Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Pritzker: “There’s nobody going after anybody”

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Center Square…

Illinois Republicans say Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration entrapped citizens who bought certain semi-automatic firearms during the six-day window when the state’s gun ban was blocked by a federal court.

State Sen. Jason Plummer, R-Edwardsville, said when the Southern District of Illinois federal court enjoined the state from enforcing the law, the Pritzker administration didn’t put out any guidance.

Six days later, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction. Illinois State Police said after consulting with the attorney general, certain semi-automatic firearms purchased during that time are illegal.

“If the purchase of a firearm or firearm attachment banned under PICA was initiated and completed between the date of the Southern District of Illinois’ Order on April 28, 2023, until the stay of such Order by the U.S. Appellate Court on May 4, 2023, the possession of such weapon will be unlawful beginning January 1, 2024, pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(c),” a public information officer for Illinois State Police told The Center Square in an email Friday.

Wednesday, Plummer decried that.

“This is, I believe, an intentional effort by the governor and the attorney general to entrap Illinoisans, law-abiding citizens, and turn them into felons and I think it’s punitive and egregious,” Plummer said during a news conference.

Ah, but here’s the rest of what the ISP said…

Persons who possess a banned firearm or firearm attachment are required to endorse an affidavit by January 1, 2024, stating that any banned firearm or firearm attachments were possessed prior to the enactment of PICA (January 10, 2023) pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(d).

So, if they file an affidavit like everyone else, then they’re in compliance, according to the governor…

“What the law says is that as of Jan. 1 of 2024, that people will need to fill out the affidavit that they have one of those guns,” Pritzker said at an unrelated event. “That’s really all it is. There’s nobody going after anybody, but that’s really what the law says.”

…Adding… From comments…

Ok but the affidavit is that those arms were owned prior to PICA being signed January 10, 2023. So to do what the Governor said would mean lying on the affidavit. Lying and since the purchase includes ATF 4073 forms a lie that can be followed up on.

Just my 2c but it would make more sense to modify the affidavit to include the injunction periods. I don’t think anyone is out to get anybody

It would definitely make sense to modify the affidavit just to be absolutely sure. But that would have to be done through the legislature. And there are a lot of twists and turns to go before January 1.

…Adding… Press release…

State Senator Jason Plummer (R-Edwardsville) is seeking to protect gun owners across Illinois, who recently made legal firearm purchases, from facing unjust criminal prosecution in the future. […]

To rectify the issue and to prevent law-abiding citizens from being turned into criminals, Sen. Plummer filed legislation, Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1073, which updates the affidavit requirements to include firearms purchased during a period in which a court issued an injunction on the law. This would allow individuals who purchased “banned firearms” during this recent injunction or any future ones, to be able to legally keep and possess them.

* The press conference was mainly aimed at the attorney general…

“The attorney general had an opportunity to urge caution and express the consequences of what may or may not happen down the road to people that are exercising their constitutional right during that six-day period of time, but he neglected to do it,” GOP state Sen. Jason Plummer of Edwardsville said Wednesday during a statehouse news conference. “Now, today, the attorney general is saying that those transactions were illegal.”

Plummer accused Raoul and Pritzker of engaging in “an intentional effort … to entrap Illinoisans, law-abiding citizens, and turn them into felons.”

But this is from the AG’s spokesperson Annie Thompson…

Consistent with our handling of any rapidly-evolving litigation being handled by the Attorney General’s office, our office has not issued formal guidance related to the Protect Illinois Communities Act as the matter goes through the court system.

Any insinuation that the Attorney General’s office would intentionally mislead or “entrap” law-abiding Illinois residents is, at best, laughable. At worst, it is dangerous.

* Back to the Tribune…

Also on Wednesday, lawyers for Naperville gun shop owner Robert Bevis, who sued the city and the state over the gun restrictions, said in a U.S. Supreme Court filing that Raoul’s office is “spitting on the Constitution” in its arguments to uphold the law.

The attorney general’s response to the Supreme Court filing is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:11 am

Comments

Plummer is a trouble-maker.

These weapons were made illegal previously. If the law stands through the Supreme Courts, they will remain illegal, and will need to be registered.

Plummer’s arrogance is going to cause trouble if some of his ilk refuse to register those guns this winter.

When politicians make dangerous assertions that can lead to State Police or officers of the Court getting shot, those politicians need to be censured, so that the citizens are made fully aware of the dangerous rhetoric.

Shame on Plummer. He knows better, and it inciting trouble forthcoming, toward the police.

Comment by H-W Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:19 am
“So, if they file an affidavit like everyone else, then they’re in compliance, according to the governor…”

Ok but the affidavit is that those arms were owned prior to PICA being signed January 10, 2023. So to do what the Governor said would mean lying on the affidavit. Lying and since the purchase includes ATF 4073 forms a lie that can be followed up on.

Just my 2c but it would make more sense to modify the affidavit to include the injunction periods. I don’t think anyone is out to get anybody, i think Raoul and the Gov. would’ve preffered no injunction, I think ISP’s statement is a mistake.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:32 am
“”He knows better,”"

Does he?

Comment by walker Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:35 am
If I completed a purchase of a banned rifle on May 3, 2023, how do I endorse an affidavit saying I possessed it prior to Jan. 10, 2023 without doing so falsely? I believe that is the issue.

Comment by MikeMacD Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:36 am
The line “ The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.” from All the Presidents Men seems to be very applicable to Plummer and his ilk.

Comment by Concerned Dem Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:37 am
“If the law stands through the Supreme Courts, they will remain illegal, and will need to be registered.”

If.

Comment by sulla Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:37 am
oh goodie. Nothing like stoking paranoia among those who impulsively bought firearms.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:37 am
not worried about the registration as I think the law will be struck down before then.

But Mason is correct and the lying on the registration affidavit is under a penalty of perjury which is a felony.

The emergency appeal to SCOTUS is a long shot. but it is interesting that Justice Barret asked for briefs from the City & State. today is the Court’s conference, so if she kicks it to the full court, we could get something Monday when they release orders. Again it’s a long shot and I am not really expecting anything at this point because of the posture of the case. But when the 2nd Circuit was playing games the Court sent them a note to sop it, so who knows.

Comment by Todd Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:40 am
==spitting on the Constitution==

And you’re spitting on the dead.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:57 am
–If I completed a purchase of a banned rifle on May 3, 2023–

Probably should have talked to a lawyer before doing that. Relying on a temporary injunction, when conflicting federal rulings exist at the same time, to protect yourself from legal responsibility is not a very smart thing to do. Any lawyer would have told you that.

The guy selling it only cared about his rights, and to make money. Not your rights.

Caveat Emptor.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 11:21 am
==== “There’s nobody going after anybody”

Truly adapting to being an Illinois politician with that line.

Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 11:24 am
I want to call these people names but I’m more curious about how many are actually affected by this. Is there an official count for the number of Illinois citizens who panic-bought an expensive deadly weapon during the six (6) days the law banning it was suspended by court order and created this conundrum for themselves? Bonus question: Who was selling them?

Comment by 48th Ward Heel Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 11:24 am
Gun owners are members of a “Well Regulated Militia” according to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Comment by Jerry Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 11:49 am
=Gun owners are members of a “Well Regulated Militia”=

The fact that anyone can look at the state of America and say firearm ownership is “well regulated” or part “of a militia” is a mockery and a disrespect to the tens of thousands of lives lost and families broken each year due to our joint obsession.

Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 11:56 am
Even if you buy that random gun owners somehow form a militia, gun laws would be permissible as well regulating it.

Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:08 pm
=== an intentional effort by the governor and the attorney general to entrap Illinoisans===

I wonder if before he made this accusation if he had bothered contacting the Governor’s office to inquire about the situation.

===“What the law says is that as of Jan. 1 of 2024, that people will need to fill out the affidavit that they have one of those guns,” Pritzker said at an unrelated event. “That’s really all it is. There’s nobody going after anybody, but that’s really what the law says.”===

I would not be surprised if Jason Plummer had no idea what the law says. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he believed the people who made those purchase during the stay would not have to comply with any measure of the law, which if the case, he should perhaps share whatever he received from the attorney he consulted before making his accusation.

Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:15 pm
==he knows better==

I hope the Governor knows better than to tell citizens to sign an affidavit that their guns were purchased 4 months before the actual sale date.

This seems like a simple issue to fix. But the accusations and poorly thought out responses don’t help.

Comment by WK Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:19 pm
===Is there an official count for the number of Illinois citizens who panic-bought an expensive deadly weapon during the six (6) days the law banning it was suspended by court order and created this conundrum for themselves?===

I’m sure Todd thinks of them as potential plaintiffs, not simply unsuspecting, law-abiding hobbyists.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:20 pm
Actually the constitution says a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free states….so the 2A Whacks and Daddy’s little helper should be swelling the forces of the IL National Guard pronto.

Comment by Annonin' Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:26 pm
“since the purchase includes ATF 4073 forms a lie that can be followed up on”

There likely were also many private sales of semi-auto weapons that week - those sales do not require a form 4073. Of course that will change on July 1st when all private sales will need to be completed at an FFL and subject to a new fee.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:31 pm
“Just Sign the Affidavit”

Another brilliant take on that always timeless chart-topping classic hit “The Detectives Just Want To Chat”

Comment by JB13 Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:34 pm
It is good to see Jerry again, advocating for the necessity to regulate well, the militia s/he supports. I am sure Jerry stands behind the PICA, since s/he advocates so fiercely for regulating militia members.

Comment by H-W Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:44 pm
>>>>Actually the constitution says a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free states….

You can’t have a well regulated (well operating) militia without an armed pool of people to draw from.

Comment by We've never had one before Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:47 pm
Uh, yeah, I’m sure Pritzker and Raoul wanted dueling orders from the courts to confuse everyone. That must be it. Plummer is just sad here

Comment by Perrid Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:47 pm
Ask and ye shall receive. the senate has introduced an amendment that includes firearms purchased during the injunction period.

Comment by Notorious JMB Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:56 pm
===without an armed pool===

That’s what armories were for. Just sayin…

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 12:57 pm
>>>>That’s what armories were for. Just sayin…

Militia members trained and mustered with their own firearms. Field pieces and “extra” firearms were kept at armories.

Comment by We've never had one before Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:06 pm
==without an armed pool of people==

And what war are these armed people going to be fighting? It’s absurd to me that one of the arguments that is consistently made is that people need to be able to defend themselves from the government. What paranoid delusion are you suffering from to believe that?

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:10 pm
If they want to use the well regulated militia, then shouldn’t they train like the militia? They could be treated like the National Guard who train one weekend every month and two weeks during the summer. Otherwise, it is just words.

Comment by Appears Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:16 pm
This idea of a well regulated militia, the last attack on our democracy was an insurrection attempting to stop the completion of a fair and free election.

They were not well regulated, and it wasn’t the government going after citizens, rather…

Also, if there’s a need for a well regulated militia, I guess that’s a tell that an AR-15 is a military weapon?

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:22 pm
@Demoralized - it’s hyberbole to call it delusional when there’s currently a war being fought on the other side of the globe where the government was forced to hand out weapons to an unprepared (unregulated) citizenry to protect its sovereignty. Many of those guns, of course were bought or provided by American taxpayers.

Comment by Anon357 Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:38 pm
@Anon357

First, that’s a ridiculous comparison. Second, nobody is taking away everybody’s firearms. They are simply saying you shouldn’t have an AR-15 or similar type of weapon. I think my relatives can more than survive your example with the non-AR-15 arsenal each of them possess (which I have no problem with).

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:44 pm
@ Anon357

Unprepared is not a legal equivalence for unregulated.

Comment by H-W Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:51 pm
Why is it ridiculous? It’s a situation where an unarmed citizenry were asked to take up arms to defend the country from a foreign enemy. The Ukrainian government literally handed out guns to its citizens in an effort to stop the insurgents.

Comment by Anon357 Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:54 pm
=== to defend the country from a foreign enemy.===

You believe a foreign enemy is preparing to invade the United States?

Please don’t operate any heavy or complicated machinery, for your sake and the sake of others.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:57 pm
H-W,

Sorry, I understand that. That was a last second addition to mock those who continue to parrot the lie that “well-regulated” was included as a way to suggest the government has an obligation to heavily restrict access to the right to bear arms.

Comment by Anon357 Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 1:57 pm
OW, at this moment, ofcourse not. But people don’t buy guns expecting to need to use them to defend their lives tomorrow. Heck, they hope they don’t have to use them for that purpose ever, but if the past few years have shown us anything it’s that our safety and security is pretty fragile.

Comment by Anon357 Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 2:01 pm
===it’s that our safety and security is pretty fragile. ===

Not sure that’s a great argument for your side, considering.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 2:04 pm
===it’s that our safety and security is pretty fragile. ===

Yeah, um…

“… all enemies foreign and domestic…”

Please, heed my warning to heavy machinery… the domestic enemy is the one of worry and the NRA seems to choose that domestic enemy as their ally.

Your defense of your argument is one of an ill mind if you believe a foreign power is the greater threat in a ground attack.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 2:08 pm
==where an unarmed citizenry ==

Who will be unarmed? All this does is restrict a certain type of weapon. With these comparisons to Ukraine (which, yes, is absurd) you’re acting like citizens in the U.S. will be left with no firearms. Nonsense.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 3:25 pm
@Anon357

The last time the United States was attacked was the War of 1812. Now, technically, Pearl Harbor was a U.S. territory, and it was attached. However, it was attacked by air, and when people join the U.S. military, we are not allowed to bring our own guns.

But if past is prelude, I think we have more to fear from authoritarian citizens of the U.S., than we do from foreign nationals.

And in any case, regulated is not the same as unprepared. The National Guard is a well regulated militia. Scared, authoritarian citizens are not well-regulated. They are more often, a menace to society.

Comment by H-W Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 3:28 pm
H-W, I agree with your comments but I think we were attacked on 9/11.

Comment by don the legend Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 3:57 pm
I think he meant attacked by another country. And we have plenty of domestic terrorists including McVeigh.

Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 4:03 pm
@ Don the Legend

Thanks. I stand corrected.

Comment by H-W Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 4:20 pm
Since a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, the rights of it citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so they may have a recourse in the event said militia is used by a corrupt “state”…

Comment by My take Thursday, May 11, 23 @ 10:59 pm
- My take -

So… you favored the insurrection because of the 2nd amendment?

Anyone can cut and paste, so…

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 12, 23 @ 6:06 am