comment: >
  
  Oh boy, registration and a bunch of other stuff and sales bans and a ton of other shit. I'm sure this will be the law that makes all those hardened criminals decide to turn a new leaf over and obey.
context: And then it will be struck down by the supreme court shortly after.  Nothing to see here. >
  
  Good, there's also a chance they will strike down the other assault weapons bans at the same time. >
  
  Gotta have your toys. >
  
  If you think guns are toys, it's probably for the good of all of us that you don't have any. >
  
  For most of the country, yes, they are toys. For all the crazy "what if's" and dreams of taking over the government and whatnot. 
  There's no legitimate reason why an individual needs a high capacity magazine. Period. 
  This country has a disgusting gun culture that extends way beyond target shooting, hunting, and basic self-defense. >
  
  Some of us are getting arthritic and we use a device to assist in loading magazines while taking target practice, to save our thumbs. Loading is a nuisance and we prefer to do it as seldom as possible. Large mags make life a little easier. This is not an uncommon situation at all.
  IAC mag limits vs banning modern rifles are two different independent issues. >
  
  That falls under the category of "want" not "need" >
  
  It actually falls in the category of the constitution, thus removing the burden of proving want/need >
  
  A history of broad generalization of an ammendment written centuries ago that couldn't even conceptualize of anything near what we have today have as gun gave you that. Want versus need should still be a burden that people like you blindly ignore and push "We deserve all weapons" which is complete bullshit. >
  
  Never said all guns lol, talk about broad generalizations.  Do I have to prove my wants and needs when exercising my other constitutional rights? Or just this one ? >
  
  Nobody is talking about how the ban excludes active and retired police. Who do you guys think are in right wing militias terrorizing LGBT centers and drag brunches? I'm queer and I'm safer with my rifles, thank you. >
  
  Of course it does...
  The retired part just annoys the crap out of me.  Especially since, in general, it seems police have less trigger discipline and looser ROE than the military does! >
  
  Evidence actually suggest the reverse. In a study of several major police departments they found police officers who are veterans are more likely to have use of force complaints as well as more likely to use their weapon in the line of duty. Veterans who saw active combat are even more likely than veterans who did not.
  Source >
  
  It’s so frustrating that it feels like we’re stuck in a time loop. 
  Banning things like handguns with threaded barrels or separate magazines may have been excusable in the 90s but today it really seems like it’s politicians looking like they are doing something without actually doing anything.
  It’s the ability to buy weapons the day of the shooting without any question, and the ability of those weapons to send lots of lead downrange fast with no stoppages or lengthy interruptions. Not whether a silencer can be screwed to the end or not. >
  
  Let's not forget the massive gray market that is secondary "private" gun sales. The fact we don't require any oversight approval of a firearm transfer between individuals in most states is just ridiculous. We already know background checks work, but there's so many ways you can skirt that if you really want to get your hands on a gun. If we started holding people accountable for guns that are registered to them, requiring they report when lost, stolen, or sold/transferred to others within a reasonable timeframe, we might actually see some improvement. >
  
  Some of that is not possible.  We do not have a registry of guns so we cannot know who owns what (and that is by design).  People may also not know WHEN their guns were lost or stolen.  Many people with a properly stored gun may only be using that gun once a year or less (hunting season or range practice).  
  As for selling a gun, we would have to open NICS for that AND have a system which gives a record for the sale without directly recording WHAT has been sold (to prevent a registry).  
  I believe we could certainly control guns in a better fashion.  Cracking down of straw purchases should be a BIG part of that. >
  
  Most pro-gun experts agree that the single most impactful thing we could do is open up the universal background check system for private sales, but the gun grabbers don't ever want to talk about that. >
  
  Nothing about it to me reads like it's unworkable, it's exactly as I said, Democrats don't want a solution that both sides agree on because it doesn't "do enough". >
  
  I agree.   
  Democrats rejected meaningful improvements to the background check system because they wanted to hold out for things like assault weapons bans.
  Coburns proposals would have been agreeable to most gun owners, and it actually solved a big problem:  It made it easy for someone who wanted to sell there firearm to make sure that they were not selling it to a prohibited person, while respecting the privacy of both the buyer and the seller. >
  
  Everyone is saying that Illinois and criminals don't follow gun laws.
  This is at least partly true, but mainly because of Indiana's super lax gun laws. So it's very easy to drive 30-90 minutes across the border, buy what you need, ans bring it home.
  Unfortunately this law will not help because of that. >
  
  The majority of gun crimes in Chicago involve guns that came from out of state. I believe it's around 40 percent of them come from Indiana. >
  
  It’s actually 60% >
  
  60% was the out of state. I think Indiana specifically is the 40% >
  
  Ah ok >
  
  Shut down by the courts in 5,4,3,2,1,go >
  
  If only it was that fast.
  The Supreme Court remanded an Assault Weapons Ban case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after the Bruen Decision  I.E. They told the 9th Circuit they got it wrong on the Assault Weapons Ban case.  
  Instead of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court actually hearing the case- they remanded back down to the lower court- who had already struck down California's Assault Weapons ban.    It was just a way for the 9th Circuit to further delay things.
  The original judge who struck it down had already used the standard that the Supreme Court ordered lower courts to use.  The Appeals court had not, they used their own "2 Step Approach" that was not consistent with the Heller, McDonald, or Bruen ruling.... >
  
  Again with that terminology.. what defines an 'assault' weapon? >
  
  An "assault weapon" is defined in the new proposal means any of the following:
  A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine, if the firearm has one or more of the following:
  a pistol grip or thumbhole stock; 
  any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
  a folding, telescoping, thumbhole, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of, the weapon;
  a flash suppressor;
  a grenade launcher;
  a shroud attached to the barrel or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.
  A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
  A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine, if the firearm has one or more of the following:
  a threaded barrel;
  a second pistol grip or another feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
  a shroud attached to the barrel or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
  a flash suppressor;
  the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or
  a buffer tube, arm brace, or other part that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip and is designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate a firearm to be fired from the shoulder.
  A semiautomatic pistol that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.
  Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
  a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
  any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
  a folding or thumbhole stock;
  a grenade launcher;
  a fixed magazine with the capacity of more than 5 rounds; or
  the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.
  Any semiautomatic firearm that has the capacity to accept a belt ammunition feeding device.
  Any firearm that has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined in this Section.
  Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, including any combination of parts from which an assault weapon may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
  I am guessing this law will get stuck down since it basically says ANY semiautomatic rifle is banned from being sold and all existing ones have to be registered since there is the part about "a shroud attached to the barrel or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel".  That language basically says forend...like the kind found on basically ANY rifle. >
  
  A single shot .22 squirrel rifle with a threaded barrel is an assault weapon. According to this. There you go. It is a nonsensical list of features that legislators think are probably pretty scary. >
  
  Could I share that with another forum? >
  
  Your points were well received in /r/liberalgunowners >
  
  Woo hoo! A perfect test case to get AWBs declared unconstitutional for good. Thank you Illinois for giving us gun nutz this gift. See you on the other side!
  Ps, don't act shocked when you lose. : ) >
  
  I hope it gets struck down in court >
  
  Now going to Wisconsin to buy them… >
  
  Aaaand straight to court per Bruen. >
  
  2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicide with a handgun. Wouldn’t it be nice if the powers that be dealt with this bigger problem? 🤔 >
  
  Why not both? >
  
  In 2021 there were 20,000 homicides and 26,000 suicides. Most of those homicides were committed with handguns, and according to the FBI more people were killed with knives than rifles. 1,035 killed with knives and 447 with rifles. 
  My point being you can save thousands more lives tackling the gun suicide issue than wanting to ban rifles that look militarized.
  Tackle the bigger issue first. >
  
  
  Tackle the bigger issue first.
  
  This logic ignores that smaller problems are often quicker to solve. 
  It also conveniently leads to the outcome of nothing happening for the foreseeable future. >
  
  So instead of New Deal-like economic reforms that would be massively popular and would absolutely have a measurable impact on suicide rates, we should forcibly remove Americans' property and disarm them in a super politically divisive manner. Sounds good! >
  
  We can do both, returning to my original point.
  And in a civilized world, sometimes people have to tone down their hobbies so kids don’t die. >
  
  We don't need to do both. We can just do the highly popular anti-poverty measures without the unnecessary gun grabbing. >
  
  
  We don't need to do both. 
  
  But we should.
  
  the unnecessary gun grabbing.
  
  Is that what this bill does? Grab guns? >
  
  
  But we should
  
  No, no we shouldn't. Leave the guns alone and deal with the real problem.
  
  Is that what this bill does? Grab guns?
  
  What else do you thing a ban is? >
  
  This a ban on the sale and manufacture of certain weapons. No one is “grabbing” anything.
  Maybe before you decide what is or is not worth it you should take some time and get informed. >
  
  Lol yes I’m sure the convicted felons in Chicago who are already banned from owning firearms will consider getting rid of their Assault weapons now that this has been passed. Good Job JB you really showed em. >
  
  There are around 120.5 firearms for every 100 citizens. Manufacturers produce around 10 million new firearms every year in the U.S. and no gun is born illegal. Any steps that we take to curb gun violence without drying the supply is like slapping mailing tape on a broken pipe. It is the great problem from which so many others stem from. 
  Unfortunately the change we need will take a constitutional convention. >
  
  Little known rule, if you don’t know that AR doesn’t stand for Assault Rifle then you can’t pass laws banning them. (/s) >
  
  I'd settle for at least politicians and "gost gun" reporters being held accountable when they violate firearms laws.
  Like the politician who SBRed her AR-15 on video.  Or the news reporter who had someone else manufacture and assemble their 80%. >
  
  Chicago already has a massive amount of limitations, rules, and laws on guns.
  Criminals do not care about them and adding more is not going to change that fact. >
  
  Vermont, NH, Maine have significantly more rural, spread out areas, so of course there’s doing to be lower numbers of gun violence compared with states that have densely populated areas... Of course densely populated areas are going to have more gun violence… Everytown showing “gun deaths” is not trying to “inflate numbers”, the “numbers” reflect the data, and study is based on how gun laws affect “gun deaths”. Regardless of whether someone was killed by a criminal via a gun or committed suicide via a gun, it was still with a gun, and the data shows gun laws show they work. 
  Yes, 60% of guns used in Chicago crimes are from out of state purchases, and 40% of those are from Indiana, which is still a significant percentage. Regardless, it still shows that 60% of guns used in crimes are bought out of state, meaning criminals are going to places with loose gun laws to bring back to Chicago. To dismiss that “Chicago loves to blame…” is to down play a significant issue, cause it shows that Chicago makes it more difficult to purchase a gun if you’re a criminal, and that’s a good thing. >
  
  
  Vermont, NH, Maine have significantly more rural, spread out areas, so of course there’s doing to be lower numbers of gun violence compared with states that have densely populated areas..
  
  Sounds like you are helping me make my argument that are far more factors at play then just gun laws- and that the data doesn't necessarily show that there is strong causation between stricter gun laws and less gun deaths... 
  ​
  
  ,meaning criminals are going to places with loose gun laws to bring back to Chicago. To dismiss that “Chicago loves to blame…” is to down play a significant issue, 
  
  Another if you go back to the ATF Trace Report- is crime-to-time  The average gun that is traced was purchased 6.7 years prior to it be being traced.  This is only slightly below the National Average of 7 years.  This also weakens the argument that other states gun laws are the reason for all of Illinois problems:.  Guns that are average 6.7 years are not being bought directly from gun stores or being straw purchased for Illinois Residents,  they are most likely stolen. >
  
  No, it doesn’t make your point, because gun deaths are still higher in places with lax gun laws by comparison. What it explains is wide, spread out low density rural areas will have less gun violence compared to densely populated urban area, which is no surprise to anyone… it doesn’t mean gun laws don’t have an impact on overall gun deaths, cause they do.
  You’re still dismissing the 60% out of state sales by saying they’re straw purchases… as it that makes it better. There wouldn’t be such a high percentage of out of state purchases, especially right across the boarder in Indiana if there wasn’t a good reason to do so, hence easier buys for criminals. And as far as straw purchases go, firstly, we have to factor in that criminals sell to criminals, so a lot of people who went out of state to buy those guns were most likely criminals too. Secondly, the loose regulations around straw purchases is another gun law issue. Thirdly, theft IS a gun law issue, cause if we had safe storage laws like in some other countries, it wouldn’t be so easy for criminals to break in and get ahold of guns. 
  You can try and chip away at the imperfections of gun laws all you want, nothing is a perfect solution and  there are always multiple factors, but the evidence that gun laws significantly help reduce gun deaths, not only in the US, but in countries world wide, is indisputable. I could point to how gun laws affected Scotland after a school shooting in 1996, they have had a single school shooting since, and has significantly lowered gun crime. I could point to Australia of how their conservative government implemented strict gun laws after a mass shooting, and have significantly reduced gun crime and gun deaths ever since etc… >
  
  Good. Every state should follow. >
  
  The problem is Illinois is surrounded by GOP led states, gun control isn't an issue one state can tackle alone. >
  
  Now only criminals will have them, seems legit >
  
  And the security guards for politicians and the rich. >
  
  All this does is give GQP fresh meat for their base.  IL can ban all the guns they want - they will still be imported en masse from each surrounding state. Further, governments look stupid when they pass laws that are effectively unenforceable.  Not only will Chicago continue to be a war zone, 3D printing has effectively rendered the idea of gun control to the dust bin of politics.  Next will be GMO bacteria and yeast crapping out any designer drug you want in a home lab.
  The only thing that this guarantees is 1) predictable ad content for GQP politicians running in Illinois and 2) allow the national GQP to point at Illinois as the poster child for liberal government over-reach - allowing California to take a rest for a bit. >
  
  Another person quoted what was banned.  Fun fact, this law classifies almost every rifle with a detachable magazine as an "Assault Weapon." The definition of "Barrel Shroud" includes the wooden stock that people hold in their off hand.
  Most of the other things are accessories.
  To anyone who knows anything about firearms, these laws just make the politicians look ignorant or deliberately trying to ban all guns.
  Unfortunately, youre right. This type of overreach plays directly into some people's hands. >
  
  Hopefully the citizens of Illinois defy this law. Disobey all gun laws! >
  
  Yeah! Buy a rocket launcher! Grenades too! Land mines? >
  
  Unironically based as fuck >
  
  I’m confused about the uproar, what happened to “leaving it up to the states” RE: policies and laws? I seem to recall this being the justification espoused around June ‘22 following a particular US SC ruling… >
  
  Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This a clear violation of that. 
  Banning abortion is a different topic and much much more defendable. >
  
  At least Illinois is trying. Now for a huge buy back plan for the people who bought one but really do not want or need it. >
  
  Trying to violate civil liberties >
  
  i hate the argument that: we don't need them but we should have a right to be able to have these if we wanted....no fuck you, no one needs assault weapons, they should be restricted to military & special law enforcement groups like SWAT, FBI, ATF, etc. >
  
  
  they should be restricted to military & special law enforcement groups like SWAT, FBI, ATF, etc.
  
  Right, because I totally trust the government to protect me in minutes when seconds count... Plus let's not forget the problematic aspects of law enforcement vs. minorities and LGBT people. >
  
  people are still going to have these guns, illegally....someone in law enforcement should have them as well for that reason alone >
  
  Great, because the last big assault weapons ban wasn’t just a bunch of loopholes.