BTW, awesome piece of legislation, even if they classify "rifle" as only one shot per trigger pull under Illinois law.
Does Illinois Have SBR and certain machine guns now
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
BTW, awesome piece of legislation, even if they classify "rifle" as only one shot per trigger pull under Illinois law.
One other question - since you authored the bill;
Are C&R's exempt from the 26" rule? With the placement of semicolons it's hard to understand if that is true or not. It appears that re-enactors have a 26" limit but C&R holders do not.
Are C&R's exempt from the 26" rule? With the placement of semicolons it's hard to understand if that is true or not. It appears that re-enactors have a 26" limit but C&R holders do not.
MidwestRookie
Member
So if no Trust, we HAVE to get a Form 1 signed off on bya CLEO and do the fingerprints and all that? I'm worried about that part..
MidwestRookie -
Yes, Chief LEO signature is REQUIRED since C&R licenses can't be issued to corporate entities. There is no way around that.
I'm still worried about that too, my Sheriff won't commit to an answer until the States Attorney gives his opinion (and will probably wait until after January 1 to do so regardless.)
Yes, Chief LEO signature is REQUIRED since C&R licenses can't be issued to corporate entities. There is no way around that.
I'm still worried about that too, my Sheriff won't commit to an answer until the States Attorney gives his opinion (and will probably wait until after January 1 to do so regardless.)
I don't know Trent. You have to look at legislative intent. 720 ILCS 5/24 (a)(7) says:
Machine guns, SBRs and destructive devices are each defined in a separate sub-paragraph.
The exemption you are interested in as listed in 720 ILCS 5/24-2 (7)
It doesn't say machine gun which is defined in 720 ILCS 5/24-1 (a)(7) (ii) nor does it say shotgun which is defined along with a short barreled rifle in 720 ILCS 5/24-1 (A)(7)(iii).
I think a good argument could be made that the only thing the change did was allow a C&R holder to own a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length.
I don't think the legislature intended the change to permit a C&R holder to possess machine guns, destructive devices or short barreled shotguns.
Machine guns, SBRs and destructive devices are each defined in a separate sub-paragraph.
The exemption you are interested in as listed in 720 ILCS 5/24-2 (7)
It doesn't say machine gun which is defined in 720 ILCS 5/24-1 (a)(7) (ii) nor does it say shotgun which is defined along with a short barreled rifle in 720 ILCS 5/24-1 (A)(7)(iii).
I think a good argument could be made that the only thing the change did was allow a C&R holder to own a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length.
I don't think the legislature intended the change to permit a C&R holder to possess machine guns, destructive devices or short barreled shotguns.
Right, but a machinegun can be "any weapon". Rifle, pistol, 4-barreled handgun that fires all barrels with a single pull of the trigger, etc.
Federal law doesn't classify "rifles" as "rifles" anymore if they have under 16" barrel length - they are classified by definition as "Firearm". Thus, one could argue that the federal legal definition of "rifle" - if applicable to Illinois law in absence of a formal definition - no longer applies. I don't know if USC 18 is even applicable to this, if it isn't, then the "single shot" phrasing on federal law has no bearing on it.
Sections (1) through (6) immediately proceeding the new section (7) don't make any qualifications specific to it.
If you look at criminal jury instructions in Illinois pertaining to unlawful use of weapons/aggravated unlawful use of weapons...
http://www.state.il.us/court/circuitcourt/CriminalJuryInstructions/CRIM 18.00.pdf
The definitions for "handgun" (18.35I), "machinegun" (18.35D), "stun gun or taser" (18.35E), "firearm", etc are all defined.
There IS no definition of "RIFLE" or "SHOTGUN" issued to jurors.
I could FIND no such definition of RIFLE in the assembled criminal statutes of Illinois.
Some examples:
DEFINITION OF HANDGUN
The word “handgun” means a firearm designed to be held and fired by the use of a single
hand, and includes a combination of parts from which a firearm can be assembled.
Definition Of Firearm
The word “firearm” means any device, by whatever name known, which is designed to
expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas.
18.35D
Definition Of Machine Gun
The term “machine gun” means any weapon which [ (shoots) (is designed to shoot) (can
be readily restored to shoot) ] automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading by a
single function of a trigger, including the frame or receiver of such weapon.
Federal law doesn't classify "rifles" as "rifles" anymore if they have under 16" barrel length - they are classified by definition as "Firearm". Thus, one could argue that the federal legal definition of "rifle" - if applicable to Illinois law in absence of a formal definition - no longer applies. I don't know if USC 18 is even applicable to this, if it isn't, then the "single shot" phrasing on federal law has no bearing on it.
Sections (1) through (6) immediately proceeding the new section (7) don't make any qualifications specific to it.
If you look at criminal jury instructions in Illinois pertaining to unlawful use of weapons/aggravated unlawful use of weapons...
http://www.state.il.us/court/circuitcourt/CriminalJuryInstructions/CRIM 18.00.pdf
The definitions for "handgun" (18.35I), "machinegun" (18.35D), "stun gun or taser" (18.35E), "firearm", etc are all defined.
There IS no definition of "RIFLE" or "SHOTGUN" issued to jurors.
I could FIND no such definition of RIFLE in the assembled criminal statutes of Illinois.
Some examples:
DEFINITION OF HANDGUN
The word “handgun” means a firearm designed to be held and fired by the use of a single
hand, and includes a combination of parts from which a firearm can be assembled.
Definition Of Firearm
The word “firearm” means any device, by whatever name known, which is designed to
expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas.
18.35D
Definition Of Machine Gun
The term “machine gun” means any weapon which [ (shoots) (is designed to shoot) (can
be readily restored to shoot) ] automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading by a
single function of a trigger, including the frame or receiver of such weapon.
IL-Gunlobby
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3
my bad I had to go look at the criminal code again.
subsection 7 lists 3 different types of weapons. One is full autos, one is SBRs one is explosives. the expemtion for the new law is aimed at SBRs in (ii) not guns in (i).
I think the 26" will only apply to the re-enactors. but it is almost meaningless as if you measure an AR, with a buffertube under the 26" rule you could run a 7" barrel. Anything below that you might as well have a sig 226. since the 26" is measured with the stock open, most rifles render it moot due to the size of the receivers. \
And while a SBR is defined as a rifle, a full auto is not as there is a different definition for full autos than SBRs. a full auto can take on the form of a Glock, belt fed or shotgun. And SBR is just that something someone has turned into a SBR. a full auto may be a SBR, but it is still a full auto. and tus regulated very differently under state law.
subsection 7 lists 3 different types of weapons. One is full autos, one is SBRs one is explosives. the expemtion for the new law is aimed at SBRs in (ii) not guns in (i).
I think the 26" will only apply to the re-enactors. but it is almost meaningless as if you measure an AR, with a buffertube under the 26" rule you could run a 7" barrel. Anything below that you might as well have a sig 226. since the 26" is measured with the stock open, most rifles render it moot due to the size of the receivers. \
And while a SBR is defined as a rifle, a full auto is not as there is a different definition for full autos than SBRs. a full auto can take on the form of a Glock, belt fed or shotgun. And SBR is just that something someone has turned into a SBR. a full auto may be a SBR, but it is still a full auto. and tus regulated very differently under state law.
You've made only two posts on the forum, claim to be the author of the public act we are discussing. Yet don't know the language? I corrected you on the silencer thing earlier (section 6), and you're now using language such as "I think the..."... if you wrote the bill, wouldn't you KNOW?
Can you take the time to verify you are, indeed, the author of the bill?
Not trying to be rude, but you did sort of pop up out of nowhere here, speaking with an air of authority, but with no introduction or credentials.
FYI: I live 25 minutes from Mr. Unes office, so I can verify it easily if you are who you claim to be; as the Chief Sponsor of the bill, he would know the author...
Can you take the time to verify you are, indeed, the author of the bill?
Not trying to be rude, but you did sort of pop up out of nowhere here, speaking with an air of authority, but with no introduction or credentials.
FYI: I live 25 minutes from Mr. Unes office, so I can verify it easily if you are who you claim to be; as the Chief Sponsor of the bill, he would know the author...
MidwestRookie
Member
Trent, ToddNRA seems to be the guy "in the know" over on arfcom. Surely there's more to this bill than just him so go easy on IL-GL until we know for sure. We're all in this together now..
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_23/4...l_with_CandR__starting_Jan_1_2013.html&page=1
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_23/4...l_with_CandR__starting_Jan_1_2013.html&page=1
Midwest;
Sure man. I'm not trying to start trouble. It's just the way it is written, it is pretty wide open for interpretation.
The argument that if a rifle is capable of firing more than on shot, it is no longer a rifle, but a machinegun, is bogus. They are STACKING terms. In such a way that a legally defined "handgun" could also be a "machine-gun" and is also a "firearm". It is clear about this in the language for machineguns, saying "any weapons".
It's like saying a cat has fur, a cat has paws, a cat has a tail, and so on. A firearm can fall in to multiple definitions.
And I could site probably 200 sources which state that a shoulder-fired arm is still called a rifle, regardless of whether it can fire one shot, or 20, with a single pull of the trigger.
Now, even if the text can be interpreted to include rifles which are also classified as machine-guns by legal definition, I won't run out and get a transfer request application submitted until A) the revised jury language is introduced, and B) there is case law supporting it.
I have no desire to be "that guy" that fights the meaning of the word "rifle" all the way up to the IL Supreme Court, while sitting in jail waiting for the agonizingly slow appellate process.
Sure man. I'm not trying to start trouble. It's just the way it is written, it is pretty wide open for interpretation.
The argument that if a rifle is capable of firing more than on shot, it is no longer a rifle, but a machinegun, is bogus. They are STACKING terms. In such a way that a legally defined "handgun" could also be a "machine-gun" and is also a "firearm". It is clear about this in the language for machineguns, saying "any weapons".
It's like saying a cat has fur, a cat has paws, a cat has a tail, and so on. A firearm can fall in to multiple definitions.
And I could site probably 200 sources which state that a shoulder-fired arm is still called a rifle, regardless of whether it can fire one shot, or 20, with a single pull of the trigger.
Now, even if the text can be interpreted to include rifles which are also classified as machine-guns by legal definition, I won't run out and get a transfer request application submitted until A) the revised jury language is introduced, and B) there is case law supporting it.
I have no desire to be "that guy" that fights the meaning of the word "rifle" all the way up to the IL Supreme Court, while sitting in jail waiting for the agonizingly slow appellate process.
IL-Gunlobby
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3
yea thats me at the other thread.
I am the NRA lobbyist in Illinois.
Trent -- My suggestion to you is stick to what you know. The exemption is specific to SBRs and only SBRs -- NOT any full autos.
I came over here to put out a fire before somone got in trouble or causes us trouble. Whether you like it or not Illinois statutes has a definition of SBRs and a definition of machinegun. the definition of a machinegun is desgined to get all kinds of full autos from hanguns on up.
I quoted the statute from memory knowing there were multiple sections, sorry I got it wrong, but I have written many parts of them and have worked on several of the latest Supreme Court cases our state court has heard.
you want to try getting a full auto, go ahead, I'll be the first guy to send you a tube of toothpaste while you'r sitting in the can.
And if you want to debate the number of pixies on the head of a pin go ahead and have the debate with yourself. your not doing anyone any favors by trying to argue the FA aspect of this law/bill.
BTW if you look at the exemption under (4) it deals with and exemption for full autos -- NOT SBRs.
If you possess a full auto, you will not meet any of the exemptions in 1,2,3, 4 5 or 6. and the exemptionin 7 is aimed at (ii) of section 7 not the whole para.
I am the NRA lobbyist in Illinois.
Trent -- My suggestion to you is stick to what you know. The exemption is specific to SBRs and only SBRs -- NOT any full autos.
I came over here to put out a fire before somone got in trouble or causes us trouble. Whether you like it or not Illinois statutes has a definition of SBRs and a definition of machinegun. the definition of a machinegun is desgined to get all kinds of full autos from hanguns on up.
I quoted the statute from memory knowing there were multiple sections, sorry I got it wrong, but I have written many parts of them and have worked on several of the latest Supreme Court cases our state court has heard.
you want to try getting a full auto, go ahead, I'll be the first guy to send you a tube of toothpaste while you'r sitting in the can.
And if you want to debate the number of pixies on the head of a pin go ahead and have the debate with yourself. your not doing anyone any favors by trying to argue the FA aspect of this law/bill.
BTW if you look at the exemption under (4) it deals with and exemption for full autos -- NOT SBRs.
If you possess a full auto, you will not meet any of the exemptions in 1,2,3, 4 5 or 6. and the exemptionin 7 is aimed at (ii) of section 7 not the whole para.
And eventually it will be interpreted in the courts if it survives the Fall session and actually takes effect. I really don't have much hope of that happening after the debacle during the Thompson administration.
If it does actually take effect the courts will look to legislative intent when they decide what it covers. I think a good case can be made that the legislature did not intend to legalize private ownership of machine guns or even a sawed off shotgun.
Let's take this small victory and run with it. No need to draw attention to it by stretching it into private citizens owning machine guns.
All it will take is for a Chicago media outlet to get a copy of this thread and start asking Ed Acevedo why he signed off on private citizens owning machine guns and this is dead before it ever becomes law.
If I was in a hurry to own full auto, I would have got a manufacturing FFL and my SOT when I had my gun shop. Or, move to any of 46 other states where it's legal. No toothpaste required.
FYI, if you get an SBR, you better be mindful of where you drive.
According to the way juries are trained (that above jury instruction document I linked to in post 31, page 23:
A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of weapons when he
knowingly [ (sells) (manufactures) (purchases) (possesses) (carries) ]
[A] a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length; while
[snip]
[3] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a school.
[5] in residential property owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency
[6] on the real property comprising residential property owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency.
[7] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising residential property
owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency.
[9] on the real property comprising a public park.
[10] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a public park.
[12] on the real property comprising a courthouse.
[13] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a courthouse.
(among other things.)
FYI, if you get an SBR, you better be mindful of where you drive.
According to the way juries are trained (that above jury instruction document I linked to in post 31, page 23:
A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of weapons when he
knowingly [ (sells) (manufactures) (purchases) (possesses) (carries) ]
[A] a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length; while
[snip]
[3] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a school.
[5] in residential property owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency
[6] on the real property comprising residential property owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency.
[7] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising residential property
owned, operated, and managed by a public housing agency.
[9] on the real property comprising a public park.
[10] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a public park.
[12] on the real property comprising a courthouse.
[13] on a public way within 1000 feet of the real property comprising a courthouse.
(among other things.)
Jeff -
I understand completely.
I believe my questions are answered sufficiently relating to the SBR stuff. The other is non-relevant; I have other choices at my disposal to own full auto if I choose to do so (SOT, move somewhere else, etc).
If you're worried about Chicago, nuke the thread.
EDIT: Although, we should really begin questioning our lawmakers why machine-guns are illegal here for collectors, when they're legal in 90% of the rest of the country.... it's not like your average criminal can afford a $25,000 rifle, nor would they be able to pass the FBI background check required...
I understand completely.
I believe my questions are answered sufficiently relating to the SBR stuff. The other is non-relevant; I have other choices at my disposal to own full auto if I choose to do so (SOT, move somewhere else, etc).
If you're worried about Chicago, nuke the thread.
EDIT: Although, we should really begin questioning our lawmakers why machine-guns are illegal here for collectors, when they're legal in 90% of the rest of the country.... it's not like your average criminal can afford a $25,000 rifle, nor would they be able to pass the FBI background check required...
Last edited:
The military rifles (F2000) do stick out the front some. But the civilian models stick out almost 4" more than THAT. It isn't bad, by any stretch, but I'd like my firearms to be "correct".
What I told the Sheriff when I spoke to him on the phone, is as a collector, I take great personal enjoyment in seeing period weapons properly configured. I told him, that on several of the firearms I own, my eye is instantly drawn to the obvious "flaws", and it detracts from my enjoyment. I also gave him detailed instructions on C&R application process, how to go about doing Form 1, and Form 4 applications in case he, his friends and associates, or any of his deputies, also felt this same way.
Also; I see LEO got the "right" to employ silencers this year in IL.
Maybe we'll get them as civilians at some point. Sure would be nice to be considerate of my neighbors. I bet if you went door to door out where I live, every single one of my neighbors would sign a petition to allow silencers. On any given weekend you can hear gunfire from 6-8 sources from different directions, sometimes simultaneously, where I live. We'd ALL sign off for quiet guns, I'm sure.
What I told the Sheriff when I spoke to him on the phone, is as a collector, I take great personal enjoyment in seeing period weapons properly configured. I told him, that on several of the firearms I own, my eye is instantly drawn to the obvious "flaws", and it detracts from my enjoyment. I also gave him detailed instructions on C&R application process, how to go about doing Form 1, and Form 4 applications in case he, his friends and associates, or any of his deputies, also felt this same way.
Also; I see LEO got the "right" to employ silencers this year in IL.
Maybe we'll get them as civilians at some point. Sure would be nice to be considerate of my neighbors. I bet if you went door to door out where I live, every single one of my neighbors would sign a petition to allow silencers. On any given weekend you can hear gunfire from 6-8 sources from different directions, sometimes simultaneously, where I live. We'd ALL sign off for quiet guns, I'm sure.
fehhkk
Member
Question: who is your chief LEO? Your county Sheriff?
Or your town's chief of police?
Or your town's chief of police?
Fehhkk; Any of the above.
If you live in an incorporated town, you can use your chief of police.
If he won't sign, or you live out of a town, you can use your Sheriff or States Attorney.
If neither of them will sign, you can use a judge in your county who has the ability to try criminal cases and pass sentencing.
If none of those will sign, you're SOL.
If you live in an incorporated town, you can use your chief of police.
If he won't sign, or you live out of a town, you can use your Sheriff or States Attorney.
If neither of them will sign, you can use a judge in your county who has the ability to try criminal cases and pass sentencing.
If none of those will sign, you're SOL.
fehhkk
Member
Thanks Trent. I'm thinking about applying for my C&R since SBRs is a topic that fascinates me (I'd love to SBR my UMP45 conversion).
Does a C&R license basically allow me to purchase something like a an M1 Garand (or another rifle qualified as C&R) and have it shipped directly to my house after filling an 4473?
Will it give the ATF a reason to check what other firearms I have? I understand I will have to open my books for them upon request (like a regular FFL), and have a logbook of transactions and such.
Does a C&R license basically allow me to purchase something like a an M1 Garand (or another rifle qualified as C&R) and have it shipped directly to my house after filling an 4473?
Will it give the ATF a reason to check what other firearms I have? I understand I will have to open my books for them upon request (like a regular FFL), and have a logbook of transactions and such.
lilguy
Member
I have a CR and you must present a signed copy of you license to take possession of the gun. You do not have to Fill out a 4473. That's why you can order them over the net and have them sent to the license address. You can hold a license and never use it , unlike a title one licensee. I understand you only are required to produce your CR records and arms if requested, I suppose they can ask you about your other guns but I don't know anyone who ever has been and I don't know how I would answer. I think you can ask to see a search warrant but the whole idea of that confrontation makes my blood run cold. Just keep good records and keep things in order. A CR has to be handled as such which is different from the rest of your collection. And if you're in Illinois and hope to be part of the SBR crowd you have three areas you need to watch carefully.
Last edited:
fehhkk;
Firearms manufactured over 50 years ago, and items on the C&R list, can be shipped straight to your house. Or you can buy them at a gun show / gun shop and bring them home.
When you get the Curio and Relics of War list you'll drool and laugh for a bit while reading it. There are things listed which mere mortals cannot acquire. German PAK40's, Nebelwerfer MLRS, and so on.
One small point to remember, however, is listed items are STILL subject to all NFA laws, so before you run out and buy that beautiful unfired Panzerfaust anti tank disposable launcher, you will still require a destructive device license. It also means that any illegal unregistered machinegun bring-backs tucked away in relative's attics are still very much illegal.
Since most of the list is still highly regulated, it makes the official C&R list a bit.. laughable.
The ATF won't have any right or reason to check your other firearms. Being an FFL, you DO have to present your bound book on demand, which contains acquisition and disposition records. However, your other firearms are not fair game for inspection unless they have a warrant. This is different than a normal FFL where the entire premises is subject to inspection.
(Yes, I tried to add a bit of humor to my post.)
Firearms manufactured over 50 years ago, and items on the C&R list, can be shipped straight to your house. Or you can buy them at a gun show / gun shop and bring them home.
When you get the Curio and Relics of War list you'll drool and laugh for a bit while reading it. There are things listed which mere mortals cannot acquire. German PAK40's, Nebelwerfer MLRS, and so on.
One small point to remember, however, is listed items are STILL subject to all NFA laws, so before you run out and buy that beautiful unfired Panzerfaust anti tank disposable launcher, you will still require a destructive device license. It also means that any illegal unregistered machinegun bring-backs tucked away in relative's attics are still very much illegal.
Since most of the list is still highly regulated, it makes the official C&R list a bit.. laughable.
The ATF won't have any right or reason to check your other firearms. Being an FFL, you DO have to present your bound book on demand, which contains acquisition and disposition records. However, your other firearms are not fair game for inspection unless they have a warrant. This is different than a normal FFL where the entire premises is subject to inspection.
(Yes, I tried to add a bit of humor to my post.)
fehhkk
Member
Appreciate the clarifications!
Like I read in another post, since this new law will set new precedents, I will love to see what CLEOs will sign off a Form I.
I wonder if a letter inquiring about this would be a better idea just to test the waters?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked