Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

After recovering its 100th assault weapon this year, Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson is renewing his call on Springfield to pass comprehensive gun reforms.

Johnson on Thursday said his department has seized 106 “high-powered assault” weapons so far this year, marking a 34-percent increase over the same time period last year, while also touting 14-straight months of gun violence reductions in the city.

* MM…

The deadline for @GovRauner to act on a new gun bill is early next week. It would redefine "assault weapon" and add a 72-hour waiting period to buy one in Illinois. Here's the bill: https://t.co/gC41vSA7G9

— Mark Maxwell (@WCIA3Mark) May 11, 2018

* Synopsis…

Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Defines “assault weapon”. Provides that a person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly delivers any assault weapon without withholding delivery of the assault weapon for at least 72 hours, including to a nonresident of the State while at a firearm showing or display recognized by the Department of State Police. Provides that a violation is a Class 4 felony. Effective immediately.

The definition is here.

* The Question: Should Gov. Rauner sign this bill? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

find bike trails

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:05 pm

Comments

Say, after we let folks who don’t want guns around redefine what an assault weapon is, we let kids who won’t eat vegetables redefine what a salad is?

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:12 pm
I voted yes. I’ll be honest, I am in favor of anything that limits the number of weapons around me or people I care about, no matter how weak or watered down it is.

Comment by Perrid Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:13 pm
VanillaMan, so you’re saying that male pro-life legislators shouldn’t draft anti-abortion bills?

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:15 pm
What if we only allow abortion laws to be written by people who’ve experienced birth?

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:17 pm
Leave the red herrings out of your arguments here. Stick to the question. Deletions will follow.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:19 pm
No, he should sign it unless he really believes that winning only 19% of the vote reelects him.

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:21 pm
So I use my fork to assault someone, then its an assault fork. So we are going to write legislation to control the assault forks? The term Assault weapon was a made up term by democrats to demonize something they didn’t like. Difficult to even entertain this conversation when there is some much dishonesty being pushed.

Comment by Not an Inch Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:22 pm
Reluctant yes. It’s not what it does, it’s what it may do once it becomes a foundation for a whole new line of legislation.

Comment by A guy Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:31 pm
I’d need someone to explain to me why we need an extra two day waiting period for a long arm. There is already a 24hr one. How does that stop anything? Making a felony out of it? I thought we were against insane over penalization lately. Voted No.

Comment by GreatPlainser Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:34 pm
I voted yes, because doing nothing is not an option. As weak as this bill is, it is clearly better than nothing.

Just change the definitions to “accepts a magazine” and forget the capacity verbiage.

Comment by Odysseus Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:37 pm
Let me add that I would support 72hr period for “assault weapons” if they dropped a waiting period for simple sporting arms like .22LR and target/hunting shotguns.

Comment by GreatPlainser Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:38 pm
Yes because I’m tired and sick of the mass slaughterings using assault weapons, which apparently are easily obtained, and we should do more.

I don’t understand the fixation with assault weapons and high-capacity clips, weapons used in mass killings, and I used to be agnostic on gun issues. The Heller SCOTUS decision that affirms the 2A allows us to regulate and restrict weapons. When dozens are killed and hundreds are injured in one event, like Vegas, and when children are killed, like Newtown and Parkland, that screams for action to be taken.

Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:47 pm
Voted no. For the same reason I would not support the government restricting “drowning pools”. Definition: Any pool that is filled with water and has one or more of the following features 1) a detachable ladder, 2) a blue liner, or 3) a diving board protruding over the surface.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:52 pm
Good old Chicago politicians screaming about gun control. Yet when CPD catch a criminal with an illegal gun, they are released on low bond, and pled out on probation. No punishment for those illegal guns, but they are worried about everyone else’s guns. GET YOUR HOUSE IN ORDER FIRST fools.

Comment by 44th Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:55 pm
Voted no. 24-72 hour waiting period means delaying an issue, not stopping one. It’s a placebo.

Comment by Fixer Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:59 pm
More people are killed in America texting while driving than from attackers armed with “assault” weapons.

“With the latest statistics available as of 2018, in 2015, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, 3,477 people died and another 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes caused by drivers who were distracted because they were texting or using cell phones.”

It is illegal in Illinois to text while driving.

Yet it still happens. In fact, it is increasing.

https://www.personalinjurysandiego.org/topics/facts-about-texting-driving/

Comment by Soapbox Derby Friday, May 11, 18 @ 12:59 pm
Voted no. I would ask how many of these so called assault weapons taken off of the streets of Chicago came from some train car, some other state or were otherwise stolen. How many were legally purchased by the end user? 24 hours, 72 hours, or 1 month won’t make a bit of difference.

Comment by TheGoodLieutenant Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:00 pm
How many investigations and follow up prosecutions on these seized gun? Zero. Maybe enforce existing laws first.

Comment by Al Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:00 pm
I voted yes, this needs to be done. But it is interesting how it’s being pushed on Rauner now, after decades of gun violence and democratic control of the House and Senate. Haven’t they had a couple of Dem governors in the last 20 years?

Comment by allknowingmasterofraccoondom Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:06 pm
“More people are killed in America texting while driving than from attackers armed with “assault” weapons.”

Oh goody, justification to do nothing about mass shootings.

The Heller decision from a conservative SCOTUS allows us to regulate and restrict guns. If anyone doesn’t like the decision, file a lawsuit and try to move it up to overturn Heller.

Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:09 pm
Waiting for 72 hours isn’t a big hassle for law abiding people to wait. It’s probably not gonna be signed by the gov, but they might as well try to do something.

Comment by Big Joe Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:10 pm
slow things down. make them think. something has to be done.

Comment by Amalia Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:11 pm
Voted no for the reasons already stated. Why do we “need to do something” about even if that something is really a nothing. Also, I have seen the term “high capacity clips” used on this blog. What the heck are those? Are they large clips that hold a bunch of paper together? If you are going in to argue against something at least educate yourself with the correct terminology.

Comment by Former Hillrod Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:12 pm
There are hundreds of gun laws already, and people break them everyday.

Comment by Lowdrag Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:13 pm
Voted no. 72 hour waiting period isn’t going to help with the violence plagueing the City of Chicago. Also, more deaths are caused by “assault phones”, “assault cheeseburgers”, and “assault cars” than “assault weapons”.

Comment by Phenomynous Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:23 pm
Try again. The “ability” to is a loaded term and too vague. If this rule passes it will make purchasing firearms illegal in IL because it could be argued that that weapon has the “ability” to be made into an assault weapon. Well, I have the ability to drive my car into a lamppost but that doesn’t mean I’m going to do it. Try again.

Comment by ehh Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:25 pm
Voted yes. If 48 extra hours buys enough time for law enforcement to catch and prevent just one mass shooting, it would have been worth it.

Comment by Anon312 Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:30 pm
If 48 extra hours buys enough time for someone to prevent just one abortion, it would have been worth it.

Comment by Soapbox Derby Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:33 pm
Until gun owners accept responsibility for themselves and others (as members of a well-regulated militia should), we will continue to nibble around the edges of “semi-automatic rifle reform”.

Comment by Jocko Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:35 pm
Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country how’s that working put .

Comment by You Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:37 pm
Voted Yes - there is never a reason to need to purchase a gun quickly. Waiting periods save lives.

Comment by Anon Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:39 pm
===Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country how’s that working put .===

Is that you, Mr. President?

I’m pretty sure Chicago has the same gun laws as Peoria or Champaign. Maybe you should read a newspaper from time to time. Things change.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:41 pm
Ummmm 100% no, not the same. Chicago has an “assault weapon” ban, mag bans, etc.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:46 pm
Voted no. They are describing a simple rifle, which is a 24hr wait here.

How many of these firearms were seized from FOID holders? How many were used in a crime?

Comment by FormerParatrooper Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:52 pm
Voted no. It would make my 22 long rifle illegal as it will hold 17 rounds (not in an attachable magazine, the “magazine” that loads beneath the barrel. This is a pre WWII rifle used for plinking, target shooting, and plinking varmints.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:52 pm
The on line voting data with about 63% in favor reflects Rich’s blog readers perspectives correctly I believe. Likely Rauner will veto this bill, but either a veto or signing the bill will be meaningless. Because once he is voted out of office Governor JB will sign a full ban on all assault weapons using the New York (safe act) and Connecticut legislation that have been upheld by the court of appeals and the supreme court declined to hear.

Of course rifles will be made by companies that will be consistent with the new standard in these laws and the Ghost Gunner 3 D printer will make replacement parts including magazines to basically restore them to the prior status before the law is passed. Currently that CNC milling machine costs $1,675 with software for your laptop.

Really this is an impossible attempt at legislation to regulate guns which will be evaded by those desperately wanting this type of weapon and willing to take risks to have such weapons. As I indicated yesterday I personally would comply with any such law passed in Illinois by moving my existing weapons that would be determined to require registration to my Wisconsin home.

Comment by rod Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:53 pm
I voted yes. We need to get assault weapons off of the streets and there is no need to rush to purchase. Increasing the waiting period will likely save some lives.

Comment by Flynn's Mom Friday, May 11, 18 @ 1:58 pm
Voted yes. Handguns already have a 72 hr waiting period. Other long guns stay at 24 hrs. A small change, but could be helpful.

Comment by Leslie K Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:07 pm
Voted no because (a) 72 hours instead of 24 won’t change anything and (b) that bit about semi-auto pistols weighing more than 50 ounces. What are they trying to sneak through with that limit?

Comment by RNUG Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:09 pm
Wonder how many murders there have been with a .50 BMG. Not the kind of gun that is easily hauled around. Voted no.

Comment by Huh? Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:27 pm
Anyone wanna wager on whether Rauner vetoes the gun-safety proposal on Mothers Day?

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:29 pm
Voted yes. Most new gun laws are aimed at the future (no pun intended), not the present. Millions of guns are already out there, but do we need more?

I would argue there is no need for semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Would it be so much work to use a lever, bolt, or pump to chamber another round, while giving the wildlife more of a chance?

Assault rifles were not designed for target practice or hunting. They were designed to kill people.

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:31 pm
Voted no. Nothing more than feel good legislation.

Since this is targeted at mass shootings, does anyone care to name the mass shooters that purchased their gun less than 72 hours before their attack?

72 hours for handguns makes sense from the standpoint that are the types of guns used in the most shootings. Blunt objects are more likely to be used in a murder than any rifle, much less an AR. However it makes less sense when you think about someone who fears for their life and feels like they need to buy a handgun to protect themselves.

Comment by m Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:35 pm
RNUG,

In recent times AR style pistols with “arm braces” have been popular. 50oz is over 3lbs. I’d guess that is the purpose of that.

I see lots of arguments here in this discussions from the “texting while driving kills people” to the “we just have to get those off the streets”. Both are extreme. The is room for compromise here, we just can’t fit it in because of all out other baggage.

Comment by GreatPlainser Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:37 pm
Yes, all firearms are designed to kill. If Im forced to defend against a lethal threat to myself or family, I want firearm designed to kill. I dont hunt.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:42 pm
“I voted yes. We need to get assault weapons off of the streets and there is no need to rush to purchase. Increasing the waiting period will likely save some lives.”

That has worked well for drugs for the last 100 years.

Voted NO, and for the last time people:

as·sault
əˈsôlt/Submit
verb
1.
make a physical attack on.

Comment by Digity Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:45 pm
@Digity

If you wonder why folks find your position unconvincing, perhaps read the rest of the definition?

Anywho, I think he should sign it just because why not?

Comment by Anon Friday, May 11, 18 @ 2:48 pm
- GreatPlainser - ,

thanks for the explanation. I knew a service 1911 weighed about 39 - 40 ounces empty. I also knew my favorite revolver, a S&W 19, also weighed 39. So I wondered what the heck weighed more than 50 ounces.

Comment by RNUG Friday, May 11, 18 @ 3:24 pm
===So I wondered what the heck weighed more than 50 ounces.===

An .88 Magnum. It shoots through schools.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 11, 18 @ 3:30 pm
==What do we do, ban and confiscate them all?==
You’re ahead of the curve, Hillrod. I voted no primarily because of the “fixed magazine capacity” provision, it makes the 1940’s .22 rifle I inherited turn me into a criminal. So I have to move that rifle out of state, or take a hacksaw to it? This kind of nonsense, let alone the “Hard Truth” post by Rich today, should make a whole lot of families gather around the dinner table tonight for a come-to-Jesus meeting on whether it is really in their best interests to stay in Illinois going forward.

Comment by Stuntman Bob's Brother Friday, May 11, 18 @ 3:45 pm
Voted no. Too much in one bill to accept. 72 hours waiting period for all guns-can live with that. 10-round magazine ban-no, will make criminals out of too many people. Not to mention the over-restrictive definition of assault rifle.
And I simply cannot accept the reasoning of the voters here who say “Do something! Even if it isn’t right.”

Comment by downstate commissioner Friday, May 11, 18 @ 3:45 pm
===1940’s .22 rifle I inherited turn me into a criminal===

Nope. Keep reading. The bill exempts antiques.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 11, 18 @ 3:50 pm
=An .88 Magnum. It shoots through schools.=

That’s big right? /s

=So I wondered what the heck weighed more than 50 ounces.=

Possibly some of the big .50 caliber handguns and the S&W .460. But most of your standard handguns are well below that weight, with the advent of the Glock there are some very light guns out there.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, May 11, 18 @ 3:54 pm
Thanks, RNUG. I did go back and saw that the bill excludes rifles that “use rimfire ammunition or cartridges”, which would likely exclude my Pop’s .22. I don’t think the “antique” provision would exempt it, since it is still in working order, it probably shoots more accurately than most of the Walmart junk being peddled today. Still a bunch of nonsense, though - having a heat shield and foldable stock isn’t what makes a rifle dangerous - it’s the intent of the user.

Comment by Stuntman Bob's Brother Friday, May 11, 18 @ 4:01 pm
No, the governor should not sign this bill, unless he intends to further the infrastructure of the criminal police state. The true purpose of this bill is to identify a specific class of firearms for future confiscation, because the government considers their owners to be a political threat and intends to target them.

Ban “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines for police and retired police in Illinois. Let’s see all the anti-gun police unions that opposed concealed carry for the last forty years support disarming themselves and demilitarizing the police.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:24 am

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Simple solutions are usually neither
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser list

Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Comments

Add a comment

Last 10 posts: