Illinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms

montemuscle1970 said:
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the confiscation thing. I can't see this happening anywhere in the US. I'm not saying I don't see the government trying, but what price are they willing to pay for it? I would hate to be a LEO or Military being asked to carry out some type of confiscation. I think most wouldn't agree with it, and even the ones that went along with it MUST be scared that every house they went to could end up being a significant shootout. Is it worth one dead LEO, MIL or civilian to the government or anti's?
Click to expand...

One? not saying I advocate violence but I would hope a good amount of us wouldn't go quetly into the night. And for those who think I know I will just hide my stuff I ask you why? If a home invader comes into your house and you shoot in self defense with contraband you will also be prosicuted. And some I have heard say I will hide them until it is time to rise up. Really? if they had balls enough to try and disarm you that isn't a good enough time? If that doesn't get you revolution bound then what will? Nothing because that is what they are hoping for, they don't really care if you turn in your guns or not because the ultimate goal is to do the same thing that the civil war did and divide families and friends. They want it to the point where whatever government reward(more food rations or a fancier home they allow you to residein, and yes they want us to the point where they give us everything) they offer is worth turning your friends and family in for keeping "illegal" guns. I believe anything is possible after in gallop poles 58% of the country didn't want Obamacare and well we got it. They have become far more bold in thier actions over the past decade and the schools are pumping out more and more "loyal followers".
 
montemuscle1970 said:
Is it worth one dead LEO, MIL or civilian to the government or anti's?
Click to expand...

Its the civilians that you should be worried about. The people who come to strip others of their right to self-preservation are not the kind of people that you want in society. The good ones will stay home.
 
LittleCalm said:
No. Per McDonald, 2A applies to the states through the 14A. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal govt can infringe on 2A.
Click to expand...

I know that. You know that. The government has forgotten.


seth72 said:
Its the civilians that you should be worried about. The people who come to strip others of their right to self-preservation are not the kind of people that you want in society. The good ones will stay home.
Click to expand...

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
 
ph0to said:
Listening to the audio there...committee passed it.

Firearms Ban (HB1263) passed committee. 6-4
Magazine Ban (HB0815) also passed 6-3

Links to the actual bills:

http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltex...d=HB&LegID=56601&DocNum=0815&GAID=11&Session=

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Illinois-gun-ban-bill-1263.pdf
Click to expand...

Ok it's been a long day and I'm sick as a dog, what does this mean for those poor people in IL? They'll need to defend their 2A rights again on the next ballot? This is outrageous.
 
LittleCalm said:
Looks like it grandfathers existing semi-auto rifles and handguns -- those owned prior to 1/1/14.
Click to expand...

IMO, regardless of what the 2A says (or what the courts say it means), that is the only way they can avoid an unconstitutional taking without paying the owner. This is why there is grandfathering in every "ban" that is passed.

They also are going with a 1 evil feature definition for "assault weapons." You can have a detachable magazine, but you cannot also have a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud or else it is an assault weapon.
 
BigDaddyAl said:
IMO, regardless of what the 2A says (or what the courts say it means), that is the only way they can avoid an unconstitutional taking without paying the owner. This is why there is grandfathering in every "ban" that is passed.

They also are going with a 1 evil feature definition for "assault weapons." You can have a detachable magazine, but you cannot also have a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud or else it is an assault weapon.
Click to expand...

True, and that 1 evil feature is enough to make that AR look hideous without the other ESSENTIAL parts. The run on firearms this year will be so high in IL, get ready for online sales to be sold out most everywhere even more than they are now.
 
Wow, so this won't go into effect until the first of the year 2014? This is bill is going to get disputed in the courts for sure. I'm still having a hard time understanding the bill. At first I heard of confiscations, and now there's grandfathering?

This is not good, especially since other states will most likely follow Illinois lead.
 
BigDaddyAl said:
IMO, regardless of what the 2A says (or what the courts say it means), that is the only way they can avoid an unconstitutional taking without paying the owner. This is why there is grandfathering in every "ban" that is passed.

They also are going with a 1 evil feature definition for "assault weapons." You can have a detachable magazine, but you cannot also have a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud or else it is an assault weapon.
Click to expand...

Unless (once again) it was made that way "pre ban", correct?
 
BigDaddyAl said:
They also are going with a 1 evil feature definition for "assault weapons." You can have a detachable magazine, but you cannot also have a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud or else it is an assault weapon.
Click to expand...

True, but they have an interesting definition of "pistol grip"...

Sec. 24-1.9 said:
(a) Definitions. In this Section:

>snip<

(6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle, shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.
Click to expand...



Andreas said:
Unless (once again) it was made that way "pre ban", correct?
Click to expand...

In the bills current version, yes...

(c) This Section does not apply to a person who possessed a weapon or attachment prohibited by subsection (b) before January 1, 2014, provided that the person has provided proof of ownership, his or her name, and other identifying information to the Department of State Police, as required by the Department, within 90 days after January 1, 2014.
Click to expand...
 
Kevlar said:
True, but they have an interesting definition of "pistol grip"...

(6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle, shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Okay, see, that just makes it worse. I *could* grip the pistol grip on an AK/AR while using my other hand to manipulate the trigger... so it is CAPABLE of functioning that way.
 
je25ff said:
How is it remotely constitutional to confiscate something legally purchased??
Click to expand...

Generally it's not. However, if they pay you fair market value they may be able to take it under the eminent domain clause under the guise of public safety (which satisfies the "public use" requirement). The issue there arises because here we're talking about chattel as opposed to real property, and there's little case law in using the eminent domain power re: personal property.
 
Dear lord!!!!! Can you imagine if someone splashes a chi town bad guy with a blunderbuss? That mess would get BP firearms banned in such a "gun safe" city
 

Similar threads

Import ban extended to ♾️
Replies
17
Views
856
Animal357
A
Nebraska lawmakers pass bill that would allow smaller school districts to arm staff members
Replies
0
Views
54
Reptile
Reptile
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
141
Animal357
A
Maine Gov. Mills Pushes to Make it Easier to Have Firearms Confiscated
Replies
3
Views
301
Uzi2
U
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
3K
CrackPot
CrackPot
Back
Top Bottom