Illinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms

glockstones said:
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".
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be just one either. I'm just basically asking, are the anti's and government stupid enough to believe that there won't be a body count involved in all of this? And if its not because they're just being stupid, then its because they want this to come to blows.
 
montemuscle1970 said:
I don't think it would be just one either. I'm just basically asking, are the anti's and government stupid enough to believe that there won't be a body count involved in all of this? And if its not because they're just being stupid, then its because they want this to come to blows.
Click to expand...
It comes down to power and disarming the American people. They don't give a crap about mass shootings. They know to achieve their goals they can't have 300 million guns in the hands of those that would oppose them.
 
fivepak said:
It comes down to power and disarming the American people. They don't give a crap about mass shootings. They know to achieve their goals they can't have 300 million guns in the hands of those that would oppose them.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this has NEVER been about crime or mass shootings. Those are simply a means to an end for them, their entire goal is disarmament.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has been a while since my property law classes, but I think that ANDRUS v. ALLARD, 444 U.S. 51 (1979) is the one most commonly referenced with respect to personal property takings. The court held that the same takings rules apply to personal property.

[T]he denial of one traditional property right does not always amount to a taking. At least where an owner possesses a full "bundle" of property rights, the destruction of one "strand" of the bundle is not a taking, because the aggregate must be viewed in its entirety.
Click to expand...

The implication is that if .gov does destroy the whole "bundle" of rights (i.e., an outright possession ban/confiscation) then .gov must pay you for that item. This is where we then hope that the courts rule that the 2A trumps any eminent domain powers under the 5A.
 
BigDaddyAl said:
It has been a while since my property law classes, but I think that ANDRUS v. ALLARD, 444 U.S. 51 (1979) is the one most commonly referenced with respect to personal property takings. The court held that the same takings rules apply to personal property.

The implication is that if .gov does destroy the whole "bundle" of rights (i.e., an outright possession ban/confiscation) then .gov must pay you for that item. This is where we then hope that the courts rule that the 2A trumps any eminent domain powers under the 5A.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correction and case law. I think I covered takings in about two class sessions, and it was all regulatory takings over real property.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that case seems almost perfectly on point with Feinstein's bill, because like it, it dealt with a circumstance where almost every right except prosession and transport was taken.

namedpipes said:
2A *DOES* trump eminent domain powers. How the courts rule is simply a predictor variable for how many people die in the inevitable conflicts.
Click to expand...

Eugene Volokh, probably one of the foremost academic experts in 2A law, noted an intersection between takings and 2A law a few years back as applied to felons: http://www.volokh.com/2010/04/14/the-second-amendment-and-the-takings-clause/
 
Last edited:
Roscoe said:
Heller was supposed to force Washington DC to allow licensed gun owners to carry outside the home... still hasn't happened. These people dont give a s__t what the SCOTUS says...

In reality, who is going to force them to comply ?
Click to expand...

The SC decision means nothing in this case. When an issue comes before the court it typically has one leg. A state can nullify a decision of the court, or it can simply say the court did not address this, or they will rely on the decision they made in Heller, which said that the government can regulate the ownership of firearms. The state can begin to enforce the new law. In this case it would mean that people would have to turn the guns in or face the consequences.
A suit can be filed for an injunction to stop the state from taking action until the court says we already told you that you can't do this type of regulation. If no one takes such a step, the courts remain mute and the enforcement either commences or continues.
The only lawful remedy would be for the Militia to act, and I'm pretty sure that IL does not have an organized Militia. The Militia is the only body that is constitutionally authorized to enforce the law, and arrest upon 'probable cause' anyone, including politicians, judges, police and anyone acting under color of law.
 
I just dont understand how any court could possibly not ****ing over throw this. See any rant ive posted here about Shall not be infringed and look up the definition of infringed. Have people forgotten who they are? Do they no longer Study John Locke or our Founding Fathers in schools? Or did they read about it and go " Yeah **** freedom I want Communism" Move the **** to China and stop ruining my country.
 
TheKingNothing said:
I just dont understand how any court could possibly not ****ing over throw this. See any rant ive posted here about Shall not be infringed and look up the definition of infringed. Have people forgotten who they are? Do they no longer Study John Locke or our Founding Fathers in schools? Or did they read about it and go " Yeah **** freedom I want Communism" Move the **** to China and stop ruining my country.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. These people have no historical perspective for starters. Secondly, they believe in the "Well-Regulated Militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment, but choose to completely ignore the rest where it states " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I know this b/c I have argued with moonbats that have this view point. That look at gun ownership as a privledge and not a right. Ironically, these are the same people that belive that healthcare is a right.
 
Horrible said:
No, they don't. These people have no historical perspective for starters. Secondly, they believe in the "Well-Regulated Militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment, but choose to completely ignore the rest where it states " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...


The worst part is I bet they've never even done research on the subject too. Id love to see the looks on their faces as they read District of Columbia Vs Heller or McDonald Vs Chicago where the individuals right to bear arms was confirmed.
 
TheKingNothing said:
The worst part is I bet they've never even done research on the subject too. Id love to see the looks on their faces as they read District of Columbia Vs Heller or McDonald Vs Chicago where the individuals right to bear arms was confirmed.
Click to expand...
You would think that the 6 figure checks they have been writing to SAF and others over this would convince them to read a little more, but I guess they want to fund SAF for some more law suits?
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that case seems almost perfectly on point with Feinstein's bill, because like it, it dealt with a circumstance where almost every right except prosession and transport was taken.
Click to expand...

If you ignore the 2A, then yes, there seems to be a lot of potential overlap between Allard and what Feinstein and others are proposing. However, from a constitutional case law perspective, I think we're in completely new territory because of the protections afforded by the 2A to the property in question. I know that most of us here believe the 2A trumps the 5A, but who knows what the courts will decide. As namedpipes indicates, it will get ugly if the courts give the 5A more weight.

cekim said:
This should not even be a discussion, that we got here in the first place is an affront to justice. [thinking]
Click to expand...

QFTT
 
LXnastynotch93 said:
The bill passed committee.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5035033...ill-senate-committee-passes-gun-restrictions/
Click to expand...

What is specified in that article is completety different than the initial article I read. The original said they where going to ban everything including pump shotguns and confinscate them all.



Original add summary


Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called ‘assault weapons’ but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Eugene Volokh, probably one of the foremost academic experts in 2A law, noted an intersection between takings and 2A law a few years back as applied to felons: http://www.volokh.com/2010/04/14/the-second-amendment-and-the-takings-clause/
Click to expand...

My comment was more in the way of an observation that an AWB along with a ruling that the government *can* confiscate firearms is more likely to result in bloodshed than an AWB without such a ruling. (boiling frog)

2A exists to protect rights, not to grant rights.
 
If i was an IL gun manufacturer, e.g., Armalite, I would be informing employees of the plan to move South to a gun friendly state. With the mark up on AR's these days, he could afford to relocate them all and build a brand new plant in some gun friendly Southern state. Many would provide tax incentives to get the increased state tax revenue. And land is basically free in the south.
 

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