comment: >
  
  The problem everywhere is handguns. Always has been. It's why they were in the original drafts of the '34 NFA to regulate concealable weapons.  Problem is... it's also the solution. Which is why handguns were removed from NFA list of Class iii regulations in order for it to pass.
  To wit: the thing most effective for bad guys being bad is precisely the thing most effective for defense against said bad guy.
  And this is why gun control has always been a joke. And the idea that "no one wants to take your guns" is nothing more than gaslighting.
context: I'm curious if by this time next year we will have another SCOTUS level decision on AWBs and maybe even magazine capacity bans.  Seems like after the Bruen ruling it's open season on gun control laws and the whole "history and tradition" thing is going to be what kills them if anything ever does since there is no history or tradition of arbitrarily banning guns based on removeable features or even those features.  IIRC the first actual ban on the type of gun you could legally own was in the 1960's when they banned importing certain "saturday night special" cheap guns and introduced the "sporting purposes" test for importing guns.  Federal background checks weren't required until the 1990s and the federal AWB then might have been the actual first flat out "You can't buy, import or sell these guns" regulation.  The 1934 NFA might have been the first actual federal level gun control law of any significance.  And that's not a ban just a tax and registration act so once an AWB has to stand up in court against the Bruen decision it will be interesting.
  You'd think that given the Bruen ruling states wouldn't waste time trying to pass what seems like obviously unconstitutional laws that will get struck down but anti abortion people did the same thing so who knows.  I think the next year will be a very interesting year for gun regulation one way or another. >
  
  Just to clarify for other readers the 1934 NFA was not a ban, but a tax. It was deemed only Constitutional because Congress has the authority to tax. Although the authority to tax a Constitutional right is clearly unconstitutional just as a $14,000 tax to vote would be in 1934 dollars. Regardless in 1986 Congress deemed that citizens couldn't pay the NFA tax to register a machine gun. So we now have a law that deems we must pay a tax, but then another law that says we can't pay that tax.  So now it's a defacto ban on certain firearms without any specific actual law banning them.
  The NFA itself has been well due for the chopping block by SCOTUS. It's only now that we finally have a court willing to possibly take it. >
  
  The kicker there being purchases in Wisconsin/Michigan/Indiana/Iowa, etc.
  Still, if 'found with x while committing a crime' adds 50 years to sentencing and $100,000 to any fees levied.. >
  
  Isn’t the problem in Illinois mostly with handguns though?