thinking that makes the GOP support of “no or very limited or curtailed” gun control or bans so electorally awful. Winners. Make. Policy. What, you gonna use the threat of using your assault weapon like folks did in Michigan’s state house? Yeah, that’s not what the Founding Fathers wanted at all. A minority of “aggrieved phony tough” folks threatening the Republic. “Doubtful” - Pundent - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 9:43 am: =These “weapons of war” are most certainly what our nation’s founders wanted us to have.= =I want them as my last defense against any further tyranny of the state.= These are not the sound reasoned argument that will convince the majority that we don’t need the assault weapons ban. Things change. Our founders didn’t see women as being equal to men and deprived them the right to vote. The women’s suffrage movement corrected that. Slavery was not seen as being immoral in any way and Jim Crowe laws were viewed as perfectly acceptable. The civil rights movement righted that wrong. A women’s right to have control over her body was codified by Roe v. Wade. Well, maybe that last one is not the best example. But the point is, things change. And so too has our attitude towards gun ownership as we witness more and more senseless crime and tragedy. Now you can continue to scream “tyranny” all you want but you’re in a shrinking minority. Because views and laws evolve. The majority of us now recognize that women and POC are as equal as any of us. You can marry who you love and we can in fact do more to address the senseless killing of our citizens. - Jerry - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:13 am: “Tyranny of the state” Like when a Missouri sheriff comes to arrest a woman for having an abortion in Illinois? Talk about guv’mint over reach. And you thought “Obamacare” was bad! - A Jack - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:12 am: I am pretty sure JB doesn’t have the authority to fire my local police officer if he refuses to arrest someone over a 16 round magazine. Hollow threats will not earn respect. - Appears - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:25 am: To be fair, most of the gun owners don’t own guns because of fear of the government. Some will own guns for a sense of protection. But most own guns because it makes them feel stronger or superior. They get a sense of manhood from it. Basically, they are compensating for something real or imagined. Some may buy a sports car. Some buy a bigger house than they can afford. Most gun owners are lawful, with some need to appear bigger and stronger. And no, that Corvette when you are 60 years old doesn’t make you look 25. But just because someone is an insecure male doesn’t mean they have the right to own a nuclear weapon. It isn’t about freedom…it’s about the few thinking they will lose their security blanket. So to the Darren Baileys of the world. If you want to be powerful then actually follow the words of the One who you claim to serve…the one who wants to lead, must be the servant of all. Jesus came to serve, not be to served. - Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:03 pm: The Republican “Law and Order” Party now want to pick and choose…disobediently…like unruly children. - Jocko - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:15 pm: ==I want them as my last defense against any further tyranny of the state.== Unless you’re a native american whose ancestors were displaced or a Japanese american who was interned, you’re talking out of your hat. - A Jack - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 6:05 pm: When even law enforcement is saying they won’t enforce an unlawful law, well I think JB is going to have his hands full. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.