Illinois to vote on Mag ban tomorrow, Wednesday, 3/7/18

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cayce Charles

member
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
64
The Illinois General assembly will vote tomorrow weather to ban mags over 10 rounds, just a guess but I wouldn't bet on good results. You would have 90 days to turn then in, with NO PAYMENT FOR THEM FROM THE STATE. Those not turning them in would be charged with a Felony.

If passed any idea what this will do to the crime rate in Illinois? Maybe I am a Doubting Thomas but I don't think Jamal, and Rauf will be turning in anything.

Those STAR BM's, SKS's and HighPoints will start looking better.
 
Seems suspicious that all the Dems had these bills poised and worded to introduce as soon as they could find the right atmosphere. We should have similar warrants poised to start charging some of the DNC traitors and seditionists that are operating so blatantly.
 
This is an "ex post facto" law, and as such, is explicitly banned in the U.S. Constitution.

I wonder if it will stand in the Supreme Court.
It is not an ex post facto law. An ex post facto law would be if they passed a bill saying anyone who at any time in the past owned a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity, whether they still have it or not, is now guilty of a felony.
 
Seems suspicious that all the Dems had these bills poised and worded to introduce as soon as they could find the right atmosphere. We should have similar warrants poised to start charging some of the DNC traitors and seditionists that are operating so blatantly.
Yeah, it's almost as if they could predict that having an entire justice system protecting lawless and dangerously unstable students from prosecution would result in a school shooting...and that the ample liberal social justice orgs who pushed for these dangerous policies would stand to benefit from the strategy by blaming guns hard enough...
 
Well it's already on my "do not live in" and "do not drive through" list. I guess the good part is I don't have to revise my list.
 
FOR THE LAWYERS:
What is the current law/legal precedent on such non-compensatory banning of property?
 
You can store or sell them out of state, so it's not an uncompensated "taking." That would be different if such a ban was on the federal level.
 
It is not an ex post facto law. An ex post facto law would be if they passed a bill saying anyone who at any time in the past owned a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity, whether they still have it or not, is now guilty of a felony.


Well. My understanding of an ex post facto law is(was) apparently flawed. Mea culpa.

I need to do more research.

In the immortal words of Roseanne Roseannadanna ; " Oh..... Never mind...."
 
The last evil doer used ten round magazines. I can’t wrap my head around a state making it a law to use the same gear the last murderer used. Just don’t understand this. Head in the sand? Fools? Just plain stupidity? How can people this far removed from reality legislate anything?
 
FOR THE LAWYERS:
What is the current law/legal precedent on such non-compensatory banning of property?

I'm not a lawyer.

CA basically did the same thing by banning all of the 10+ round mags that were grandfathered.

Although this article hints differently than I remember. .. I think they tried to get around the taking without compensation issue they allow you to sell them out of state or (I believe) to a cop since they were exempted.

A Fed judge in San Diego blocked it and now it lingers.

Here's a cpl of quotes from the judge/ruling rather than reporter commentary from the article.

"Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one's self of lawfully acquired property," Benitez


“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...apacity-magazine-ban-but-fight-looms.amp.html
 
I recently had a brief exchange with a fairly liberal friend of mine. He told me he took his daughter to a antigun rally in a state I won't name, designed to ban thirty round magazines.

"I don't think people should be able to shoot thirty times without reloading. You don't need that."

I remained calm and said "Well, I disagree. If I'm using a 30 round magazine legally why should someone else breaking the law restrict my rights? I have a few 30 round pistol magazines, so are those unnecessary too?"

"Yes you don't need those. What do you need those for?"

I need them for home defense because home invasions and armed robbery do in fact happen. And here's the thing, even with 10 round magazines, if I went bonkers and decided to shoot up a crowded building, I guarantee you that I could kill a similar number of people. Quick reloads are a basic skill of learning self defense, and if I have enough magazines on hand, I could do the same thing with one of my pistols. But not having to reload is a benefit, so if I'm not breaking the law, and am protecting my life, why shouldn't I be able to have a larger magazine? So what's next? Ban any semiauto firearm because a small portion of the population misuses them? Might as well reinstate prohibition and ban all privately owned vehicles if you're trying to save lives, because it's the same logic."

"Yeah, but you're normal."

:scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny:

I don't think I changed his mind, but he is a smart guy, and I could see the wheels start to turn. We were drinking beer too, so I changed the topic as the conversation was probably not going to end well.
 
That’s to bad , seems some states are passing laws on their own for their states, no state voting just officials deciding the rights of others,
I is frustrating this non stop attack on legal firearm owners that live honest life
We really need to vote the liberals out but seems like they keep getting voted in ,
 
That’s to bad , seems some states are passing laws on their own for their states, no state voting just officials deciding the rights of others,
I is frustrating this non stop attack on legal firearm owners that live honest life
We really need to vote the liberals out but seems like they keep getting voted in ,
 
Civilians should have 30 round magazines for the same reason the army issues them: the weapon is designed to use them.

Regardless, there are millions of 30 round magazines in private hands. As a practical matter, no legislation is going to get rid of them. It will just drive them underground (while at the same time increasing contempt for the law in general). Criminals will have no problem finding and using them, while law-abiding people will be turned into criminals.

Outlawing high-capacity magazines (as well as the so-called "assault weapons" that use them) is a monumentally bad idea.
 
There was no vote. The Chicago dems pulled the bill. It was likely a stunt to help certain Chicago area politicians in the upcoming elections but may very well be brought up again. It's also a gotcha for the republican governor. He can p off the downstate by signing or allowing it to stand or he can veto it and support killing children.
 
Today's schedule has it listed under House Bills - second reading. Does that mean it actually will come to a vote or are they mulling it over? Because there are 29 other measures listed for second readings. And 33 listed under third reading. All of these have "Short debate" listed after them and some say "(read a second time)"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top