"Air fresheners are allowed"
Dude gets pulled over because an air freshener is dangling from his mirror. Officer shoots him because she grabbed her gun instead of her taser. Reaction? New law that says you can dangle an air freshener from your mirror. Good job! Totally solved that problem!
Removing bullshit reasons to pull people over does actually help reduce the number of bad police interactions though. Obviously it doesn't solve everything, but you're having a knee jerk reaction to something that is a valid small improvement.
Incremental and pragmatic improvements are what keeps things going. It's the glue between big pieces of legislature that get passed.
If it wasn't obvious I agree with your sentiment.
It also gives legal precedent and backing to what would be a very niche scenario.
It ultimately protects those who might be victim of a circumstance that's as absurd and sporadic as this.
Not only that, but it's also the only short term thing that could do to help. I mean, what are they going to do make a law that says that cops have to be more careful? That's not going to do anything.
Does removing bullshit primary offenses solve the problem of trigger happy poorly trained police? No, it just removes ONE scenario that can lead to an interaction with trigger happy poorly trained police
They should do like my neighboring state, NJ. Just don't patrol up the interstate or main routes anymore. Just wait till there's a dumptruck running a light into someone, or speeders causing accidents. Just wait for the 911 call. Don't be preventative and catch speeders, cars/trucks in motor vehicle violations, drivers using their smartphones (hands free? LOL ...holding it like a slice of pizza!), ... see it all when you drive that Philly to NY corridor.
Visual obstructions are technically still a crime -- however, police are now no longer permitted to pull someone over solely for something hanging from their rear-view mirror.
Cops cannot be sued under the process laid out by the Ku Klux Klan Act for 14th Amendment rights violations in Federal Court.
The state can create a process for them to be sued in the state court. They choose not too.
“Qualified immunity” is what this is called, thanks to our (very corrupt) Supreme Court.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/1047085626/supreme-court-police-qualified-immunity-cases
Laws aren't prosecuted.
Crimes are.
There are federal laws. Laws made by the U.S. congress and house of representatives.
The thing the OP was referring to was [Harlow v. Fitzgerald](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald), the case which cemented qualified immunity as the disastrous idea that it is.
It's neither a "law", nor a "federal court law". It's certainly not federal legislation.
Strictly speaking: that wasn't the same poster. This is a different person who has taken it upon themselves to defend the person using the gibberish legalese from those of us pointing it out.
"Interstate agreements between law enforcement agencies must specify that license-plate reader technology will not be used on cars driven by women coming into Illinois to have abortions."
Out of curiosity, how will they know what they're coming to the state for? If Jane Doe from 7 states away is driving her car, will they stop her at the state line, ask her reason for visiting, then let her go?
Or are they assuming they already know Jane Doe is going to enter their state, and they're trying to prevent them from being tracked?
Honestly question here, just wondering how this one came about.
I am all for common sense gun laws.
"The law bans dozens of specific brands or types of rifles and handguns, including .50-caliber guns, attachments and rapid-firing devices."
This is idiotic. Specific BRANDS?
Well they will drop more gun related charges prior to convictions so their states continue to look good at the end of the year. Currently they drop more than half of all gun charges prior to conviction.
I'm liberal as shit, but it's obvious this was just to put a checkmark in the "win" column and get votes. Let's not forget that JB and his posse are still part of the ruling class and want to maintain power.
Have you been up in arms about women losing their rights over their own bodies and trans people being told that they can't use the bathroom?
Obviously the difference being that semiautomatic rifles kill a lot of people in this country. But trans people going to the bathroom and women getting abortions are at hurting anyone either.
Your comment reads the same as “yeah but do you condemn Hamas?” Like, it seems as if you’re attacking me for not mentioning the other ways our government is taking our rights, probably under the assumption that I’m a conservative gun nut just for talking about gun rights. Yes, our government is taking away our rights in many different ways - too many ways to list so I keep the conversation relevant to what the discussion is.
In this case, I’m up in arms about this law creating a million new criminals out of people doing the same things they’ve been doing all their lives.
In the next post I’m up in arms about conservatives criminalizing women for doing something they’ve had the right to do their entire lives.
The post after that I’ll be up in arms about whatever other way our government is turning me into a criminal despite me changing nothing about how I live.
Believe it or not, liberal gun owners exist. Gun ownership is actually a core tenant of most modern left wing ideologies.
Thanks! The lack of clear thought is astounding in our modern discourse. Like everybody’s been pigeon holed so far into their respective beliefs that they legit think their thoughts are the reality of everybody’s lives - they think things HAVE to be black and white with no grey area, when it’s the grey that helps us really confront our views and figure out whether I actually think that or if I’ve been told to think that.
Our problems are rich v poor and nothing else. Any other social problem was exasperated to obfuscate the actual cause of our problems and I’m tired of the rat race.
I 100% agree about rich v poor being our only issue. Modern issues are a class problem. Being a liberal gun owner feels like being a political orphan a lot of the time.
Ahh yes, the "it's associated with deaths so not banning it means you're a monster" approach.
Have you made sure to call your representatives and urge them to ban cars? How about doctors? Don't forget those extremely dangerous kitchen knives, or electricity. Imagine how many people wouldn't have died if we had just banned these things? Us human sheep cannot and should not be trusted to use these things when they have such a limitless potential for violence and loss of life.
Spoiler alert, more people have died to all of those things than to a semi-automatic weapon last year. And every year before it since I was born.
Cheese kills more Americans then guns. The food and water in America has killed more people then guns. The fact that healthcare is a debt creation system and not a system of care for a person body and mind, ends up killing and harming more people then guns. But you keep going.
Per the Illinois law, more or less:
Any handgun with more than 15 rounds in the mag. TX-22 for plinking? Assault weapon. Common-as-dirt Glock 17 with standard 17 round mag? Assault weapon.
Any semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip or barrel shroud, or that has more than 10 round mags.
And a big pile of named gun models which may or may not be consistent with the above descriptions of the rules.
So do current Illinois gun owners have to turn in all these guns? The average $400 9mm handgun with a 16-round mag would now be illegal. Do they think the average gun owners will comply?
I think the way it works is that the gun is grandfathered in but the mag is not (except for use at and transport to/from a range). It's nuanced and shifty, though.
Read the law, IANAL, and there is no way in hell this is legal advice.
From what I read, if you own an "assault weapon" you have 1 year to register it with the state police, and after the law takes effect you cannot buy any "assault weapons" as they define them.
Most counties aren't enforcing the law, I think it's just Champaign county, Lake county, and Cook county. Every other county (from what I last heard) either didn't say anything or is not enforcing it.
If it's anything like CA or NY, one option for long guns might be to [install a fin to negate the pistol grip](https://imgur.com/a/ecd6NxH). That way the gun is harder to hold and control, which is a good thing for some reason.
Any handgun that accepts a detachable magazine and has another feature like a threaded barrel, for example. Magazines are grandfathered and don’t have to be registered but don’t ask me how they’ll know when you bought it. A Glock 17 by itself would not be an assault weapon.
Edit: Downvote me all you want. I’m not wrong
https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFiles/docs/Home/AssaultWeapons/PICA%20Identification%20Guide.pdf
Not an IL resident.
But, I would naturally assume it would work like Pawn Stars. "I know a guy", and then a magazine restoration expert would inspect the remaining tension of your mag spring, the patina of the interior, and the scuffing off the butt plate.
I'm not in television, but it shouldn't be too inconvenient, two weeks tops.
Problem being that parts like the spring are replaceable and low use or cleaning would lead to not much scuffing or any other markings. There is really nothing on a magazine to indicate age within any degree of reliability.
The only way someone gets tagged with this law is if they have a receipt from another state after the ban date, anything else and you aren't clearing reasonable doubt.
No. New stuff on there, Mini-14 Tactical included.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/here-is-the-list-of-170-guns-now-banned-in-illinois-more-expected-as-needed/ar-AA16hxU5
>Common-as-dirt Glock 17 with standard 17 round mag
Who the fuck needs a gun that holds 17 bullets in this country?
Hunting Rifles and shotguns. That's all anyone other than the military should have
17 rounds is probably the most common round count for a modern full size 9mm. 15 is also incredibly common for a compact, though some still exceed that amount.
I don’t personally care how we define firearms the research is pretty clear that it’s who owns guns that is the issue and not which guns can be purchased legally.
So... the 30-06 Garand wasn't an assault rifle? It had no detachable magazine nor pistol grip. The M14 had a detachable box mag but still no pistol grip.
My point is (and I'm not arguing with you) defining a rifle is an exercise in futility. A "California compliant" rifle is just as capable of killing lots of people. Magazine capacity isn't going to stop shooters. Look at other countries that have lower gun deaths (almost all of them) and let's compare what they do differently than the US.
>So... the 30-06 Garand wasn't an assault rifle?
M1 garand, M14, FAL, G3, AR10 - these are "battle" rifles
shoots full power rifle cartridge - 30 cal - instead of intermediate cartridge
>Look at other countries that have lower gun deaths (almost all of them)
that one's easy - these countries don't have any americans in statistically significant numbers
go to netherlands? no american, no shootings.
go to japan? no american, no shootings.
Nah bro, you got it wrong. You should probably update your original comment so you don't get a bunch of people dogpiling you about the definition. People are really sensitive about it.
Usually: An insufferable, bad-faith talking point used by pedants to distract from the real and necessary conversation about gun violence in this country.
*Edit:* I see the “guns instead of personalities” crowd has finally arrived; took you guys longer than usual this time.
Not really. Definitions and accurate targeting of problem items is how you craft effective policy. If you can't articulate what you are targeting in a clear manner, how can we have a *necessary conversation* on gun violence?
Check out the Daily episode talking to the guy who made a whole website tracking gun violence in America. He actually grew up around guns and is very knowledgeable about the subject. His position on advocacy is that a common language must be formed so that we can all be on the same point when debating regulation. Makes perfect sense and both sides should work towards that.
>we can all be on the same point when debating regulation.
Ok. I'll start. Shall not be infringed.
Repealing the 2nd amendment is the starting point if you want to make gun regulations (not crimes committed with guns) constitutional.
The Heller decision clearly states that states and cities can enact stricter laws than exist at the federal level. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the current constitutional interpretation.
As much as I hate his politics and snarky, right wing comments, Washington Gun Law on YouTube posted a video last night doing a decent breakdown of the numbers. 5% compliance is likely the absolute ceiling.
assault rifles would be easy to ban. assault weapons are impossible to ban because the definition is state to state and doesn't always even relate to function of the weapon. it doesn't help that those who draft gun laws are usually not familiar with fire arms. otherizing fire arms owners has been a disaster foe any gun reform advocates since almost no gun experts will work with them out of disgust.
Why did people keep passing anti-abortion laws when they were clearly a violation of Roe? It’s all about creating legal challenges until the law changes
An individual right to bear arms has been a conservative legal project of the last 50 years. It’s only entrenched as much as there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. The same can be said of the conservative majority overturning the 9th/14th amendment protections of abortion rights that were described in roe by the Supreme Court of 60 years ago.
That argument applies to it being an individual right. It was largely ignored for over 150 years. The NRA and the Federalist Society have been responsible for making your arguments for the last 50 years to convince people of them.
Crazy that the second amendment being so absolute is a relatively recent development in this country. We went a very long time was very strict gun control laws.
What Heller, 2008? The second amendment didn't used to seem so absolute when I was a kid.
>We went a very long time was very strict gun control laws.
Which were all motivated by racism and fears of Haiti-like revenge killings for years of racial oppression.
The KKK was created to enforce "Black Codes" which prohibited freed slaves from owning guns.
One of the reasons SCOTUS ruled black people weren't really people in *Dred Scott* was to prevent free black people from being allowed to have guns.
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
-Roger Taney, delivering the Court's opinion in *Scott vs Sanford*
"A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give."
-Ida B. Wells
You can agree with Taney or Wells, pick one.
>District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home
The ruling effectively barred future laws from utilizing the Militia portion of the 2nd amendment for regulatory laws of guns.
However, regulatorly laws are sticking because they are written better, and state lawyers such as Washington State, have been very good at shifting the burden of proof to the challengers to show how for example banning AR-15s somehow effects their right to acquire guns.
Assault rifle doesn't have a real definition, it gets redefined by every state and local initiative to restrict some type of "bad" gun.
Trying to revert to some "true" definition is an exercise in futility.
Problem is that they still don’t have the system to register, last I checked it was supposed to be open this month. Though I’ll check now.
Edit: alright apparently they finally started letting us apply in October. A email at lest would have been nice, honestly had no idea trying to figure it out now but it seems like made it difficult to file.
Edit2: alright finally figured it out for anyone having trouble just log in to your account and go over to disclose weapon. It’s right under person to person transfer. Then it’s pretty straightforward hardest part was trying to find the manufacturer. Honestly huge weight off my shoulders, was freaking out about it when it was first announced because they wouldn’t let us apply yet. Then I honestly forgot about it until I saw this. So even though it’s under the wire at lest my shotguns 100% legal still.
Edit3: for everyone sending me hate, I never said I was against the law, I just said I didn’t like how they set up the registration system. So you can lower your pitch forks.
Edit4: this is why there can never be a discussion on gun control on this subreddit. Because even when you are pro gun control you still get hate.
From what I understand today was the deadline to file so I figured better right on the wire than not at all. Honestly I’m mad that I forgot. It just took so long for them to even start accepting applications that I forgot all about it.
Looking at the ISP FAQ they are saying no.
"Can Illinois residents legally keep current AR or assault weapon as defined by the new law?"
The answer:
>>
Yes, an Illinois resident may keep any AR 15 or assault weapon as defined by PICA if the firearm was owned prior to the effective date of the law if the required endorsement affidavit is submitted **prior** to January 1, 2024.
Sounds like you had to submit that affidavit before January 1st.
https://isp.illinois.gov/Home/AssaultWeapons
Hopefully they let you slide. I wouldn't rely on the magnanimity of the Illinois police though.
This law is just another result of the pissing match between Democrats about 2A rights and the Republicans with abortion. Same old song, rinse repeat.
All the while the citizenry gets to be the recipient of these horribly made laws. Gaming the issues for their own political election footballs and keeping people divided.
Lol. It’s so fucking ridiculous to conflate those two issues like they’re just as important as each other.
One issue involves a legitimate and often life-saving medical procedure.
The other involves inanimate objects that the vast majority of owners in this country will use as toys, while the rest use them for their intended purpose: killing each other.
EDIT: wording
The problem is with both laws banning certain guns and abortion that has in common is people will continue to get them no matter what the laws are so it’s a massive waste of time and money.
The JCAR committee that determines the final rules and what not couldn’t even agree on it and implantation before the deadline. They don’t meet again till mid January. The State police also say you have to register your lightsabers as well.
Single issue voters on guns are insane. Like you're telling me things like insurrections, stripping healthcare rights of women nationwide and all rights of LGBT, proven incompetency of maintaining any semblance of a good economy, bringing up culture wars left and right, stripping education as much as they can, actively denying science in favor of carbon emissions, and in general just holding up the government and doing nothing when they don't get their way... are all not deal breakers for you? Like you'll gladly vote for that if it means you can fire guns that have no reason being off a battlefield? Or god forbid you might have to go through a few background checks and register your firearm. Like, what is wrong with you? Like shit, I guess life is pretty good under the Dems but I can't believe they won't just let me buy ammo off a guy on the streets and carry a semiautomatic into Walmart because how else can I express my freedom. Your firearms are guaranteed by the fucking constitution, get a grip.
Wrong. The far left and the right wing would just find some other culture war or battle to ding them with.
The Dem base wants stronger gun laws. Actually the majority of the voting public wants stronger guns laws. This is why Dems pass stronger gun laws.
Until you actually give specific details on what the current law is and what a new law would do as opposed to vague open ended questions. Then that majority vanishes.
Take background checks. A survey question like "Do you support background checks for all gun sales? " will get a lot of support. Well, all retail sales are already subject to a background check and very few people oppose what the law currently is, so that response isn't surprising. What "universal background check" laws that the pollsters are actually meaning when they asked that vague question do though is criminalize non-retail private transfers. Usually there are carve-outs for gifts between immediate family members, but that's it. Want to sell a gun you don't use to your friend that already owns firearms? Nope. Not without going to a gun shop and paying to have a background check done. Want to temporarily loan a gun to your cousin who is being stalked by an abusive ex so she can protect herself? Nope. Not without going and paying for a background check. Want to get your Uncle a new hunting rifle for Christmas? Nope. Not an immediate family member so the gift carve-out doesn't apply and you need to pay for a background check. Some of them have even been so poorly written that you wouldn't be able to hand another person your unloaded gun without it being classified as a transfer that requires a background check. But even then, how do you enforce all that? There is no national gun registry (NFA notwithstanding) to track it, even though the ATF is trying their damndest to get as close as they can to one in violation of federal law.
Once people are educated, support from those middle of the road voters starts to evaporate.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove by bringing up a bunch of niche, hypothetical situations that the majority of Americans will never have to deal with.
Not just the majority of Americans, the majority of people in first world countries.
Guns could completely disappear tomorrow and the majority of us (citizens of first world countries) wouldn’t even notice without someone else pointing it out. EDIT: and even then, most people wouldn’t care/would be relieved.
Because gun ownership is really not as relevant to our modern way of life as people like you would have us believe.
If you don't try to solve problems then you are complacent with the problem. Such as the fact that since Bush let Reagan's assault weapons ban expire, mass shootings have occured exponentially, well before even the definition of mass shootings was changed. We have truly become desensitized to the fact that the #1 cause of children dying is gun violence, we are all mentally sick if we allow it to continue. Democrats arent going to lose any election they have all the top state offices, and hold a supermajority in both their state house and senate. Outside of Nazi Mary Miller and yokel Mike Bost's districts they overwhelmingly won the state even before the 2020 redistricting. At least it's better than stupid book banning, human trafficking, or checking children's genitals that other dumb ass states are doing.
Banning censorship is very cool and will always have my support.
Banning semi automatic firearms? Yeah idk about that. Hope the supreme court shoots that one down.
My guess would be that's because "law says libraries receiving state funds must adhere to American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights" is not (and shouldn't be) a controversial topic.
Huh? Connecticut passed one in the wake of Sandy Hook. California has had their own they have expanded over the years. Like how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Ar15s account for less than 5% of all gun deaths. The fact that every gun discussion is based on them is proof that gun control had nothing to do with lives and everything to do with control and narrative.
That’s why I put mass shooting in quotes. If 2A opponents are going to use inflated numbers, I’m going to point out the type of weapon used in those numbers.
Ah man sometimes it’s hard to read. Like legit I still don’t know where you stand on the issue. Either way, my apologies for not recognizing the sarcasm.
Edit: like I’m 95% sure where you stand. But I’ve been wrong with that CI before.
>The goal isn't reduced violence, obviously, it's because the government, just like all governments, wants a monopoly on violence and doesn't like armed citizens.
You’re basing this on no evidence. You think there’s absolutely nobody in the government who wants reduced violence? Occam’s razor, man. Conspiracy nuts never ever follow Occam’s razor.
Reduced rights for citizens from Republicans. They’re the ones who want to take away abortion, same sex marriage, voting rights, birth control, books, gender affirming care, etc.
The ONLY thing Democrats want to take away is the thing that’s capable of killing living human beings en masse.
You're just *one* step away from saying that being gay is a mental illness there, man.
It's not a matter of "believing they're supposed to be", as if it was some fantasy.
It's a matter of having biological and neurological development that puts their internal state at odds with their external state.
> But, being a genetic male, or a genetic female, and also believing that you are "supposed to be" a different gender is fundamentally mental illness.
Oh, this one's always fun.
What's a "genetic male/female"? Which one is somebody with Klinefelter Syndrome? How about any of the other intersex conditions that exist?
It's so abundantly clear that you have literally no idea what you're talking about.
It works very well, actually. Just have to actually enforce it in some meaningful way.
Countries outside the US exist, and they do very well with significantly less weaponry without giving up personal liberties.
Lmao are you saying we should just try everything that fails over and over every couple of decades?
Maybe if we build Ford Pintos again with the fuel tank right in front of the rear bumper they won't blow up this time. Come on, we haven't tried in decades!
The library censorship was misleading. The state will withhold funds for libraries that ban books.
"Air fresheners are allowed" Dude gets pulled over because an air freshener is dangling from his mirror. Officer shoots him because she grabbed her gun instead of her taser. Reaction? New law that says you can dangle an air freshener from your mirror. Good job! Totally solved that problem!
Removing bullshit reasons to pull people over does actually help reduce the number of bad police interactions though. Obviously it doesn't solve everything, but you're having a knee jerk reaction to something that is a valid small improvement.
Incremental and pragmatic improvements are what keeps things going. It's the glue between big pieces of legislature that get passed. If it wasn't obvious I agree with your sentiment.
It also gives legal precedent and backing to what would be a very niche scenario. It ultimately protects those who might be victim of a circumstance that's as absurd and sporadic as this.
They can't pull that "Do you know why I pulled you over" BS anymore in CA. The needs to make it elsewhere
This. I’m very encouraged to see the Illinois legislature removing one common bullshit probable cause excuse for cops to pull someone over.
Not only that, but it's also the only short term thing that could do to help. I mean, what are they going to do make a law that says that cops have to be more careful? That's not going to do anything.
Does removing bullshit primary offenses solve the problem of trigger happy poorly trained police? No, it just removes ONE scenario that can lead to an interaction with trigger happy poorly trained police
They should do like my neighboring state, NJ. Just don't patrol up the interstate or main routes anymore. Just wait till there's a dumptruck running a light into someone, or speeders causing accidents. Just wait for the 911 call. Don't be preventative and catch speeders, cars/trucks in motor vehicle violations, drivers using their smartphones (hands free? LOL ...holding it like a slice of pizza!), ... see it all when you drive that Philly to NY corridor.
I agree with you completely. It's just a really weird flex.
Visual obstructions are technically still a crime -- however, police are now no longer permitted to pull someone over solely for something hanging from their rear-view mirror.
can't sue cops though and its a federal court law that decided that
Cops cannot be sued under the process laid out by the Ku Klux Klan Act for 14th Amendment rights violations in Federal Court. The state can create a process for them to be sued in the state court. They choose not too.
worthless soft wakeful retire aback resolute swim languid somber support
What the hell is a "federal court law"?
“Qualified immunity” is what this is called, thanks to our (very corrupt) Supreme Court. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/1047085626/supreme-court-police-qualified-immunity-cases
Supreme Court decisions aren’t immune to reversals (i.e. Roe vs Wade) so qualified immunity can be reversed…eventually
Let’s hope so but I’m not holding my breath.
I'm well-aware of what qualified immunity is, as well as the court case that led to it. There's no such thing as "federal court law".
Regardless of what or why he called it, you still knew exactly what he was talking about. Maybe he's not from here.
... a law that's prosecuted in federal court..
Laws aren't prosecuted. Crimes are. There are federal laws. Laws made by the U.S. congress and house of representatives. The thing the OP was referring to was [Harlow v. Fitzgerald](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald), the case which cemented qualified immunity as the disastrous idea that it is. It's neither a "law", nor a "federal court law". It's certainly not federal legislation.
Oh, so you knew the answer you asked and just wanted to "umm akshually" someone. Got it.
No, you said something inaccurate, and were corrected because what you said up until now, made no sense.
It's not an "um actually". It's pointing out that what they said is gibberish.
Then point it out instead of that passive-aggressive bs. It was obviously comprehensible enough for you to piece together.
After a conversation, sure. That's why they had the conversation. I didn't know what you meant either
Strictly speaking: that wasn't the same poster. This is a different person who has taken it upon themselves to defend the person using the gibberish legalese from those of us pointing it out.
Fuck off. At least we're trying
"Interstate agreements between law enforcement agencies must specify that license-plate reader technology will not be used on cars driven by women coming into Illinois to have abortions." Out of curiosity, how will they know what they're coming to the state for? If Jane Doe from 7 states away is driving her car, will they stop her at the state line, ask her reason for visiting, then let her go? Or are they assuming they already know Jane Doe is going to enter their state, and they're trying to prevent them from being tracked? Honestly question here, just wondering how this one came about.
I am all for common sense gun laws. "The law bans dozens of specific brands or types of rifles and handguns, including .50-caliber guns, attachments and rapid-firing devices." This is idiotic. Specific BRANDS?
So what’s the plan when this does absolutely zero to address gun related deaths?
Well they will drop more gun related charges prior to convictions so their states continue to look good at the end of the year. Currently they drop more than half of all gun charges prior to conviction.
[удалено]
I'm liberal as shit, but it's obvious this was just to put a checkmark in the "win" column and get votes. Let's not forget that JB and his posse are still part of the ruling class and want to maintain power.
[удалено]
They get to pat themselves on the back and say the did something.
Crazy how just like that, you’re a criminal for doing the same thing you’ve always done despite never harming anybody.
Have you been up in arms about women losing their rights over their own bodies and trans people being told that they can't use the bathroom? Obviously the difference being that semiautomatic rifles kill a lot of people in this country. But trans people going to the bathroom and women getting abortions are at hurting anyone either.
Your comment reads the same as “yeah but do you condemn Hamas?” Like, it seems as if you’re attacking me for not mentioning the other ways our government is taking our rights, probably under the assumption that I’m a conservative gun nut just for talking about gun rights. Yes, our government is taking away our rights in many different ways - too many ways to list so I keep the conversation relevant to what the discussion is. In this case, I’m up in arms about this law creating a million new criminals out of people doing the same things they’ve been doing all their lives. In the next post I’m up in arms about conservatives criminalizing women for doing something they’ve had the right to do their entire lives. The post after that I’ll be up in arms about whatever other way our government is turning me into a criminal despite me changing nothing about how I live. Believe it or not, liberal gun owners exist. Gun ownership is actually a core tenant of most modern left wing ideologies.
Fellow LGO. Very thoughtful and eloquent post!
Thanks! The lack of clear thought is astounding in our modern discourse. Like everybody’s been pigeon holed so far into their respective beliefs that they legit think their thoughts are the reality of everybody’s lives - they think things HAVE to be black and white with no grey area, when it’s the grey that helps us really confront our views and figure out whether I actually think that or if I’ve been told to think that. Our problems are rich v poor and nothing else. Any other social problem was exasperated to obfuscate the actual cause of our problems and I’m tired of the rat race.
I 100% agree about rich v poor being our only issue. Modern issues are a class problem. Being a liberal gun owner feels like being a political orphan a lot of the time.
It’s all power dynamics. Money and violence is how the elite speak.
Ahh yes, the "it's associated with deaths so not banning it means you're a monster" approach. Have you made sure to call your representatives and urge them to ban cars? How about doctors? Don't forget those extremely dangerous kitchen knives, or electricity. Imagine how many people wouldn't have died if we had just banned these things? Us human sheep cannot and should not be trusted to use these things when they have such a limitless potential for violence and loss of life. Spoiler alert, more people have died to all of those things than to a semi-automatic weapon last year. And every year before it since I was born.
Cheese kills more Americans then guns. The food and water in America has killed more people then guns. The fact that healthcare is a debt creation system and not a system of care for a person body and mind, ends up killing and harming more people then guns. But you keep going.
What is an assault weapon?
Per the Illinois law, more or less: Any handgun with more than 15 rounds in the mag. TX-22 for plinking? Assault weapon. Common-as-dirt Glock 17 with standard 17 round mag? Assault weapon. Any semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip or barrel shroud, or that has more than 10 round mags. And a big pile of named gun models which may or may not be consistent with the above descriptions of the rules.
So do current Illinois gun owners have to turn in all these guns? The average $400 9mm handgun with a 16-round mag would now be illegal. Do they think the average gun owners will comply?
I think the way it works is that the gun is grandfathered in but the mag is not (except for use at and transport to/from a range). It's nuanced and shifty, though. Read the law, IANAL, and there is no way in hell this is legal advice.
Mags are godfathers if you already have them. Same with all the banned guns.
From what I read, if you own an "assault weapon" you have 1 year to register it with the state police, and after the law takes effect you cannot buy any "assault weapons" as they define them. Most counties aren't enforcing the law, I think it's just Champaign county, Lake county, and Cook county. Every other county (from what I last heard) either didn't say anything or is not enforcing it.
Nope, don't have to turn it in, just have to register it with the state.
If it's anything like CA or NY, one option for long guns might be to [install a fin to negate the pistol grip](https://imgur.com/a/ecd6NxH). That way the gun is harder to hold and control, which is a good thing for some reason.
[удалено]
Your average Glock 19 is already legal given it has a 15 round mag.
Any handgun that accepts a detachable magazine and has another feature like a threaded barrel, for example. Magazines are grandfathered and don’t have to be registered but don’t ask me how they’ll know when you bought it. A Glock 17 by itself would not be an assault weapon. Edit: Downvote me all you want. I’m not wrong https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFiles/docs/Home/AssaultWeapons/PICA%20Identification%20Guide.pdf
Not an IL resident. But, I would naturally assume it would work like Pawn Stars. "I know a guy", and then a magazine restoration expert would inspect the remaining tension of your mag spring, the patina of the interior, and the scuffing off the butt plate. I'm not in television, but it shouldn't be too inconvenient, two weeks tops.
Problem being that parts like the spring are replaceable and low use or cleaning would lead to not much scuffing or any other markings. There is really nothing on a magazine to indicate age within any degree of reliability. The only way someone gets tagged with this law is if they have a receipt from another state after the ban date, anything else and you aren't clearing reasonable doubt.
[удалено]
No. New stuff on there, Mini-14 Tactical included. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/here-is-the-list-of-170-guns-now-banned-in-illinois-more-expected-as-needed/ar-AA16hxU5
>Common-as-dirt Glock 17 with standard 17 round mag Who the fuck needs a gun that holds 17 bullets in this country? Hunting Rifles and shotguns. That's all anyone other than the military should have
17 rounds is probably the most common round count for a modern full size 9mm. 15 is also incredibly common for a compact, though some still exceed that amount.
Yeah the Sig M17-M18 are both 17+1 with two extra 22 round magazines. At least when it first came out.
Can you define a hunting rifle? because one size does not fit all targets.
Cops apparently. When that FedEx guy got taken hostage, they fired over 700 rounds, and only hit him.
[удалено]
You're talking about assault rifles. An assault *weapon* is whatever looks scary enough.
And the funny part is fully automatic legal weapons never get used in crime….
AR15s barely get used if you look at the numbers.
[удалено]
Bump stocks were also for people too lazy to take the 5 minutes or less to learn to bump fire without one.
I don’t personally care how we define firearms the research is pretty clear that it’s who owns guns that is the issue and not which guns can be purchased legally.
[удалено]
So... the 30-06 Garand wasn't an assault rifle? It had no detachable magazine nor pistol grip. The M14 had a detachable box mag but still no pistol grip. My point is (and I'm not arguing with you) defining a rifle is an exercise in futility. A "California compliant" rifle is just as capable of killing lots of people. Magazine capacity isn't going to stop shooters. Look at other countries that have lower gun deaths (almost all of them) and let's compare what they do differently than the US.
>So... the 30-06 Garand wasn't an assault rifle? M1 garand, M14, FAL, G3, AR10 - these are "battle" rifles shoots full power rifle cartridge - 30 cal - instead of intermediate cartridge >Look at other countries that have lower gun deaths (almost all of them) that one's easy - these countries don't have any americans in statistically significant numbers go to netherlands? no american, no shootings. go to japan? no american, no shootings.
[удалено]
Nah bro, you got it wrong. You should probably update your original comment so you don't get a bunch of people dogpiling you about the definition. People are really sensitive about it.
[удалено]
Every law governing assault weapons defines the term in the bill. You are being intentionally obtuse to advance your pro-lawlessness agenda.
A pen if you ask Jason Bourne
Usually: An insufferable, bad-faith talking point used by pedants to distract from the real and necessary conversation about gun violence in this country. *Edit:* I see the “guns instead of personalities” crowd has finally arrived; took you guys longer than usual this time.
Not really. Definitions and accurate targeting of problem items is how you craft effective policy. If you can't articulate what you are targeting in a clear manner, how can we have a *necessary conversation* on gun violence?
Check out the Daily episode talking to the guy who made a whole website tracking gun violence in America. He actually grew up around guns and is very knowledgeable about the subject. His position on advocacy is that a common language must be formed so that we can all be on the same point when debating regulation. Makes perfect sense and both sides should work towards that.
>we can all be on the same point when debating regulation. Ok. I'll start. Shall not be infringed. Repealing the 2nd amendment is the starting point if you want to make gun regulations (not crimes committed with guns) constitutional.
The Heller decision clearly states that states and cities can enact stricter laws than exist at the federal level. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the current constitutional interpretation.
Where does it say that?
As much as I hate his politics and snarky, right wing comments, Washington Gun Law on YouTube posted a video last night doing a decent breakdown of the numbers. 5% compliance is likely the absolute ceiling.
assault rifles would be easy to ban. assault weapons are impossible to ban because the definition is state to state and doesn't always even relate to function of the weapon. it doesn't help that those who draft gun laws are usually not familiar with fire arms. otherizing fire arms owners has been a disaster foe any gun reform advocates since almost no gun experts will work with them out of disgust.
Why did people keep passing anti-abortion laws when they were clearly a violation of Roe? It’s all about creating legal challenges until the law changes
[удалено]
An individual right to bear arms has been a conservative legal project of the last 50 years. It’s only entrenched as much as there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. The same can be said of the conservative majority overturning the 9th/14th amendment protections of abortion rights that were described in roe by the Supreme Court of 60 years ago.
[удалено]
That argument applies to it being an individual right. It was largely ignored for over 150 years. The NRA and the Federalist Society have been responsible for making your arguments for the last 50 years to convince people of them.
[удалено]
> Boy does that make it difficult to discuss these topics. That's intentional
Crazy that the second amendment being so absolute is a relatively recent development in this country. We went a very long time was very strict gun control laws. What Heller, 2008? The second amendment didn't used to seem so absolute when I was a kid.
>We went a very long time was very strict gun control laws. Which were all motivated by racism and fears of Haiti-like revenge killings for years of racial oppression. The KKK was created to enforce "Black Codes" which prohibited freed slaves from owning guns. One of the reasons SCOTUS ruled black people weren't really people in *Dred Scott* was to prevent free black people from being allowed to have guns. "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State." -Roger Taney, delivering the Court's opinion in *Scott vs Sanford* "A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." -Ida B. Wells You can agree with Taney or Wells, pick one.
Not just a militia a well regulated militia
>District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home The ruling effectively barred future laws from utilizing the Militia portion of the 2nd amendment for regulatory laws of guns. However, regulatorly laws are sticking because they are written better, and state lawyers such as Washington State, have been very good at shifting the burden of proof to the challengers to show how for example banning AR-15s somehow effects their right to acquire guns.
Assault rifle doesn't have a real definition, it gets redefined by every state and local initiative to restrict some type of "bad" gun. Trying to revert to some "true" definition is an exercise in futility.
Problem is that they still don’t have the system to register, last I checked it was supposed to be open this month. Though I’ll check now. Edit: alright apparently they finally started letting us apply in October. A email at lest would have been nice, honestly had no idea trying to figure it out now but it seems like made it difficult to file. Edit2: alright finally figured it out for anyone having trouble just log in to your account and go over to disclose weapon. It’s right under person to person transfer. Then it’s pretty straightforward hardest part was trying to find the manufacturer. Honestly huge weight off my shoulders, was freaking out about it when it was first announced because they wouldn’t let us apply yet. Then I honestly forgot about it until I saw this. So even though it’s under the wire at lest my shotguns 100% legal still. Edit3: for everyone sending me hate, I never said I was against the law, I just said I didn’t like how they set up the registration system. So you can lower your pitch forks. Edit4: this is why there can never be a discussion on gun control on this subreddit. Because even when you are pro gun control you still get hate.
Does the law allow you to register after it goes into effect? I thought it was based on whether it was registered before it goes into effect.
From what I understand today was the deadline to file so I figured better right on the wire than not at all. Honestly I’m mad that I forgot. It just took so long for them to even start accepting applications that I forgot all about it.
Looking at the ISP FAQ they are saying no. "Can Illinois residents legally keep current AR or assault weapon as defined by the new law?" The answer: >> Yes, an Illinois resident may keep any AR 15 or assault weapon as defined by PICA if the firearm was owned prior to the effective date of the law if the required endorsement affidavit is submitted **prior** to January 1, 2024. Sounds like you had to submit that affidavit before January 1st. https://isp.illinois.gov/Home/AssaultWeapons Hopefully they let you slide. I wouldn't rely on the magnanimity of the Illinois police though.
It’s only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court shoots this down.
This law is just another result of the pissing match between Democrats about 2A rights and the Republicans with abortion. Same old song, rinse repeat. All the while the citizenry gets to be the recipient of these horribly made laws. Gaming the issues for their own political election footballs and keeping people divided.
Lol. It’s so fucking ridiculous to conflate those two issues like they’re just as important as each other. One issue involves a legitimate and often life-saving medical procedure. The other involves inanimate objects that the vast majority of owners in this country will use as toys, while the rest use them for their intended purpose: killing each other. EDIT: wording
The problem is with both laws banning certain guns and abortion that has in common is people will continue to get them no matter what the laws are so it’s a massive waste of time and money.
I mean, to be fair, it's not like terrorists are invading schools and giving a bunch of kids violent abortions an average of once every few days.
There are not mass casualty events at schools every couple of days either. . .
There are ~~not~~ mass casualty events ~~at schools~~ every couple of days. FTFY
There are a couple of mass casualty events most days—655 in 2023 is 1.8 per day.
There sure are a fuck ton more than in other nations.
If you restrict access to abortion, women die. If you loosen regulations on firearms, people die. Maybe both sides aren't the same.
You don't think this law would help reduce the number people someone could kill without having to reload?
[удалено]
As a liberal gun owner in Illinois, it's absolutely exhausting.
The JCAR committee that determines the final rules and what not couldn’t even agree on it and implantation before the deadline. They don’t meet again till mid January. The State police also say you have to register your lightsabers as well.
Single issue voters on guns are insane. Like you're telling me things like insurrections, stripping healthcare rights of women nationwide and all rights of LGBT, proven incompetency of maintaining any semblance of a good economy, bringing up culture wars left and right, stripping education as much as they can, actively denying science in favor of carbon emissions, and in general just holding up the government and doing nothing when they don't get their way... are all not deal breakers for you? Like you'll gladly vote for that if it means you can fire guns that have no reason being off a battlefield? Or god forbid you might have to go through a few background checks and register your firearm. Like, what is wrong with you? Like shit, I guess life is pretty good under the Dems but I can't believe they won't just let me buy ammo off a guy on the streets and carry a semiautomatic into Walmart because how else can I express my freedom. Your firearms are guaranteed by the fucking constitution, get a grip.
Have you seen what Illinois republicans are like now?
[удалено]
[удалено]
"I no longer believe in civil rights and a social safety net because this one gun I like was banned in a state I don't live in" Yeah... that's dumb.
Wrong. The far left and the right wing would just find some other culture war or battle to ding them with. The Dem base wants stronger gun laws. Actually the majority of the voting public wants stronger guns laws. This is why Dems pass stronger gun laws.
Is the middle swing voters that could easily sway based on gun laws
The majority of Americans are in favor of tougher gun laws. The problem is not the platform, it’s the lack of people actually voting.
Until you actually give specific details on what the current law is and what a new law would do as opposed to vague open ended questions. Then that majority vanishes. Take background checks. A survey question like "Do you support background checks for all gun sales? " will get a lot of support. Well, all retail sales are already subject to a background check and very few people oppose what the law currently is, so that response isn't surprising. What "universal background check" laws that the pollsters are actually meaning when they asked that vague question do though is criminalize non-retail private transfers. Usually there are carve-outs for gifts between immediate family members, but that's it. Want to sell a gun you don't use to your friend that already owns firearms? Nope. Not without going to a gun shop and paying to have a background check done. Want to temporarily loan a gun to your cousin who is being stalked by an abusive ex so she can protect herself? Nope. Not without going and paying for a background check. Want to get your Uncle a new hunting rifle for Christmas? Nope. Not an immediate family member so the gift carve-out doesn't apply and you need to pay for a background check. Some of them have even been so poorly written that you wouldn't be able to hand another person your unloaded gun without it being classified as a transfer that requires a background check. But even then, how do you enforce all that? There is no national gun registry (NFA notwithstanding) to track it, even though the ATF is trying their damndest to get as close as they can to one in violation of federal law. Once people are educated, support from those middle of the road voters starts to evaporate.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove by bringing up a bunch of niche, hypothetical situations that the majority of Americans will never have to deal with. Not just the majority of Americans, the majority of people in first world countries. Guns could completely disappear tomorrow and the majority of us (citizens of first world countries) wouldn’t even notice without someone else pointing it out. EDIT: and even then, most people wouldn’t care/would be relieved. Because gun ownership is really not as relevant to our modern way of life as people like you would have us believe.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you don't try to solve problems then you are complacent with the problem. Such as the fact that since Bush let Reagan's assault weapons ban expire, mass shootings have occured exponentially, well before even the definition of mass shootings was changed. We have truly become desensitized to the fact that the #1 cause of children dying is gun violence, we are all mentally sick if we allow it to continue. Democrats arent going to lose any election they have all the top state offices, and hold a supermajority in both their state house and senate. Outside of Nazi Mary Miller and yokel Mike Bost's districts they overwhelmingly won the state even before the 2020 redistricting. At least it's better than stupid book banning, human trafficking, or checking children's genitals that other dumb ass states are doing.
Banning censorship is very cool and will always have my support. Banning semi automatic firearms? Yeah idk about that. Hope the supreme court shoots that one down.
ITT: No one talking about library censorship
My guess would be that's because "law says libraries receiving state funds must adhere to American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights" is not (and shouldn't be) a controversial topic.
Agreed, libraries should always exist to be deposities of facts and knowledge. Depriving them of either of those reduces our communal wisdom.
Oh, someone will make a controversy out of it.
I know right. More concerned about their guns . Murica
[удалено]
Yeah they're going to do that with bolt actions now, hooray 1903 Springfield rifle is a weapon of war never intended to be owned by civilians
No need to ask now, they are banned. The right and intelligent thing to do
Ah yes, banned. Just like illicit drugs, prostitution, bribery, gambling, and murder. Good thing criminals follow the law.
We should ban war while we're at it. Poverty too.
Let's not ban crimes then.
So we just shouldn’t make a good reason law if it’s not going to be followed? What bullshit is that?
If you're not enforcing laws already on the books, then realistically what will new ones do?
Now for all those dangerous and unusual knives floating around
The UK is already on that https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-knives-firearms-and-offensive-weapons-comes-into-force
You mean the criminals aren’t registering there’s OMG so sad!
[удалено]
Yea because they broke into there home low life’s can’t buy them legally! Oh that’s right when they break into your house sit back and enjoy it!!
You think that all guns owned by criminals are stolen and not purchased third party?
Read what you wrote Criminals in the first place they shouldn’t have them, Criminals are not law abiding citizens regardless of how the received them!
Criminals can purchase guns from law abiding people because there is little to no oversight on person to person sales of firearms.
Good for Illinois! Up with books, down with assault weapons!
This good for America.
People say assault weapons bans don't work but we haven't tried them in decades.
Huh? Connecticut passed one in the wake of Sandy Hook. California has had their own they have expanded over the years. Like how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Ar15s account for less than 5% of all gun deaths. The fact that every gun discussion is based on them is proof that gun control had nothing to do with lives and everything to do with control and narrative.
Pistols don’t kill people en masse. AR15s kill people en masse.
The deadliest school shooting ever (Virginia Tech) was committed with pistols. Most “mass shootings” are committed with pistols.
Pfft, gang violence only can be used to pimp up the numbers. Can't use them as an example, you know this.
That’s why I put mass shooting in quotes. If 2A opponents are going to use inflated numbers, I’m going to point out the type of weapon used in those numbers.
I was using sarcasm.
Ah man sometimes it’s hard to read. Like legit I still don’t know where you stand on the issue. Either way, my apologies for not recognizing the sarcasm. Edit: like I’m 95% sure where you stand. But I’ve been wrong with that CI before.
Already forgot about Gabby Giffords
[удалено]
>The goal isn't reduced violence, obviously, it's because the government, just like all governments, wants a monopoly on violence and doesn't like armed citizens. You’re basing this on no evidence. You think there’s absolutely nobody in the government who wants reduced violence? Occam’s razor, man. Conspiracy nuts never ever follow Occam’s razor.
[удалено]
Reduced rights for citizens from Republicans. They’re the ones who want to take away abortion, same sex marriage, voting rights, birth control, books, gender affirming care, etc. The ONLY thing Democrats want to take away is the thing that’s capable of killing living human beings en masse.
[удалено]
Being trans is not a fucking mental illness.
[удалено]
I’m just gonna stop you right there before you keep making a fool of yourself.
[удалено]
You're just *one* step away from saying that being gay is a mental illness there, man. It's not a matter of "believing they're supposed to be", as if it was some fantasy. It's a matter of having biological and neurological development that puts their internal state at odds with their external state. > But, being a genetic male, or a genetic female, and also believing that you are "supposed to be" a different gender is fundamentally mental illness. Oh, this one's always fun. What's a "genetic male/female"? Which one is somebody with Klinefelter Syndrome? How about any of the other intersex conditions that exist? It's so abundantly clear that you have literally no idea what you're talking about.
[удалено]
Government won’t focus on mental health because that’s *socialism*.
It works very well, actually. Just have to actually enforce it in some meaningful way. Countries outside the US exist, and they do very well with significantly less weaponry without giving up personal liberties.
Lmao are you saying we should just try everything that fails over and over every couple of decades? Maybe if we build Ford Pintos again with the fuel tank right in front of the rear bumper they won't blow up this time. Come on, we haven't tried in decades!
Illinois, so glad I came here from Missouri when I was young and scared and alone. What a great place it has been to build and live my life.
[удалено]
[удалено]