Attn Illinois citizens: New anti gun bills headed for the house.

You're probably right. I'd have to research further to know for sure, and I unfortunately do not have time to do that right now. To play devil's advocate in a hair-splitting legal sense, taking the weapons down to the ISP and showing them the serial numbers only shows possession, not necessarily ownership. Whoever stole my 1911 :mad: in 2009 could show someone the serial number, but they don't legally own it. I keep hoping that they'll take it down to the Arkansas State Police and show them the serial number . . . Maybe then I'll get it back.
 
I think it means you go to the State Police and tell/show them what you have along with serial numbers.
Click to expand...

What? So they can arrest you for posessing something you are not supposed to have?

Gun laws like this have been putting good people in jail for stupid reasons for a long time now..... all in the name of Public Safety.
 
You could outlaw the Mauser Broomhandle with that language.....not to mention about 99% of modern semiautos.
Click to expand...

Which is,I believe the true intent of the law....

Some places the Broomhandle is already outlawed, or restricted, because it's an "assault weapon", the magazine is not in the pistol grip! I'm sure that applies to those models with detatchable magazines, anyway.
 
Leaving aside (for now) the entire ban on ownership of all those things AFTER the effective date of the proposed law, the requirement to provide proof of ownership to the police within 90 days is going to create total registration of all "legal" arms covered by the bill.

So, in effect, the state will have a record of all the arms covered under the bill, who owns them, and where they live. And anything not on the state's list will be illegal.

Didn't see any allowance for "providing proof of ownership" past the 90 days, so right there its going to create a whole class of "criminals" simply because it is more than a bit unrealistic to believe everyone in the state who owns such property will be made aware of the requirements and be able to comply within the alloted 90 day window.

What about a serviceman who owns something on that list, and is currently deployed? Are they to become a criminal the next time they set foot in the home state? Apparently the sponsors of this bill think so....

By the language used, the ban would cover ALL semiautomatic rifles. Even those "sporting" ones made by Remington and Browning, because....
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
Click to expand...

Got news for you, the forearm of your rifle is a "shroud that partially encircles the barrel"....

All your semi auto tube magazine .22s are banned, too. Because they hold more than 10 rnds.

Can't have a Desert Eagle, either, becuase tis too heavy (more than 50oz, unloaded).

About the only thing the anti's want that isn't on that list (for now) is detatchable magazines over 10rnds being banned. Wonder why they didn't bother to include those? They have before....

I'd give you my honest opinion of the whole idea, but I can't do it honestly without violating the language filters.

We have laws that say you cannot shoot people for fun and profit. Why cannot legislators see that laws beyond that are a waste of time, effort, and most importantly, MONEY?!!!
 
44 AMP said:
. . . . the requirement to provide proof of ownership to the police within 90 days is going to create total registration of all "legal" arms covered by the bill.

So, in effect, the state will have a record of all the arms covered under the bill, who owns them, and where they live. And anything not on the state's list will be illegal.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.
44 AMP said:
. . . .
Got news for you, the forearm of your rifle is a "shroud that partially encircles the barrel"....
Click to expand...
Again, that was my impression.

44 AMP said:
. . . .About the only thing the anti's want that isn't on that list (for now) is detatchable magazines over 10rnds being banned. Wonder why they didn't bother to include those? They have before....
Click to expand...
Did you see this?
Illinois General Assembly said:
Sec. 24-1.10. Manufacture, possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
(a) As used in this Section:
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:
(1) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or
(2) any combination of parts from which a device described in paragraph (1) can be assembled.
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition or any device that has been made permanently inoperable.
(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), it is unlawful for any person within this State, beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly, to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed, a large capacity ammunition feeding device. . . . . [What follows are the grandfather clause and exemptions for law enforcement, prison guards, national guardsmen, etc.]
Click to expand...
Source: http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=1855&GAID=11&SessionID=84&LegID=59044
 
About the only thing the anti's want that isn't on that list (for now) is detatchable magazines over 10rnds being banned. Wonder why they didn't bother to include those? They have before....
Click to expand...

They'd be banned as well under this bill. As well as .50cal ammo and rifles I believe. This is a perfect example of the state banning things that sound "scary". I'd never even heard of a "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12".

All this does is make me want the banned items more.
 
You've got to be kidding. Isn't anybody in the state hammering their reps. over this?
Click to expand...

Of course we are.

I spoke with my rep's office aide and one thing she told me that I didn't know is that there are two committees in IL. They have passed the first. The bills still need to go to a specific committee where it will be debated, amended and voted on. Then it'll go to the house where it will again be debated, amended and voted on.

They've only gotten past the first step which makes me feel a lot better. The assault weapons ban from Acevedo is basically the same thing he's tried to push since maybe 2005.

The chances of these three bills becoming law are a bit on the slim side but we are still rabidly calling our reps.

I've called a dozen+ of the pro carry bill reps from last year's vote and I'd say most of them would be against these trash bills.

If any of you guys have gun friendly friends/relatives in IL please ask them to make a quick call to their rep's office or shoot off some emails. It'll help.
 
Ya these bills are awfull.

To answer someone's question - yes I'm at least one person who would be affected by this. I'd have to tell the State Police I have an Intratech Tec-9M, and I have no proof of ownership. I bought it in 1987 and have moved several times since then - lost the receipt long ago.

I'm not going to get too worked up over it though...

I'll make my phone calls, write my e-mails, and put a little money aside to give to the campaigns of the politicians running against these people.
 
It's odd that the NRA-ILA is bouncing around in permissive states making small improvements here and there, but I haven't heard anything from them on this.
 
@ spanishjames

If this law were passed I would NOT report a single weapon. All of the "assault" weapons would be moved to family property in WI or IN until the crazy law was overturned. "Registration" is one step away from confiscation, if the ISP were to want to confiscate my guns they can have the pleasure of driving a few hours in either direction to get them.

This law is totally unenforceable to those who already have the weapons, without some sort of Mission Impossible type of operation...then again I could totally see some sort of Tom Cruise wanna be in a sting operation at a local range, radioing for certain people to be stopped and checked out to make sure their evil assault weapons are on the up and up.
 
I try to stay detached from it.

If you read some of the statements that the sponsors and co-sponsors make - you'll want to pull your hair out.

We have an incredible amount of resources at our disposal with ISRA and Illinois Carry - http://www.illinoiscarry.com/

We just have to do what we have to do... we'll get busy contacting the politicians on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top