Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Services announced for Sen. Bennett
Next Post: Chicago poll shows crime and public safety far above any other issues for voters
Posted in:
* Mike Miletich…
When will enough be enough? It’s a question many people ask following the hundreds of mass shootings that make headlines each year. Survivors of recent mass shootings in Illinois are demanding a ban on the weapons used to kill their family members, friends, and neighbors. #twill pic.twitter.com/nD81s0MjE8
— Mike Miletich (@MikeMiletichTV) December 13, 2022
House Democrats on Dec. 1 introduced legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons immediately, prevent sales of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds and raise eligibility for a state firearm owner identification card for most Illinois residents to 21.
Sponsors need just 60 votes come Jan. 1, and they plan to take up the measure during the lame duck session early next month. […]
After the Highland Park shooting, legislators began meeting in a working group to try to come up with legislative solutions to prevent another mass shooting tragedy. Police say shooting suspect Robert Crimo III used a Smith & Wesson M&P15, an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle whose initials, M&P, stand for “military and police” to kill seven people and injure 48 others.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker has said he would support passage of an assault weapons ban. Gun control groups have also formed a new nonprofit group called “Protect Illinois Communities,” which is helping to drum up support via television ads and mailers.
* The Tribune…
On the surface, Highland Park and East Garfield Park don’t have much in common.
But in the past six months, both the affluent, largely white North Shore suburb and the impoverished, largely Black neighborhood on Chicago’s West Side have been devastated by mass shootings. In both cases, assailants fired into crowds, killing seven and wounding dozens more in Highland Park on the Fourth of July and killing one and injuring 13 others in East Garfield Park on Halloween night.
Two survivors of those shootings — Lauren Bennett, who was shot twice in Highland Park, and Conttina Phillips, who was shot in the leg in East Garfield Park — were among those voicing support Monday for a proposal from Illinois House Democrats to ban the sale of certain assault-style guns and large-capacity magazines and to bar most people under 21 from getting gun permits.
Bennett and Phillips shared their stories during the first of three planned hearings on the measure, which House Democrats hope to pass when they return to Springfield for a brief lame-duck session just after the new year. Gun rights advocates are expected to testify at a future hearing. […]
While Democrats control the General Assembly, whether they can move such a politically charged proposal through both chambers in the few scheduled days before a new set of lawmakers is sworn in Jan. 11 remains uncertain. Gun control measures have a history of breaking down along regional as well as partisan lines, and top Democrats in the Senate have yet to weigh in publicly.
But many other people came to the hearing to remind lawmakers that Highland Park – an upscale, predominantly white suburb north of Chicago – is not the only community in Illinois to experience a mass shooting and that Black and brown communities are far more likely to be the scenes of such violence.
“On July 4 of this year, when the tragedy occurred in Highland Park, my heart went out to them. …I continue to pray for them,” said Jaquie Algee, a South Side resident who lost her only son in a different shooting. “But at the same token, in Black communities around the city and state, there were 10 – in this city – 10 Black kids that were shot and killed that day. There were 62 that were shot and injured.”
“We don’t have people rushing to give us therapy and counselors and people who will work with our children and our communities, and people to help to recover from this pain,” she added. “That doesn’t happen for us. And that’s a shame.”
Among other things, HB5855 would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or purchase an assault-style weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50-caliber rifle, or .50-caliber cartridge. And starting 300 days after the bill takes effect, it would make it illegal to possess such a weapon or ammunition unless it is registered with the Illinois State Police.
Rep. Bob Morgan’s legislation lists more than 100 weapons that would be banned, including the AR-15 rifle which was used to kill seven people and injure 48 others during a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park. The bill also increases the age for most Illinoisans to carry a firearm from 18 to 21.
“Gun violence is destroying families and communities from East St. Louis to Highland Park to Chicago, and this moment demands urgency,” said Morgan, who was walking in the Highland Park Parade when the shooting began. “It is time that we had the political courage to admit that guns are a problem and that we can do something about it. This gun reform package will reduce gun deaths in Illinois, and it is long past time for us to step up and reform the laws which have enabled this gun violence to continue.”
The Protect Illinois Communities Act has more than 25 co-sponsors as of Friday and is expected to be a priority for the Illinois General Assembly when lawmakers return in January for the lame-duck session or early in the regular session. […]
“Whether it happens during the lame-duck session, which I know is the expectation, or it happens during regular session … it’s important that we do it as fast as possible, there’s no doubt,” Pritzker said last week. “But I just want to be clear that our aim is to get it done in the first half of the year.” He originally called for action following the Highland Park shooting.
* WTTW…
The initial testimony came from survivors like Lauren Bennett, who was with her family, including her young sons, at the Fourth of July Parade in Highland Park when she heard what initially sounded like fireworks.
It wasn’t. […]
“Imagine a hot, metal dart-like projectile tearing through your body at supersonic speed. Faster than the speed of sound. You’ll feel it burn through your skin and likely you’ll grab whatever part of your body was hit because you know that something’s not right, only to feel excessive amounts of blood draining out of you and soaking everything,” she said. “At this point, you most likely feel like you are dying, maybe wondering if this is how it all ends. I can assure you that is what I was thinking.”
She was shot once in her lower back and hip, then as she got up to run she was shot again, in her upper back, nearly missing her spinal cord. […]
“My husband was running with our 6 and 9-year-old boys, literally for their lives, shielding them while exposing himself to shooting bullets, because we all know that their innocent young lives are far more precious than our own,” Bennett said. “These boys dodged bullets, jumped over fallen bodies while running behind me, looking at my blood-soaked body, and they assumed their mother was probably bleeding to death.”
Public health officials said gun restrictions are necessary, including expanding the firearms restraining order from six months to a full year as Morgan’s bill would do. Representatives from Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago also advocated for increasing the age to get a Firearm Owner’s Identification card to 21.
* ABC 7…
“Ten of my family members were shot, including three kids, ages from 3, 13 and 11,” Patterson said. “There is an epidemic out there, the spread of gun violence is everywhere.”
A resolution is also being introduced Monday morning, honoring Highland Park first responders and officials for jumping in to help the victims of the July Fourth mass shooting.
Republican state representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the legislation.
* Sen. Robert Peters…
“Every time there's a mass shooting, you look at Wall Street, and an investor is making a buck. It keeps happening, and those same people, those same investors, tell us, 'It's an individual's fault. It's your community's fault.'"https://t.co/EEBg2GRdVS
— Robert Peters (@RobertJPeters) December 13, 2022
posted by Isabel Miller
Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Services announced for Sen. Bennett
Next Post: Chicago poll shows crime and public safety far above any other issues for voters
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I can buy a car that goes 130 mph when I’m 16. I can get an abortion without informing my parents. I can’t go squirrel hunting with my single shot .410 until I’m 21. Brilliant.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:19 am
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/carjacking-suspects-shot-loop/#app
Doesn’t say what gun the ccw was using, but Springfield Armory and Sig both make semi auto conceal carry pistols with detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. For those keeping track, that’s a felony under the proposed legislation. And 3 against 1 doesn’t isn’t what I’d call an even match.
Comment by Notorious JMB Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:26 am
===until I’m 21. Brilliant.===
You forgot the “I can’t have a beer until I’m 21” in your list.
If the argument is the alleged arbitrary age by the opponents, then safety or thoughts to safety aren’t a forefront thought to any discussion.
Plus, I can’t imagine children are thrilled at any prospect of having an abortion. Thinking it’s equivalent by only a measure of age is simple-minded and misses the point to any discussion of… safety.
To the post,
For me it’s about the ability to get passage of a bill that once it’s on the books it will be upheld and can be seen as a step closer to helping society.
I know I’m one to bring up “dorm room” thinking as a harsh negative to the impossibility of things in the political or legal realm. Here there’s an opportunity to try and find the limit to the constitutionality of where the 2A can have pause, even if it’s, as an example for me, age.
The tug of war between reasonable versus absolute in the 2A continues where pushing the limits of both, absolute or reasonable, is a discussion worth having and worth putting on the books a signed law that will immediately face legal challenges.
The question for me is how much of what can/will be passed and signed will be the pushing of a limit that exists within what is seen as acceptable and not limiting, and when the talk of absolute continues, how many will publicly embrace absolute in their political career.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:31 am
I’m no gun freak, but I own a gun for self defense. A standard 9 mm has a clip that holds 14 rounds. See you in court.
Comment by SDR Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:35 am
===I’m no gun freak===
Would you accept any limitations to gun ownership, ammunition, age…
Are you an absolute, or do you see limits within ownership… or is it “see you in court” kind of un-freaky…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:38 am
OW- I have no issue with the age being 21. I also have no need for an A.R.-15 type of rifle. How is that for you bud?
Comment by SDR Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:42 am
OW. I would accept an age limit on AR style guns, but that definition needs to be tightened up some. I would also accept an age restriction on magazine capacity. It’s the overreach into hunting that irks me and will divide this country to its demise.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:43 am
it’s harrowing hearing from someone who was hit with a bullet and the words from the Highland Park victim were especially terrifying due to the nature of the weapon firing the bullets and the intense damage that is done by these weapons. So fast, so many hit dead and wounded and thousands terrified in just a few seconds. Vote to restrict.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:45 am
Just a technical question and one tbe Tribune posed, is there enough time left in the session to pass a brand new bull filed Monday? Why didnt they use a shell bill? That would have sped
Up the process, no?
Comment by Nobody Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:47 am
==See you in court.==
You all have such sympathy for mass shootings. Why there can’t be some sort of compromise on magazine sizes is beyond me. Is 10 the appropriate size? I don’t know. But I would think there could be some sort of agreement.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:50 am
- SDR -
(Sigh)
It’s not my weapon I worry about, it’s the weapons out there and the parameters surrounding it.
I guess you are an absolutists, but not a “gun freak”
But you’re not, are you…
===I have no issue with the age being 21. I also have no need for an A.R.-15 type of rifle===
The point of the exercise isn’t deciding “freak”, “not a freak”, but first what can pass, and further what can withstand constitutionality.
I do find it disheartening that only gun owners or those with weapons within the family can be one’s with opinions. Children under 5, 7, 10, they are likely not owners of weapons or understand the constitutionality to ownership or what can be possessed.
- Blue Dog -
===I would accept an age limit on AR style guns===
Then please go troll somewhere else since your first rant had to be about “age”, and yet…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:50 am
when the leading cause of death of children in the U.S isn’t by a firearm, pro-gun arguments will have more sway with me. Right now, nothing will change my mind that we need more restrictions. You can sacrifice your need to hunt animals for the sake of protecting human life.
Comment by suburbanite Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:53 am
===You all have such sympathy for mass shootings.===
You seem to have sympathy for criminals having more firepower than law abiding citizens. The article posted here by Notorious JMB is the norm for these criminals. They are working together on either car jackings, robberies, or home invasions. If Illinois bans all these magazines, do you think the criminals will turn theirs in or not go to another state to purchase them?
Comment by Constitutional Watcher Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:54 am
==You seem to have sympathy for criminals having more firepower than law abiding citizens. ==
No, I don’t. I’ve stated here time and time again that my goal is to limit large magazine sizes. Do I think it should be 10? I don’t know. But nobody is going to convince me that someone should have a magazine that can hold 30 rounds. It’s just absurd.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 9:58 am
If they really want to decrease gun violence then they need to go after the gun makers and vendors.
Comment by Amurica Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:02 am
Dems moving with all speed to get HB5855 passed - they are smart to use the “When will enough be enough” type narrative. The emotions related to the vile criminal use of a firearm on July 4th are real. What is also real is that reasonable folks can still have concerns with HB5855 - it takes a kitchen-sink approach to so-called “gun safety” measures. When a bill will make ten of thousands of Illinois residents that own the most common type of pistols with standard issue magazines instant felons, the opposition will be strong. The Dems know the longer it sits waiting to get passed the more opposition will form.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:03 am
–I can buy a car–
Which you have to register with the government, and are required to hold a liability insurance policy on.
Sounds good. Lets do that for firearms too.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:16 am
==I’ve stated here time and time again that my goal is to limit large magazine sizes==
Limiting magazine sizes won’t solve this issue. 3 10 round mags can be fired, dropped, and loaded quite rapidly. That is why the magazine size is a specious defense. Having said that, I’m okay with banning new sales of assault style weapons to anyone under 21. I could even agree to under 25. I have huge issues with registering existing weapons. No matter what denials are issued, that is the first step to confiscation. I disagree wholeheartedly with making someone a criminal by passing a law making legal property illegal. Take all the money that’s going to be spent on these lawsuits and apply it to mental health treatment and enforcing the laws currently on the books.
Comment by Papa2008 Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:20 am
==The emotions related to the vile criminal use of a firearm on July 4th are real.==
Thank you for that acknowledgement. I think what irritates me the most about these debates is the fact that it seems like some just shrug their shoulders at that and take the attitude of “it’s not my problem” and tell us all how they’ll fight tooth and nail against anything that is proposed. How about acknowledging the emotions and the problem they are trying to solve and offering some sort of ideas on how to help solve the problem instead of completely dismissing everything and going straight to the “over my dead body” argument.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:21 am
@ SDR
Wouldn’t it be easier, and more socially responsible, to get a clip that only holds 10 rounds? I mean, if you need to fire 14 rounds to kill someone, couldn’t you do the same with 10 rounds?
Why are you committed to 14 rounds?
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:21 am
===The Dems know the longer it sits waiting to get passed the more opposition will form.===
The real concern is 60/71 and 30/36 for a bill that can speak to concerns of assault weapons and other specifics that can be added, while not losing its ability to pass both chambers.
The GOP, if they decide to be “Red”, full stop, and no GOP votes in either chamber, that’s a political decision by those members, or deeper the caucuses, and the pool of votes now becomes Dem members.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:23 am
I’m a firearms owner. I shoot pistols at the range every couple weeks, have a concealed carry license, and regularly carry. I don’t have a problem with 10 round magazine limits or a ban on sales of certain weapons. As I read the 2nd amendment it seems to pertain to keep and bear, but doesn’t make any mention of procurement.
Comment by ChuckIL Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:24 am
–law abiding citizens–
I automatically dismiss anyone using this argument.
Every single person is law-abiding, until a law is passed preventing what they are doing.
That’s how laws work.
If you are doing something that is made illegal, and knowingly continue to do it after that law is passed - congratulations you are now no longer a law-abiding citizen.
It’s not an argument against any new laws. It’s simply an adjective.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:24 am
What kind of hunting absolutely requires a thirty-round magazine? Or even ten? I’m not against hunting and long guns for hunting. But come on, these high capacity mags are ridiculous. If I needed thirty shots to take a deer I’d get another hobby. Or at least, glasses.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:29 am
==and enforcing the laws currently on the books==
Well, trying to enforce some of those laws is now put in the cross hairs thanks to moronic rulings like that handed down by this judge regarding felons and guns.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/americans-under-felony-indictment-have-right-buy-guns-judge-rules-2022-09-20/
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:29 am
==I can buy a car that goes 130 mph when I’m 16.==
Don’t front, you would absolutely hate it if we regulated guns the way we regulate cars. Strict manufacturing standards, insurance mandates, state run databases to track them and their owners, only allowed to use them in certain places and in certain ways, etc. etc. etc.
Cars are one of the most regulated objects on the planet precisely *because* we recognize how dangerous they are. We should consider guns similarly.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:35 am
Chuck — you need to keep up on things. Post Heller the right to train and practice as well as the right to acquire has been found to be encompassed in the 2A. I can provide cites if you need them.
Invisible — By your standards Rosa Parks wasn’t law abiding. Any number of unjust laws have brought about non-compliance and disobedience. these will be no different. New York, Mass and other states only had about 15% compliance with their registration requirements. In the whole law abiding citizens argument, the DOJ recently posited in pleadings and were cited by the court the codes against Catholics, Amish and others deemed not law abiding to be able to own firearms I guess that’s where you want to go with this.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:36 am
==Which you have to register with the government, and are required to hold a liability insurance policy on.==
And you can’t legally operate until you pass a test administered by the government, and you can NEVER operate at 130 MPH…
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:36 am
I hate to break it you, sarcastically to the trolls and unsarcastically to those with good-faith concerns, but public backlash won’t affect the outcome. Opinion has shifted to the point where backlash will simply be good political fodder for candidates “standing up to opponents.” As others have pointed out, the only constraint is what will stand up in court. The writing is on the wall otherwise. The testimony may be compelling, there may be months before something is signed, but it’s not being held up because “people become felons overnight” or whatever argument might’ve given newspaper readers pause years ago. It’s done.
Comment by Torco Sign Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:37 am
I love and agree with the argument we should spend more on mental health and enforcement of existing gun laws. Funny though that one party consistently does nothing in that area and often votes against those very things. Registration is not about confiscation but accountability. You own this thing that can endanger the public, then you have to be on the record and on the hook for whatever happens around it’s ownership and stewardship. It’s your obligation, that accompanies your right to the ownership, a contract you make with society.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:38 am
==Chuck — you need to keep up on things. Post Heller the right to train and practice as well as the right to acquire has been found to be encompassed in the 2A. I can provide cites if you need them.==
Perhaps, but post Roe stare decisis is no longer a thing. Besides, I believe I qualified my statement with “As I read the 2nd amendment…”
Comment by ChuckIL Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:43 am
both the affluent, largely white North Shore suburb and the impoverished, largely Black neighborhood
Please stop this comparison. Are any of the primarily “journalists and social media writers” who neglect to include Highwood with Highland Park. There is a fairly sizable Latinx population and sadly, it was not just “affluent white north shore people that were shot.
Comment by education first Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:54 am
Hunting with an AR15 with high capacity magazine. If you miss at a standing target imagine shooting at a moving target’ you are no longer in control of your self. You could be shooting into a herd of cows or horses in the back ground or a house fullof children or another hunter [Imagine] the background is changing with each shot.
Comment by leonard Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 10:55 am
Laws are passed and things change. They passed a law in Illinois that you could legally drive at age 18, and I enjoyed that, then they passed another law raising the age back to 21, so I was legal for less than year and then illegal if I continued. I hunt and am not gun freak, but there should be limits. Doing nothing is not the answer.
Comment by 13th Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:01 am
Give Us Barabbas –
Yea I never signed that contract to register my guns nor will I.
First off its none of your or the State’s business in what I own. I’ve passed the background check, I have my little FOID card now take a hike.
but gun owners don’t trust the government with that info because government has shown us it can’t be trusted. Chicago just wanted to register guns. then used that to enact a handgun ban for 30 years. Only to open it for a small window when an alderman failed to re-register his guns.
currently, the CT governor wants to confiscate/remove/ make illegal all the registered grandfathered semi-autos in his state.
So we say no. And in the past you’ve only had like 15% compliance. so how are you gonna enforce this? about 70 counties are 2A sanctuary counties. With the new bail requirements can’t put us all in jail. If 1/2 the gun owners have 1 banned gun, you’re looking at 1.2 million people. I wager more than 1/2 have pistols with mags that are affected so maybe it’s more like 2 million total affected gun owners.
Like I asked, how are you gonna enforce something that affects 20% of the population?
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:02 am
“Hunting with an AR15 with high capacity magazine. If you miss at a standing target imagine shooting at a moving target’ you are no longer in control of your self”
Quite a silly response - Hunting regulations in Illinois limit firearms and ammo to the following:
•shotguns, loaded with slugs only, capable of firing more than 3 consecutive slugs; or
•Single or double-barreled muzzleloading rifles of at least .45 caliber shooting a single projectile
•Centerfire revolvers or centerfire single-shot handguns of .30 caliber or larger with a minimum barrel length of 4 inches.
in 2023 certain rifles/ammo will be allowed for hunting - but the rifles must be single-shot capacity only
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:18 am
Donnie
ARs are legal for hunting coyotes with no ammo limits. 10,20 30 round mags are legal
There also is no limit on ammo for small game either
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:31 am
As long as Todd and others ignore grade school children being torn to shreds by the guns they defend there is no helping them become part of any solution to this carnage.
Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:33 am
==is the fact that it seems like some just shrug their shoulders at that and take the attitude of “it’s not my problem” and tell us all how they’ll fight tooth and nail against anything that is proposed==
@Todd - you are a perfect example of this attitude that I discussed. You seem to have little care with regard to the problem they are trying to solve. Is what they are doing the best (or legal) solution? Probably not. But your argument always seem to be of the variety of “it’s not my problem” and you show little care for the toll that mass shootings have taken on people. Do you even care to offer any ideas or solutions or are you just going to continue to be bemoan everything? That truly is a question that I have.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:37 am
The argument about owning a car vs a gun is nonsensical. It is a privilege to drive a car. It is a constitutional right to own a gun.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:51 am
== Yea I never signed that contract to register my guns nor will I. First off its none of your or the State’s business in what I own. ==
Do you own a FOID Card? Do you own a Driver’s License? Do you have proof of insurance?
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:55 am
===First off its none of your or the State’s business in what I own===
Enjoy prison.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:57 am
As to enforcement of Non Registration on Hunters
my speculation is that Game Wardens could confiscate the Gun.
Additionally , since they seem in some ways exempt from Search & Seizure requirements, it may lead to attempt to find more guns to confiscate.
Would be an extremely harsh enforcement & punishment for not registering Old Betsy.
Again, just speculating (whole thing is confusing)
Comment by Red Ketcher Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:59 am
stop and frisk worked in NyC. let’s give it a whirl
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:01 pm
If we can figure out why some young men think it’s ok to start shooting into crowds then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Comment by Which one is Pink? Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:06 pm
===If we can figure out why some young men think it’s ok to start shooting into crowds then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.===
But until we do which could take years to figure out, we just do nothing? That sounds like what a certain party always offers for solutions — nothing. We can do better.
Comment by Baloneymous Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:08 pm
On the age thing this changing the age for a FOID isn’t just a purchase change that’s a possession ban for 18-21 yr olds. So if a 19yr old moves out gets a home by himself/herself they cannot have any firearm in that home whatsoever. Not a single shot shotgun or .22lr nothing. That’s a huge restriction on a constitutional rights for adults.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:11 pm
This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Let’s just distinguish between different types of guns. Handguns, hunting and sporting guns should be permitted. Military-style guns should be reserved for the military. It is hardly sporting to mow down a buck with an AR-15. Enjoy the shredded venison.
If you believe otherwise, you are either part of the problem or part of the profitable Industrial Gun Industry.
We have to do something to address these mass shootings, how has standing pat worked?
Comment by Jake From Elwood Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:19 pm
why are ARs legal for hunting coyotes? Can they be used on other creatures? (besides humans, not legal, but too often used especially against cops) How does the IDNR set the regulations for what can be used to hunt what? Is the ability to use there unless specifically stated not? Can the regulations be changed apart from legislation?
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:22 pm
=stop and frisk worked in NyC. let’s give it a whirl=
Ironic, but not at all surprising, that you would be a supporter of the 2nd amendment while completely violating that 4th.
Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:23 pm
== First off its none of your or the State’s business in what I own. I’ve passed the background check, I have my little FOID card now take a hike.==
I love how Todd always gets triggered (pun intended) when these issues come up…
Comment by low level Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:28 pm
Amalia — centerfire rifles have been the preferred firearm for coyote hunting for years. You can use literally any rifle for them :
• Coyotes may be hunted on private property using dogs, archery devices, any type and caliber of handgun, any type of legal rifle including large capacity semi-automatic rifles, and shotguns using any type of shell. During firearm deer seasons, coyotes may be harvested only by hunters with valid, unfilled deer permits using the same types
of firearms that are allowed for deer. When hunting with a shotgun, make sure that the magazine has been fitted with a plug which makes
the shotgun incapable of firing more than three consecutive shots.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:31 pm
I just find it telling when an individual revels in their rights but denies any of the attached responsibilities or obligation that comes with the rights. It’s something you see in toddlers… but toddlers grow up eventually. Unless, you know, they’re killed with a gun in some way. But these Floyd Turbo types, they never get it. You can have constitutional freedoms and still have obligations as a Citizen, at the same time.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:40 pm
== By your standards Rosa Parks wasn’t law abiding. ==
Yeah. Jim Crow laws and gun control legislation are really comparable. No wonder you lack credibility with anyone but Bailey types.
Comment by low level Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:43 pm
Amalia
Just a reference but the .223 or 5.56 chambered in a standard AR15 is one of the least powerful centerfire rifle rounds. The 223 was designed for coyotes and other varmints before military adoption.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:44 pm
The same rifles can be used to hunt other fur bearing animals like skunks and groundhogs.
Comment by Which one is Pink? Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:45 pm
=I can buy a car that goes 130 mph when I’m 16. I can get an abortion without informing my parents. =
If you are caught driving at 130mph, you will be charged with reckless driving.
=I can’t go squirrel hunting with my single shot .410 until I’m 21. Brilliant.=
You can if you are with a legal adult over 21 with a FOID, you just cannot own one. You knew that and decided to lie.
Anyone using an AR 15 or Ar 10 to hunt is incompetent and should find something else to do. I have 3 rounds in my autoloader for waterfowl and two in my over/under shotgun for upland hunting. I use a few different guns for rabbit and coyotes and never have more than 5 rounds loaded.
I have a CCL and my carry gun has an 8 round mag (although I have never actually felt the need to carry). I guess I am a better shot than @Todd and his pals and never felt the need to have a 50 round drum mag for a pistol.
I did fire a thompson once with a 100 round mag. Then I grew up.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:45 pm
JS
–You can if you are with a legal adult over 21 with a FOID, you just cannot own one. You knew that and decided to lie.–
That’s not a lie, your twisting the conditions to justify the change and accusing him/her of being misleading. Do you think a 20 yr old should/should not be able to hunt by themselves?
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 12:58 pm
JS Mill, if your grandparents or great grandparents brought something like this home from WWI or WWII, and it’s been kept as a family heirloom, you become a felon under this legislation.
https://simpsonltd.com/dwm-1917-artillery-luger-rig-with-drum-c47303/
Comment by Notorious JMB Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 1:08 pm
Does a 1903 Springfield Mark I classify as an assault weapon?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M637KpEP1_E
Comment by Notorious JMB Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 1:14 pm
=That’s not a lie, your twisting the conditions to justify the change and accusing him/her of being misleading.=
No, it is a lie. 20 year CAN hunt under the proposed changes. That is a fact. They have to meet conditions, just like they do now.
= Do you think a 20 yr old should/should not be able to hunt by themselves?=
The change would not bother me one single bit. My son and I hunted together and continue to do so. It is at worst an inconvenience. At absolute worst.
By the way, right now you can get a FOID at 16.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 1:23 pm
After reading the sentiments of many commenters, the biggest majority should accept the banning of cell phones for teenagers. Cell phone use by teenage drivers is one of the top causes of death and injury to the motoring public and if it will just save one life…
Comment by Techman Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 1:26 pm
==Cell phone use by teenage drivers is one of the top causes of death and injury to the motoring public and if it will just save one life…==
The technology already exists to disable cell phones while being transported in a moving automobile. I’m all for it.
Comment by ChuckIL Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 1:38 pm
===When hunting with a shotgun, make sure that the magazine has been fitted with a plug which makes
the shotgun incapable of firing more than three consecutive shots.===
That’s currently the law for hunting using a semi-automatic shotgun or pump action shot gun. And the world didn’t end when that limit was introduced.
So if that restriction is OK, how about we set the ammo capacity limit for semi-automatic firearms regardless of use to no more than 3?
I’d be good with that.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 1:39 pm
Anonymous or JS
So you’re arguing that if they can hunt in any way he was lying. I think you’re twisting it because it suits your needs. His statement was everybit as true as yours, a 20 yr old cannot hunt w/o an adult which is a major change.
You can get a foid younger than 16 with your parents permission. I’m well aware of the fact teens can get them. Around where I live it is common for high school Juniors and Seniors to hunt after school. It may not be an issue FOR YOU but that doesn’t mean it’s not an impact.
I get you hunted with your son and you think it’s an inconvenience at worst, some of us have more than 1 child.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 1:42 pm
You can own an assault rifle nor have an FOID unless you are 21. I wonder how many service men the United States issues assault weapons to that are between 18 and 21. You can sign a legal and binding contract at the age of 18, but you cannot have an FOID.
I believe the Supreme Court recently ruled that our founding father did not specify what kind of gun could be owned when the 2nd admendment was passed.
Once again you can outlaw all the guns you would like. You can limit magazine size, none of this will solve the problem. We need to identify the problem before we can fix it
Comment by Hemi 345 Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 2:00 pm
==We need to identify the problem before we can fix it==
The problem is multi-faceted, yes. But to suggest that guns play no part in the problem shows a failure to be honest about the entirety of the problem.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 2:02 pm
I got my first firearm, a hand me down Winchester double barrel when I was 13. Then, used my Dad’s Remington 1148 12 gauge to shoot ducks and geese until I was given my first new gun, that was all mine, an 1100 when I was 15. It was common at my high school for students and teachers to have a firearm in their vehicle, parked on grounds. My first 22 revolver I also got at 15. My first rifle didn’t come along until I was 16.
Now decades later, and after having committed no crimes you want it to be a felony to own some firearms, based on what scares you. I have 2 rifles in my safe right now that can shoot the same round, at the same rate, but you say it should be a felony to own one of them but the other is ok. Why?
My grandson, who is an adult, you want to take away his rights, which are protected by the constitution, for no reason.
A few decades ago, when every hardware store, and most department stores, sold firearms and ammunition, these mass shootings were extremely rare. What changed? Why when the laws we have are not enforced, and not effective in doing what they were intended to do, do you think we need more?
Comment by SOIL M Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 2:05 pm
Thanks Todd and Mason born. But I must ask the question again, can regulations be changed as to what is legal to use in hunting? there are specifics for various kinds of creatures as to what can be used. Can the IDNR just change the regs?
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 2:08 pm
=His statement was everybit as true as yours, a 20 yr old cannot hunt w/o an adult which is a major change.=
Reading is fundamental and you need work. Here is his statement…
“I can’t go squirrel hunting with my single shot .410 until I’m 21.”
Totally false.
Also…
=It may not be an issue FOR YOU but that doesn’t mean it’s not an impact.
I get you hunted with your son and you think it’s an inconvenience at worst, some of us have more than 1 child.=
Nothing that you or anyone has stated amounts to anything more than an inconvenience. Nothing that impacts ability to earn a living, health, or anything more than enjoying a hobby. Hunting is a hobby that I love dearly and provided many incredible moments in my life, but still only inconvenience.
Some of you need a serious lesson in perspective.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 2:19 pm
I’ll confess that I enjoy both hunting and shooting sports, but guns are about as necessary to my well-being as pantaloons or the Victrola. If they went away, it would be of little consequence. I can still hunt with a bow.
Comment by ChuckIL Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 2:21 pm
We’ve tried nothing and we’re out of ideas.
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 2:44 pm
Mason Born. thanks for the support. the fact that JS misunderstood my statement could more than likely be attributed to his immense intelligence. it’s heartwarming to know that our children have him/her around to guide them through life’s challenges. A one size fits all for the issues involving guns is why this issue never gets resolved. Typical hunting firearms in Illinois are rarely the problem. The slippery slope is here.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 3:25 pm
“A few decades ago, when every hardware store, and most department stores, sold firearms and ammunition, these mass shootings were extremely rare.”
So were civilian combat rifles and extended magazines.
Go figure.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 3:26 pm
Amilia, it would most likely require a change in the statute
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 3:30 pm
JS
Fair enough that hunting is a hobby. I get that you don’t care about impact to those that do but I think you’re being disingenuous in pretending this doesn’t impact peoples ability to hunt.
We’ll stick to the right, is it appropriate to deprive adults from the age of 18 to 20 of their Constitutional Right to possess arms for self defense?
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 3:30 pm
Blue Dog
I don’t think you’re being fair insulting his intelligence. He believes sincerely this will help an issue we’d all like to see prevented. As he said in his last post he believes the impact is justified for what he believes the bill will do. I think there’s a lot more impact than he wants to acknowledge, however it is a hobby not a right and the State could ban all hunting tomorrow.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 3:39 pm
==Typical hunting firearms in Illinois are rarely the problem.==
No, they aren’t. And an AR-15 isn’t a typical hunting firearm I would say.
And you seem to be getting completely lost in this argument when your entire focus seems to be on hunting. It’s just absurd that is what you have determined to focus on.
Tomorrow is the 10 year anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings. And you’re having a debate about hunting? Please.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 3:52 pm
“A few decades ago, when every hardware store, and most department stores, sold firearms and ammunition, these mass shootings were extremely rare.”
So were civilian combat rifles and extended magazines.
Go figure.
– MrJM
And I nominate Misterjayem for another Golden Horseshoe award.
Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 4:00 pm
Just not sure I understand why it is ok to own it if you register it with the state police, but it is not ok to buy it if you register it with the state police, unless the whole “register it” issue is just something they threw in there to bargain away. To me there is no difference.
Comment by Jaded Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 4:03 pm
Dem. I am focusing on hunting because raising the FOID age will be a deterrent to young adults hunting. as stated earlier, I have no problem with an age restriction or training restriction for more lethal firearms. the legislature can tackle that instead of lumping everything together. since OW brought it up, many countries in Europe have different drinking ages for different spirits.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 4:56 pm
Mason–
==As he said in his last post he believes the impact is justified for what he believes the bill will do.
He may. but its irrelevant
Heller said there was no “interest balancing approach” New York reiterated that:
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 interests.’”
“If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. – Heller, It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.”
Whether or not he or Rep. Morgan or anyone else thinks its a fair trade off is irrelevant. The RKBA protects modern “arms” — “whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”
wanna have a debate that you think they got it wrong fine. But that is what they put down. And that is what we are going to argue in court. The rest of this is just shouting at the moon.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 5:03 pm
=I get that you don’t care about impact to those that do but I think you’re being disingenuous in pretending this doesn’t impact peoples ability to hunt.=
I am being absolutely genuine and fulsom in my comments. I NEVER said it does not impact their ability to hunt. (honestly, some of you have to read, and if you don’t understand just ask). I said it was an inconvenience. By definition that is an impact. But it is minor. I love to hunt and wouldn’t give up the experiences I have had. But having to do it with an over 21 FOID holder is not nearly the cataclysm you and others make it out to be.
=We’ll stick to the right, is it appropriate to deprive adults from the age of 18 to 20 of their Constitutional Right to possess arms for self defense?=
I will bite. In my reading of the 2nd Amendment I note that age is not represented. So no, I have no problem with someone under 21 not being able to own a gun.
I would love to see you quantify the number of people who have to defend themselves with a gun.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 5:04 pm
===many countries in Europe have different drinking ages for different spirits.===
How do other countries handle weapons, assault rifles, and gun control?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 5:09 pm
=As he said in his last post he believes the impact is justified for what he believes the bill will do.=
Please show me where I sad that. I said it was an inconvenience tio hunters. I didn’t speak to the value of the bill. I personally don’t think anyone should have a high capacity mag. Over 15. I think the qualifications to own and possess a firearm should be much higher and more rigorous. And that is based on the knuckleheads I see out hunting and at the range.
=I think there’s a lot more impact than he wants to acknowledge, however it is a hobby not a right and the State could ban all hunting tomorrow.=
It is exactly the impact I think it is. And we can engage in the useless practice of the infinite possibilities of “if” all day, but it is a waste of time.
Maybe the government of Texas will require all Americans to have a gun and give them out free. That is my addition to the “dumb statements” contest.
MrJM nails it all day. Funny how his statement is 100% TRUE. Not funny haha, funny sad.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 5:11 pm
I am not as polished of a writer as most here. I have been misunderstood and I am working to better express my thoughts.
I am not sure those who are supporting this Bill to ban certain firearms and magazines understand what they are really doing. You are infringing a political right, and creating a new criminal offense that did not exist before. There were many of you here who used recreational drugs before they were legalized by the State. You felt the laws against certain drugs was immoral and should not be followed. So how many of us who own certain firearms and magazines are you willing to imprison if we decide to ignore the laws we find unjust? The Federal government still prohibits users of drugs, whether the State has legalized them or not, from owning or possessing firearms. Are you a user who owns a firearm? You are committing an offense and probably feel that prohibition is wrong.
When I bought my firearms and magazines I did so in a legal manner. I paid taxes on my purchases that went to Federal and State coffers. When you were buying from drug dealers, you paid no tax, you were violating a law. You were also contributing to violence because those drugs are protected from the source to the user by people with guns, knives and other tools who use indiscriminate violence to protect that trade. Many of you are still buying from non State approved sources and providing more incentive for violence. My ownership of my firearms and magazines does not contribute to this violence.
You are fine with telling millions of people that they should give up their property as a compromise to the violence, while you continue to support the violence by buying drugs.
There is a compromise, those who are not committing offenses are allowed to continue to own what they have. Petition the Federal Government to legalize those drugs you feel society should enjoy so that the violence with them can be lessened. This is when marijuana people and gun people should be working together, not against each other. And I don’t even use those drugs.
I also think many of you should read thru the debates on the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 6:25 pm
MrJM, you could also buy functioning wwii surplus anti tank weapons and have them delivered to your house.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=upVeWEfpfZs
Comment by Notorious JMB Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 6:29 pm
“you could also buy functioning wwii surplus anti tank weapons and have them delivered to your house”
Good thing gun fetishist weirdos are a more recent development, huh?
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 7:07 pm
==There is a compromise, those who are not committing offenses are allowed to continue to own what they have.==
Cool. That’s what the bill, as currently written, does. As for the drug thing? I could care less. I use over the counter ibuprofen. I could use a few right now.
Comment by ChuckIL Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 7:22 pm
I need more instruction on removal of previously owned firearms
Comment by McLincoln Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:16 pm
I read the law
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 13, 22 @ 11:21 pm
On a serious note - I have 2 sidearms (only weapons) as a retired LEO. Both of these have what would fir the criteria of a “high capacity” magazine (12 rounds). Based how I read the current draft, I cannot possess (or for that matter use) either one since there does not appear to be a “grandfather” exception to this part of the legislation. Unless of course, I purchase new magazines of 10 rounds or less for each firearm. Did I read that correctly?
Comment by Corn-fused Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 11:16 am
*fit* not “fir”
Comment by Corn-fused Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 11:17 am