For reasons that you can easily guess.

IL State Police modified their ammo background check system to where sellers in the state need to put in the caliber being sold. This is to track people and target them for buying calibers like 5.57/7.62×39 who didn’t register their “assault rifles”…they’re going for it https://t.co/8oNhPlbUy4 pic.twitter.com/4MgKWce24U

— President Non_Fudd (@Non_Fudd) October 6, 2023

It’s effective immediately.  Folks like Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory who ensconce in Illinois now cannot even sell to customers in their own home state.  It’s too bad they didn’t ride the “Gun Valley Moves South” train when it left the station.  I know the gun community.  Some will be reluctant to buy from a manufacturer who cannot even sell their products to folks in their own state.  By the way, Colorado is effectively doing the same thing.

The list of guns citizen in Illinois cannot have is long.  Very long.  You cannot even own tactical shotguns under the new law as best as I read it (I did note that they didn’t specifically mention the Beretta 1301, although I’ll also mention that the new law “strengthens the assault weapons ban by also allowing Illinois State Police to update the list as needed,” Welch said”).  So the ban includes whatever the cops want it to include.

Also, they are preempting the SCOTUS decision on Terry Stops: “If police stop a car driven by a semiautomatic gun owner, they can instantly check to ensure its legally owned.”  What sense this makes one can only guess – if a gun owner has registered the weapon why wouldn’t it be assumed that it’s a “legally owned weapon?”

Also, it’s back to the way it was before Bruen – you cannot have that gun with you (you know, the only ones left not on the list) when you leave home.  You cannot carry it on your person.  So, it’s all the rage now for the communist states to pretend that Bruen doesn’t exist and that the supreme court never spoke to the matter.

I have supreme confidence that this law will be adjudicated, and I expect this law to be struck down, but I’m not sure how long it will be before that happens.  In the mean time, they want citizens to register their guns if they are “grandfathered in.”  Some Sheriffs have said they will not comply, dozens and dozens, somewhere around 70 at last count.

But what does this mean?  Here is one clue.

But that’s not good enough.  Merely refusing to assist the state police isn’t doing anyone any good.  For this to have teeth the Sheriffs would need to ensure that not only were they constitutional Sheriffs, but their deputies were constitutional deputies as well, and that the city and township PDs agreed with this stance.  Those are the preconditions for success.

That would all lead to the next necessary step, which would be a threat to arrest any state police who came into their counties to enforce the new law, and the stomach to follow through with it.  Finally, if those counties have militia to whom the Sheriff could go for assistance, that may prove to be necessary as well.

Do any of the Sheriffs have the stomach for this?  I seriously doubt it.  I’ve said before, nullification laws or threats are dangerous for the citizens if they aren’t serious and don’t carry both the threat and reality of force behind them.  If they are weighty and enforced, they serve as a check on centralized power and authority to infringe on God-given rights.

Illinois is just at the beginning of this whole affair.  Chicago has decided the way it will be for everyone else in their state.  Whether the balance of the state lets it stand will be up to them.

Source.

Illinois deer hunters will soon have more tools available to them during the hunting season after the signing of a recent law.

House Bill 4386, signed by Gov. Pritzker on May 27, allows for the use of centerfire, single-shot rifles for deer hunting in the firearm set as set by the director of natural resources every year.

These lighter rifles join the list of legal hunting firearms, which includes slug-ammunition shotguns, muzzleloading rifles and centerfire handguns.

The newly-approved firearms must still abide by site-specific regulations and use legal ammunition.

Additionally, the law makes it illegal, during deer hunting season, to possess or be in proximity of a non-centerfire rifle or a magazine capable of making a rifle not a single shot.

The bill goes into effect on January 1, 2023. You can read the text of the bill here.

Have y’all ever been to Ilinois?  I have.  Only to visit on a work assignment.

What most people don’t understand is that the corn belt runs through Illinois.  Miles upon miles upon miles upon miles of nothing but corn fields as far as the eye can see.

Here the controllers are “giving up” something for the deer hunters by giving them a rifle to hunt.  Single shot only.  I might have understood it a bit more if they had limited it to straight walled cartridges as they do in some states, but in this case, they want no semiautomatics, or at least, no magazine to be found near the hunter.

I’m glad I don’t live there.

Eugene Volokh has a post up entitled Illinois Supreme Court: Second Amendment Protects Carrying Outside The Home, where he discusses the recent subject ruling.

From today’s unanimous decision in People v. Aguilar (Ill. Sept. 12, 2013):

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”

I think the result is correct, because Heller‘s reasoning does indeed apply to carrying for self-defense in most public places, and not just in the home. Indeed, Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago had no occasion to squarely confront this question, because they dealt with total handgun bans, including on home possession. Heller does speak of “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” and stresses that the D.C. handgun ban extends “to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 629. And Heller also holds that bans on concealed carry in public are constitutional, because of the long tradition (dating back to the early 1800s) of such prohibitions.

Eugene goes on to discuss what he sees as a technical error in the ruling, albeit not determinative, i.e., he still believes it’s the correct result.

I have exchanged e-mail with him on Georgia case concerning guns in churches / schools.  Eugene is a very smart guy.  But on this issue I disagree.  No, not that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled rightly, but how they got to it.

Read again.  And read Eugene’s analysis again.  They both presuppose that to answer the question of whether carrying outside the home should be legal, they must turn to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

We’ve discussed this before.  The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant us rights.  It circumscribes the power of the federal government so that they cannot infringe in those specific areas.  If you want to learn whether carry is protected in Illinois, turn to the Illinois state constitution, article 1 section 22.

It is a late addition to the constitution, but better late than never.  Folks, the notion that the founding fathers would have turned to a federal document to understand or delineate their rights is preposterous.  We have given the centralized government too much authority, too much legitimacy, and too much power.

We needn’t turn to the federal government, even when we get the answer we like.  We have rights because those rights were granted by God and recognized by our local and state covenants, not because the U.S. constitution says so.  And it should be embarrassing that the Illinois Supreme Court had to turn to Heller to make their decision.  Embarrassing.  Do they have a mind of their own, and aren’t they supposed to be deciding cases concerning Illinois?