Illinois gun ban ruled "constitutional".

[3855WIN]

What's a damn shame?

That I disagree with your taste in music?

He sucks.

He might suck, but when I heard the lyrics, it sounded like Buzz.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You need to get out of your bubble and meet some people with F-150s. If you stick with home projects, they might come in handy. Plywood on top of a Corolla is a bad idea.

They all drive tacos and tundras much like the western half of the forum

 

[Ben Lamb]

You need to get out of your bubble and meet some people with F-150s. If you stick with home projects, they might come in handy. Plywood on top of a Corolla is a bad idea.

 

[more_cowbell]

Do you think fentanyl and other opioids should be legal for all?

Basically it is in Oregon thanks to a ballot initiative. Add “defunded police”, lack of addiction services, and results have been horrific. Misguided social engineering helping drive society off a cliff

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[SAJ-99]

Basically it is in Oregon thanks to a ballot initiative. Add “defunded police”, lack of addiction services, and results have been horrific. Misguided social engineering helping drive society off a cliff

Curse of democracy. Doesn’t do any good to lock up users. You would end up needing three times the prison space, having people get out and be almost unemployable, and taxes would have to go up. I admire Oregon for trying something different. I guess there is just too much money in illegal drugs.

 

[BigHornRam]

View attachment 288064

Obviously SDL never heard the old country classic, "Sixteen will get you 20".

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Awhile back when the same shit keeps happening even tho new laws keep infringing on the law abiding citizen. I played the game of well this law is okay and this one isn't long enough. So now i firmly oppose any new gun laws.

I would like to give a good faith honest answer to your question but it's kinda impossible to do so simply.

You say your line is no new laws, but there are 50 states with 50 different sets of laws + the federal gov. So are we saying any legislation in any state, even if it's just one state making a law to mirror another's. MA has had magazine limits for a long time, if Iowa wants to a similar law is that in your mind a new law or not?

I guess my line would be less than MA, I think suppressors should be legal, permits should be shall issue not may issue unless that person is obviously disqualified aka being a felon (this is changing with Bruen). The approved firearm process should be dropped, it's ridiculous that companies have to get every single model tested and approved to sell it. I don't think MA laws make sense in WY/AK/MT etc. so I would not support them there, they do in big urban areas so I might support them in CO because of how big Denver has gotten.

Not sure that satisfies your question but's what I got.

 

[seeth07]

I would like to give a good faith honest answer to your question but it's kinda impossible to do so simply.

You say your line is no new laws, but there are 50 states with 50 different sets of laws + the federal gov. So are we saying any legislation in any state, even if it's just one state making a law to mirror another's. MA has had magazine limits for a long time, if Iowa wants to a similar law is that in your mind a new law or not?

I guess my line would less than MA, I think suppressors should be legal, permits should be shall issue not may issue unless that person is obviously disqualified aka being a felon (this is changing with Bruen). The approved firearm process should be dropped, it's ridiculous that companies have to get every single model tested and approved to sell it. I don't think MA laws make sense in WY/AK/MT etc. so I would not support them there, they do in big urban areas so I might support them in CO because of how big Denver has gotten.

Not sure that satisfies your question but's what I got.

Ignoring the fact that any law is at its core attempting to restrict the second amendment rights, I would like to think that most "pro 2nd" Americans draw the line at any law that goes beyond an inconvenience. Going to buy a pistol and having to wait 48 hours until you can actually take it home due to a wait period sure is inconvenient but it doesn't infringe on your right to bear said arm. Having to wait 9+ months through a drawn out process to approve an NFA item sure is an inconvenience but still it doesn't infringe on that right. On the other side, passing a law that limits the magazine capacity of a firearm that you own from 30 rounds down to just a 5 round maximum is now just not inconvenient but infringing on my right to own that firearm.

That's at least where I like to draw the line and its my guess that many fall closely in suit with such logic?

 

[TN2shot07]

Ignoring the fact that any law is at its core attempting to restrict the second amendment rights, I would like to think that most "pro 2nd" Americans draw the line at any law that goes beyond an inconvenience. Going to buy a pistol and having to wait 48 hours until you can actually take it home due to a wait period sure is inconvenient but it doesn't infringe on your right to bear said arm. Having to wait 9+ months through a drawn out process to approve an NFA item sure is an inconvenience but still it doesn't infringe on that right. On the other side, passing a law that limits the magazine capacity of a firearm that you own from 30 rounds down to just a 5 round maximum is now just not inconvenient but infringing on my right to own that firearm.

That's at least where I like to draw the line and its my guess that many fall closely in suit with such logic?

I can follow your logic.

Say to avoid an outright ban they were to move purchases of any semiautomatic weapon to the NFA list and now you’re 9-12+ months out for the gun. Does that change from inconvenience to infringement? I don’t think that’s past what some politicians would try to push

 

[Nick87]

having to wait 48 hours

Changed from 24 to 72 a few years back here. I get the idea but don't know if it's changed a lot. People buying guns who commit the majority of crimes probably aren't buying then legally in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Ignoring the fact that any law is at its core attempting to restrict the second amendment rights, I would like to think that most "pro 2nd" Americans draw the line at any law that goes beyond an inconvenience. Going to buy a pistol and having to wait 48 hours until you can actually take it home due to a wait period sure is inconvenient but it doesn't infringe on your right to bear said arm. Having to wait 9+ months through a drawn out process to approve an NFA item sure is an inconvenience but still it doesn't infringe on that right. On the other side, passing a law that limits the magazine capacity of a firearm that you own from 30 rounds down to just a 5 round maximum is now just not inconvenient but infringing on my right to own that firearm.

That's at least where I like to draw the line and its my guess that many fall closely in suit with such logic?

Yeah I agree with that logic, not sure what I think about your logic as far a magazine capacity. Definitely on a tube style like a .22 because you're altering the gun, but magazines are interchangeable.

Logic about infringement aside, 10 v. 15 round mag laws seem silly to me like why waste time on that legislation... but also don't think folks shouldn't be able to buy 100 round drum mags at cabelas.

If you want the 100 round mags or fully auto guns you can go through NFA to get them (depending on the state).

People buying guns who commit the majority of crimes probably aren't buying then legally in the first place.

Totally true, but isn't the registration partly an ask by LEOs to track and stop illegal buys? I imagine the vast majority of illegal handguns in Chicago are coming through gun stores out of state, those sources they could plug... it's not like they are coming in from unmarked crates from Libya.

 

[seeth07]

Definitely on a tube style like a .22 because you're altering the gun, but magazines are interchangeable

That exactly is where I was going. If they say a gun can't hold more than 5 rounds, there are a lot of guns out there that immediately become illegal with no opportunity to really do anything about it. Lever actions, 22's, etc. Lots fit in that category. At one point I saw a law proposal that wanted to reduce it that low. Even at 10 rounds there are guns that will become illegal. I have a 22 with a tube that can hold 12. The line is ANY legislation that says there is a maximum amount of rounds a firearm can hold period. It infringes on some firearms being legal. The step right before that line would be legislation that says ok, we don't want people to be able to just get a gun off the shelf that can hold more than 10 rounds so you can only purchase same day a firearm that is 10 rounds or less and if you want to have something with more than that, there is the NFA process to obtain one.

 

[rjthehunter]

Any good arms dealer who is going to sell someone a gun who shouldn't have one, is damn sure going to be able to sell you a 100 round drum mag for it also...

 

[Nick87]

Totally true, but isn't the registration partly an ask by LEOs to track and stop illegal buys? I imagine the vast majority of illegal handguns in Chicago are coming through gun stores out of state, those sources they could plug... it's not like they are coming in from unmarked crates from Libya.

I would agree. Do other states not have a registry or are these just private party that's not getting documented?

 

[np307]

I would agree. Do other states not have a registry or are these just private party that's not getting documented?

Plenty of states with no registry, NC is one of them.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I would agree. Do other states not have a registry or are these just private party that's not getting documented?

Other states do not, Colorado actually prohibits any state or local law enforcement agency from keeping tract of that data. There are a number of states with similar laws. No federal agency has a registry either.

Imagine if your car was stolen and found by the police across town and instead of being able to type in your VIN and figure out it was your they had to call Ford or Toyota and ask them which distributor they sold that car to, then had to call the distributor, then had to call the dealership, then had to ask the dealership to check their records, and then the trail would end at the first person who purchased your car new... maybe it's you maybe not. That's how current firearm tracing goes.

If someone breaks into your house and steals your gun and then it's recovered in a different state there is pretty much zero chance the police can figure out it was yours and return it to you.

 

[DouglasR]

Damn, these are some really good ideas.
I guess this is what it looks like to do better.

 

[more_cowbell]

Curse of democracy. Doesn’t do any good to lock up users. You would end up needing three times the prison space, having people get out and be almost unemployable, and taxes would have to go up. I admire Oregon for trying something different. I guess there is just too much money in illegal drugs.

Except as we all know we’re a representative democracy because back in the day, “the mob” was apparently viewed as a bit suspect

Users need addiction treatment, not free drug paraphernalia and “free” (ie, stolen or nonprofit donated camping supplies, where the nonprofit is just being funded by local government) so they can do hard drugs then pass out on the sidewalk 10 feet from the dealers corner.

Sorry to go off topic, although we also know the bill of rights is supposed to protect certain freedoms from the whims of an impassioned and perhaps well intentioned but short sighted majority

 

[Dave N]

Downstate judge dismisses former AG candidate’s challenges to gun ban

A downstate judge on Tuesday dismissed a trio of lawsuits brought by a former Republican attorney general candidate challenging Illinois’ sweeping gun ban, citing last week’s state Supr…

www.chicagotribune.com