Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Welch optimistic, but won’t definitively say an assault weapons ban will be approved in January

Posted in:

Illinois

* Tribune earlier this month…

One of the challenges facing lawmakers in the upcoming session is that any measure that passes requires a three-fifths majority in both chambers if it is to take immediate effect. While Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers, rounding up enough votes on controversial matters to clear that hurdle isn’t always a given.

That’s a major reason why any action on hot-button issues like gun control and abortion is more likely to come after the new year, when only a simple majority would be needed.

Many Democrats, including Pritzker, have been pushing for a ban on the sale military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines since the mass shooting in Highland Park on the Fourth of July that left seven people dead and a couple dozen others hurt.

* Center Square earlier this month…

Amid other issues, Pritzker aims to ban certain types of firearms and further enshrine access to abortion, even as early as next week when lawmakers return for veto session, if the votes are there.

“The fact is, whether we get it done in November, or we get it done in January, early in the session, whenever that may be, we are going to work on passing an assault weapon ban and making sure that we are protecting women’s reproductive rights by expanding capacity and making the investments that are necessary here in our state to protect women,” Pritzker said.

* From WGN TV’s interview of House Speaker Chris Welch this week…

Q: What will it take to get the assault weapons ban passed? What’s the resistance?

Welch: Well, let me also clarify that if we want to pass something that’s effective, immediately, veto session, you would need 71 votes. I don’t think we get 71 votes on that.

Q: New term?

Welch: January, it only needs 60 votes. I think an assault weapons ban in January is possible.

Q: Are you comfortable enough to say you think you can commit to getting an assault weapons ban on the governor’s desk in the new term?

Welch: I certainly hope so. I’m going to work to make sure it happens because I think it’s that important.

* Capitol News Illinois today…

Regarding assault weapons regulation, Welch said that issue will have to wait until the 2023 session begins in January, when only a simple majority of votes is needed to pass new laws with an immediate effective date. That’s because the Illinois Constitution requires a three-fifths majority for bills passed after June 1 to have an immediate effective date.

“Anything that we do on assault weapons, we would want it to be effective immediately,” he said. “And I just don’t think we would have 71 votes to get something done in this shortened veto session. But I do believe that we’re going to be able to deliver for the people of Illinois an assault weapons ban next year, and we’re going to work real hard to make that happen.”

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 9:49 am

Comments

Will those violating current gun laws obey the next one? What’s the empirical evidence that they will?

Comment by Steve Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:07 am
===Will those violating current gun laws obey the next one? What’s the empirical evidence that they will?===

That’s never a reason to pass legislation.

That’s child-like “wonder” to how legislation should be crafted.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:09 am
If this will stop one bad person from getting an assault rifle, then this is worth it. Something is better than nothing, which is what we’d get from the gun worshippers.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:10 am
Is there a general consensus on the definition of an assault weapon? Is this definition so broad that it will ban a semiautomatic hunting shotgun?

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:16 am
Doesn’t law enforcement (FBI?) have a list of all known makes and marks of assault weapons that have been used in mass shootings? If you list all them you’d have a pretty good start. Then you’d just have to do something about the generics. There, having a gun expert would be handy to help define the characteristics of an assault weapons such that it would not impinge on hunting or home defense weapons.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:27 am
How many Democrats does it take to pass a common-sense gun reform bill if 78 isn’t enough?

Comment by SWSider Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:28 am
wonder if a bill could be passed which would define assault weapons but which would also require that guns would have to be reviewed by the State Police for legality of sale. manufacturers constantly tried to get around the description in the national ban. there has to be a way to stop that.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:32 am
I’m guessing this will drive, a little bit, the desire to own one for some. So when this hits the paper there’s going to be more purchases. Interested in knowing what happens to those already owned and in circulation. I don’t see those being surrendered.

Comment by ddp76 Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:33 am
===Is there a general consensus on the definition of an assault weapon?

Most statutes/ordinances across the country define an assault weapon as a combination of certain attributes:

1) Semi-automatic
+
2) Detachable magazine
+
3) At least 1 additional statute/ordinance-defined feature (this varies from place to place)

For example, Chicago’s ordinance lists the following:

(A)   a folding, telescoping or detachable stock;
(B)   a handgun grip;
(C)   a forward grip;
(D)   a threaded barrel;
(E)   a grenade, flare or rocket launcher; or
(F)   a barrel shroud.

===Is this definition so broad that it will ban a semiautomatic hunting shotgun?
Tubular magazine-fed semiautomatic weapons are commonly considered exempt (below a certain capacity.) However, tubular magazine extension bans are becoming more common.

Comment by Logan Listener Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:42 am
==Will those violating current gun laws ==

This sort of argument has got to be one of the dumbest arguments people make. Hey, let’s not pass any laws because people might violate them. That’s just a stupid argument.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:46 am
===one of the dumbest arguments people make===

Yeah, and a big overlap with the people who oppose eliminating cash bail. By their logic, if nobody’s ever gonna follow any laws, why do we even have jails and prisons?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:49 am
= What’s the empirical evidence that they will?=

Can you find empirical evidence that any law will solve/prevent any crime? The death penalty did not.

=Most statutes/ordinances across the country define an assault weapon as a combination of certain attributes:=

I definitely support an assault rifle ban but some of your attributes also define hunting rifles. There are hunting rifles with a detachable box magazine. These are in various calibers.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:50 am
-That’s never a reason to pass legislation.-

What’s wrong with enforcing the current gun laws instead of being so tame with sentencing ? Virtue signaling is just feel good stuff that doesn’t address the problem of violent crime.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 10:58 am
I have yet to hear even a decent argument on why a “normal citizen” needs a weapon of war designed to kill as many humans as possible in as short amount of time as possible. These weapons were illegal in America until 2004 for good reason. Outside of “looking cool” can someone give one legitimate reason as to why they need an AR-15 in their basement?

And please do not say to “protect me from the Government”. Because if you think your AR-15 is going to save you from a military that can send cruise missiles up the back ends of a terrorist hiding in the middle of a desert then you have a serious problem and probably should not own a gun anyways.

Comment by TimmyTenders Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:00 am
===so tame with sentencing===

What does that even mean when…

===Virtue signaling===

Is your argument that a stricter ban is virtue signaling AND complaining about tame sentencing too?

Come back after Thanksgiving, I don’t think you are grasping anything but buzz words learned while… buzzed

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:03 am
===What’s wrong…===

… with you trying to argue in child like wonder and expect your thoughts to be serious?

This isn’t Facebook.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:04 am
Go ahead and pass the most sweeping thing they think they can get the votes for.

We’re going to court. By the time they come back for session we should have rulings on a couple of bans out of Cali. and given the new standard of review enumerated in New York Rifle & Pistol Assn. V Bruen, I like where we stand. Don’t Believe me, go listen to these oral arguments from a couple of weeks ago here in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on felons being permanently disqualified.

https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/83587/patrick-atkinson-v-merrick-garland/

The government’s arguments begins around the 15:30 mark and it takes 20 seconds for the judges to begin correcting him. You can hear in their voices how weak the governments case is and the reset SCOTUS did.

when Mass, and New York and Maryland did theirs they got about 13-15% compliance. You have 70 some counties here as Second Amendment Sanctuary counties who say they will not enforce anything like this. So how you gonna enforce it when gun owners decide not to comply?

And when the courts toss it out, all the wailing and knashing of teeth is for nothing. My bet is n 18 months, there will be less “gun control” on the books in Illinois than there is today.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:06 am
==What’s wrong with enforcing the current gun laws==

Current law allows you to buy the kinds of weapons used in mass shootings. That’s what they are trying to address. Stop with these ridiculous arguments you are making.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:11 am
===I definitely support an assault rifle ban but some of your attributes also define hunting rifles. There are hunting rifles with a detachable box magazine. These are in various calibers.

Yup, that’s the rub.

Once the commonly-considered stuff gets banned by name (AR-pattern, AK-pattern, MAC-10, etc etc) and you begin to categorize what remains using that combination of features, one man’s basic hunting rifle can quickly become another’s assault weapon.

This stuff is more complicated than it appears at first blush. There are quite a few more “assault weapons” in both variety and quantity in this state than I think a lot of people realize.

Comment by Logan Listener Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:20 am
That should just be a start. Pass mandatory insurance mandatory training be tougher on felons with weapons be creative. The Supreme Court said reasonable restrictions other wise you could carry a gun into congress or courts or schools. Keep throwing up new laws till something sticks

Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:24 am
===require that guns would have to be reviewed by the State Police for legality of sale===

This is the viable path to thwarting manufacturers who find ways around the law. ISP should maintain a list of approved and banned firearms which sellers must consult before selling. If a gun is not on either list, it must be submitted to ISP for review.

ISP will determine if the gun meets certain criteria to be banned, focusing on the attributes which separate them from legitimate personal defense, hunting, and recreation uses, and which make them deadly in mass casualty events. These would include high capacity, rapid rate of fire, high muzzle energy, concealability, and accuracy at distance, either out of the box or with a readily available modification.

No one attribute makes them especially dangerous in mass shootings, but rather it is when many attributes are combined. For instance, a typical BB gun could have high capacity, rapid rate of fire, and concealability, but with a low muzzle energy and low accuracy at distance, they are not a high risk for mass casualties. Focus on the cumulative risk, assign a risk score, and ban those over a certain threshold.

Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 11:38 am
It’s time for Pritzker and Welch to treat gun laws with the same amount of attention as abortion laws regardless of electoral popularity.

Comment by Torco Sign Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 12:05 pm
@Cermak – yea we ain’t gonna help write a gun ban. The whole concept od so called assault weapons is BS to begin with. And my AR is my home defense weapon.

@ Amilia – legislators write definitions, gun owners/manufacturers comply with the law. You guys have been so mad after you wrote the ’94 ban that it didn’t really ban much. Ars just didn’t have collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs and flash hiders, but they were still for sale. Hence you guys went to a single feature test which grabs more guns. You’re in a catch .22 that you can’t win. And the Cali handgun roster is on the chopping block in the Courts as we speak. You guys are gonna loose on that one too.

@timmy – It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. And no these firearms were not illegal till 2004. For over 100 years semi-autos were around. In ’94 some features were banned as I explained above and the same AR minus those features was for sale legally from 94 – 04 and the pervious configurations in circulation could be bought and sold. By Your “weapons of war” description then every bolt action Rem 700 or Winchester model 70 is a weapon of war.

As far as the “government” maybe you have been under a rock and didn’t see Iraq, Afganistan over the last 20 years and never heard of the Taliban.

@ Dupage get as creative as you want. But I suggest you look back to 1791 because that is the limits to the creativity you espouse.
We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Moreover, Heller and McDonald expressly rejected the application of any “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interest

Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying meansend scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 12:17 pm
Todd

You must be so proud to fight so hard to make sure mass shooters have access to weapons of war. Heckuva stand up guy you are.

==my AR is my home defense weapon.==

Is there a war going on I’m not aware of? If people like you can’t be bothered with reasonable restrictions, such as restrictions on magazine size, then I have zero respect for you. You’d rather support mass shooters.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 12:48 pm
Whatever law is created will be done based on ideology and will be ruled unconstitutional.

Comment by Big Tom Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 12:53 pm
===And my AR is my home defense weapon.===

The weapon the Harrison Network provided to terrorists.

Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 1:05 pm
Another bill to get Illinois in court; SCOTUS overturned rulings this year allowing bans, so IL will quickly lose at taxpayer expense. And they are called ‘rifles’, not ‘assault weapons’–a term coined by haters and banner to demonize common weapons.

Comment by thisjustinagain Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 1:10 pm
“… Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

A Mississippi judge may be calling Justice Thomas’s bluff by hiring several historians to study this very topic.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/in-scorching-opinion-federal-judge-considers-appointing-historian-to-help-him-in-gun-case

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 1:28 pm
=== Whatever law is created will be done based on ideology and will be ruled unconstitutional. ===

“Ideology”? Yep. The same bipartisan ideology that resulted in the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. An ideology that found it obscene that assault weapons that can be used in war is permissible in the hands of anybody. An ideology that hated the idea that you can conveniently have a weapon that will tear kids to shreds. An ideology that resulted in ban that withstood constitutional challenges.

What changed is the power of corporate gun manufacturers money capturing a party and its adherents. Because of that party’s success in appointing partisan federal judges, we now have a ludicrous interpretation of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.

Yes, your justices of gun worshiping will likely throw a ban out, but it represents an ideology that stands against wanton death by weapons of war.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 1:36 pm
Norseman, nice job hitting all the buzzwords and talking points.

as far as weapons of war, flintlocks were weapons of war until 1833. Percussion caps till 1850 followed by the sharps in 1860ish. the Krag showed up around 1896. All non-semi-auto “weapons of war”

The bolt action 1903 showed up just after that. The first semi-auto production gun was the Garand in 1935.

The M14/M4 platform didn’t show up till 1964 and all versions had either full auto or 3 round burst, which none of the modern semi-autos do, because of the Hughes Amendment in 1986.

Lets not forget that the model 70 and 700 bolt guns have seen extensive service in the sniper ranks. As well as the winchester model 12, Remington model 10, winchester model 97, Ithica model 37 pump shotguns to name a few.

The term weapons of war is just another buzzword catch phrase that is meaningless except to rev up people and virtue signaling.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 1:54 pm
- but it represents an ideology that stands against wanton death by weapons of war. -

Not really, it represents an ideology that symbolism is more important than progress. As much as I personally despise Todd, he’s right, as you acknowledge.

So instead of wasting everyone’s time and money, how about focus on measures that will hold up in court?

Stronger laws against straw purchasing, universal background checks, stronger red flag laws, etc.? As horrific as mass shootings are, the illegal flow of handguns kills far more Illinoisans each year.

Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 2:11 pm
Todd - you forgot the semiautomatic pistols such as the colt 1911 and thr Thompson machine gun.

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 2:38 pm
=== Go ahead and pass the most sweeping thing they think they can get the votes for ===

Okay Todd I guess will find out how it goes.

In the meantime, suburban voters will reward Democrats and punish Republicans until there are none left.

Checks.

Balances.

Elections.

Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 2:47 pm
The Legislature can pass whatever they can manage, but I don’t think they can draft a bill that will survive the current SCOTUS rulings.

Maybe they can nibble around the edges, but I don’t see a ban on (unmodified) AR-15’s and equivalent surviving a court challenge.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 2:52 pm
=== but I don’t think they can draft a bill that will survive the current SCOTUS rulings===

Meanwhile, Highland Park’s ban is still on the books.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 2:54 pm
Huh — I was focusing on non-full autos that served our country. We had the colt Navy percussion cap in .36 and the colt Army in 44 then the Colt SAA one of the most famous pistols of the wild west.

Thomas — we’ll see. but my goal is to win enough court cases, that preemption no longer matters, and the city councils and legislatures hands are tied to dealing with violent felons, wife beaters, and the diagnosed mentally ill. Yes, the Courts are our checks and balances on government that refuses to recognize an enumerated fundamental right.

Republican senate in two years with a republican president, means at least one more Court appointment. Maybe 2.

Rnug — give that audio a listen

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 3:02 pm
I really wanted to stay out of this, but just can’t. Up front, I own firearms but also support aggressive steps to reduce gun violence.

At several points in this thread, the question arises how an assault weapon is defined. Standard answers are built around design features (e.g., pistol grip, detachable magazines, barrel shrouds, collapsing stocks, and so on).

Frankly, this is nonsense. What distinguishes assault weapons from other long arms is the rounds they fire and the muzzle velocity they achieve. This, and not grips or shrouds or whatever, is what makes them so destructive.

I have a 9mm Beretta carbine that has all of the design features mentioned above except the collapsing stock. With a combined telescopic/red dot sight, it looks almost Rambo-esque. Yet it’s accurate range and muzzle velocity really aren’t much more than my Beretta sidearm. The muzzle shroud doesn’t add performance or provide additional grip, but simply keeps things from coming in contact with a hot barrel. Yet what is essentially a plinking carbine gets included as an assault weapon because so-called experts take the easy way out and rely on appearance and not functionality to define an assault weapon.

If we’re going to be serious about this — and we absolutely must be — we’ll need to jettison a lot of notions dear to both sides, start relying on hard data rather than emotion. That will upset lots of people on both sides, but everyone will have to give something to avoid continuing the useless, ill-informed screaming matches we have now.

And as we do this, one thing must be kept in mind: There are many legally purchased weapons already out there that almost certainly need to be grandfathered in to any new laws. This isn’t about making assault weapons suddenly disappear, because they won’t. We’ll need a much more global approach.

Comment by Flapdoodle Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 3:19 pm
Rich — “Meanwhile, Highland Park’s ban is still on the books.” the Highland park case was decided under the old standard of review where the Chief judge found feelings to be enough to pass constitutional muster:

“If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit”

They upheld Highland Park on intermediate scrutiny via the interest balancing approach which was rejected by New York. They are being sued once again, and Highland Park is trying to challenge the standing of the entities bringing suit.

two colorado judges put up TROs and an injunction against local semi-auto bans post New york. The Cali mag ban, Duncan and the semi-auto ban Miller are before the Court on remand now. We should hear something before the lame duck session.

You giggled when I set up the challenge to the carry ban, care to wager on semi-auto bans?

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 3:51 pm
If people like Todd had his way, there would be a gun in every pot for every home. I wonder how the gun lobby sleeps at night knowing how many children have died at the hands of a gun. I’m sure he’ll have an answer about that too (it’s people who shoot guns, it’s not the guns; it’s mental illness, not the guns…).

Comment by Shytown Tuesday, Nov 22, 22 @ 4:18 pm