Interesting list of prohibited guns in Illinois

Believe it! Gun laws are not written by gun people.

It's difficult for gun-banners to disarm the "less desirable" (read: poor, and/or black) element of society, which has always been their primary goal, by going after gun price point. That is because prices and affordability changes. It's probably also been considered unconstitutional by at least some jurists.

So, in order to disarm those people (and, ultimately, many more classes of citizens), they go after those guns most likely to be affordable to them. Those guns are typically made of the lesser-expensive materials most likely to fail a "melt-point" test.

For the rest of us, more likely to afford "better" guns, they come at us in the form of increased licensing fees/requirements and taxes.

Why wouldn't almost any poly framed gun be banned then? Those frames will deform at 800.

MedWheeler said:

It's difficult for gun-banners to disarm the "less desirable" (read: poor, and/or black) element of society, which has always been their primary goal, by going after gun price point. That is because prices and affordability changes. It's probably also been considered unconstitutional by at least some jurists.

So, in order to disarm those people (and, ultimately, many more classes of citizens), they go after those guns most likely to be affordable to them. Those guns are typically made of the lesser-expensive materials most likely to fail a "melt-point" test.

For the rest of us, more likely to afford "better" guns, they come at us in the form of increased licensing fees/requirements and taxes.

Click to expand...

They want complete and total disarmament for everyone. Period.

They're just okay with doing it a bit at a time. Pass this tiny law here, that tiny law there. Death by a thousand cuts.

Your post also should have just said "poor".

Texas10mm said:

Why wouldn't almost any poly framed gun be banned then? Those frames will deform at 800.

Click to expand...

That is a very good question.

Texas10mm said:

Why wouldn't almost any poly framed gun be banned then? Those frames will deform at 800.

Click to expand...

I imagine that it's because it's easier to cast zinc at a much lower cost than injection molded polymer.

Molds on polymers are pretty expensive. Casting zinc is cheap.

Browning said:

I imagine that it's because it's easier to cast zinc at a much lower cost than injection molded polymer.

Molds on polymers are pretty expensive. Casting zinc is cheap.

Click to expand...

The law doesn't cover the cost of molds. It merely sets a deformation point. Polymer frames will deform at that point.

Texas10mm said:

Why wouldn't almost any poly framed gun be banned then? Those frames will deform at 800.

Click to expand...

The law probably predates polyframes so probably is worded to only include melting point of metals.

PapaG said:

I cannot verify the accuracy but it was provided to me by a local dealer that I trust.

Click to expand...

Why can't you verify the accuracy? You posted this: ILCS 5/24-3, Section A, Subsection (b) Simply copy and paste that into your search bar and you can read the law yourself on the Illinois state government website.

Elkins45 said:

That is a very good question.

Click to expand...

Not really. He just didn't read anything other than the OP in this thread before asking the question. The Illinois statute in question here, which took less than one minute to find, is specifically talking about "zinc alloy or any other non homogeneous metal", not polymer.

Texas10mm said:

Why wouldn't almost any poly framed gun be banned then? Those frames will deform at 800.

Click to expand...

Back in the 80s I arrived at my new duty station- Charleston AFB in SC. At the time, SC had a similar law that banned handguns with a frame melting temperature and that law prevented the new Glock pistols from being sold there. It was recognized that the law was on the books to keep inexpensive guns out of the hands of certain groups.

About six months before my arrival I had bought one of the very early G17s (SN AY442) from Adams Guns in Lawton OK ($286) while I was at Altus AFB down the road for flight school. I was one of a very few people in the whole state of SC that had a glock, and I could own it or sell it, but no gun shop could work on it due to the law.

The law changed when SLED wanted to start carrying the Glocks. Funny how that works...

Historically, gun control has sought to disarm some segments of the population and not others. New York's 1911 Sullivan Law requiring handgun licensing was aimed at immigrant populations and those who were politically opposed to the corrupt Tammany Hall political machine, which handed out permits freely to its goons. The NY Times signed on in its coverage of a run on gunshops before the law took effect:


After an Italian immigrant was the first to be convicted under the new law, the Times opined that

Texas10mm said:

The law doesn't cover the cost of molds. It merely sets a deformation point. Polymer frames will deform at that point.

Click to expand...

Why aren't they banned in Illinois then?

I imagine that bearcreek is correct.

Browning said:

Why aren't they banned in Illinois then?

I imagine that bearcreek is correct.

Click to expand...

You don't have to imagine if you don't want. You can know for sure. Just look up the law yourself and it says right there in plain English that they're talking about metals that deform at that temperature, not polymers.

Here's the link: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K24-3.htm the section in question is subsection h, not b. It says this (I highlighted what I'm talking about);

(h) While holding any license as a dealer, importer,

manufacturer or pawnbroker under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, manufactures, sells or delivers to any unlicensed person a handgun having a barrel, slide, frame or receiver which is a die casting of zinc alloy or any other nonhomogeneous metal which will melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit. For purposes of this paragraph, (1) "firearm" is defined as in the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act; and (2) "handgun" is defined as a firearm designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand, and includes a combination of parts from which such a firearm can be assembled.

bearcreek said:

Here's the link: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K24-3.htm the section in question is subsection h, not b. It says this (I highlighted what I'm talking about);

(h) While holding any license as a dealer, importer,

manufacturer or pawnbroker under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, manufactures, sells or delivers to any unlicensed person a handgun having a barrel, slide, frame or receiver which is a die casting of zinc alloy or any other nonhomogeneous metal which will melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit. For purposes of this paragraph, (1) "firearm" is defined as in the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act; and (2) "handgun" is defined as a firearm designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand, and includes a combination of parts from which such a firearm can be assembled.

Click to expand...

I actually tried searching for the law before I posted, my google-fu just apparently wasn't up to par.

That settles that particular aspect of it though.

It's an old, like IIRC 70's, IL statute fed by the "Saturday Night Special" ban craze and flavor-of-the-month among the antis back then. It's almost completely unknown anymore except that a few big box (ie. Dunham's) run gun sale ads that reference some inexpensive revolvers with cast frames as being unavailable in IL owing to this law. Many, many individual dealers unwittingly run afoul of the law ordering for customers from other FFLs/distributors. As the law is worded, it seems the onus of compliance falls on the final dealer-to-non-licencee---so an FFL could sell to an IL FFL without undo concern on their part. A friend with an FFL-1 confided in me some years back that he had unknowingly transfered many on the listed low-end guns over the years for customers. Not that his ignorance is an excuse, but I guess I'm saying us poor gun nuts in IL have bigger worries right now than if we can order us up a Davis or Jennings.

It is from back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, when polymer was rare, and lower melting point metals were the preferred inexpensive way of casting less precision firearms.

It was also a caliber and firearm size restriction without having to say so, as many of the types of guns that were designed using softer metals limited the caliber to those which wouldn't deform or wear the gun too quickly, and a tiny soft metal gun typically has to limit the pressure significantly or you need to reinforce areas with too much bulk. These low power smaller handgun calibers used to be the focus of handgun legislation because those were the concealed firearms.
This is from a time period when only bad guys (and police wanting backup guns which is why some better quality ones exist too) carried concealed regularly in the jurisdictions they put these things in place in.


The poor people have always been a major target of gun control. Partially to keep power with the more established, but also because most violent crime happens in poor areas where desperation and foolishness are more frequently resulting in stupid choices including in how to use firearms and to commit serious crimes for relatively small reasons.
This does in fact mean most violent crime happens in the ghetto, and so it is used to justify disarming the poor. The poor in bad neighborhoods are also more frequently prohibited persons as drug use and drug use enforcement has traditionally been high enough that frequent drug users get criminal records. While most poorly raised youth that become thugs and gang members come out of the poor areas. So people from poor areas armed with concealed firearms commit most violent crime and murders. While those that do not from those areas primarily have bad experiences associated with firearms, and are more likely to be against firearms in general.
However we are supposed to be a legally classless society where anyone can come from anywhere, and attempts to reduce or deny civil rights to those portions of the population where they are most challenging is what we idealize that we don't do.

Polymer firearms are not included because when they came out in the 1980s and 1990s as Glocks replacing police revolvers they didn't want to ban the most common police sidearm under the false pretense of a lack of safety which is what is used to justify a metal melting point. It would be too clear that they were perfectly safe if they were the choice of police and discredit the whole pretense of the restriction being about user safety.
Glocks at that time were also not inexpensive, new to the market, and at that point rarely used in poor crime.

The same class of inexpensive concealable pistol has been a target of legislation for a long time. Now that civilians have created a large market of concealed carriers outside of law enforcement a much larger selection of small caliber and small sized quality guns exist, while previously the majority of guns made that size were of lower quality.
Similarly federal import restrictions count .380 and smaller caliber against the firearm along with other traits common in less expensive guns to reduce how many of those firearms can be imported. It all stems from the same reason, reducing access of poor people to firearms they can afford, and reducing the number of concealable firearms available in general.
I am sure this has helped US firearm manufacturers tremendously once concealed carry became common as they have not had to compete at a similar price point with most inexpensive designs abroad as they do not meet the requirements for import without modifications that increase their cost. While service size firearms must compete with a wide range of foreign designs.

There is another reason such legislation is rarer today. Such legislation stems from a mentality about control through cost that existed back when reoccurring costs like rent, mortgage, health insurance, etc were relatively small but quality products like nice firearms and other nice consumer goods were relatively expensive.
Today the reoccurring costs to merely exist are much higher, but the cost of goods relative to an hours wage is much lower. People once had to either make enough to afford it, and or be stable and dedicated enough to acquiring the item to save up for it.
Now pretty much anything anyone wants they get as they can purchase it with a credit card, if they make enough to pay the reoccuring cost to just exist they have more than enough to divert to purchasing something like a gun, and many regular consumer grade guns are less than a few days work at the minimum wage of your typical state. So even the poor can get items at that price point without much forethought. The cell phone many in the ghetto use is worth more than the guns they want to keep out of their hands, and they upgrade that to a nicer model every year..
Something like a modern Ruger LCP is available many places for close to $200 new, less used, and will go bang a lot more reliably than most of the older guns, weighs less, is more accurate, and has a much longer lifespan than any pot metal cheap gun from back in the day.

One of the original motivations behind the import points factoring criteria laid out in the Gun Control Act of 1968
was to reduce foreign competition with US manufactured units at the low end of the market.

My understanding is that some then-current US firearm manufacturers lobbied for the factoring criteria.