comment: >
  
  ATF trace data shows the top five states where guns recovered in Illinois were originally purchased:  
  1) Illinois (49.8%)  
  2) Indiana (16.7%)  
  3) Missouri (5.4%)  
  4) Wisconsin (3.9%)  
  5) Kentucky (2.6%)    
  With 21.6% unable to be traced.
  So a sixth of those guns can be traced to Indiana.
context: I'm not sure giving the Supreme Court a new gun case to rule on is actually a win for gun control advocates. >
  
  With Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh catching a GVR from SCOTUS, I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block. IL is just working on their SCOTUS speedruns. Have to compete against NY, NJ and CA after all. >
  
  
  I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block.
  
  Assault weapon bans were on the chopping block before Bruen decision. It actually got more time because of the decision. There was a case that got knocked down the the lower courts again after Bruen that was against California's ban. Assault Weapon bans will fall because of the Heller decision as they are extremely common use now. Also if you use democrat's words against them with them being "weapons of war" then it would also fail because of Miller decision. Remember that the 94 AWB was never challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds and since it's ending they have become one of the popular styles of guns in the country. >
  
  From what I understand in talking to some of the older guys, the 94 AWB basically made the AR platform what it is today. Prior to that, it was kind of a niche market. I HATE everything the SCOTUS has done recently, but I hope they smack the shit out of IL for this (and other states). As I see discussed in this thread, and others like this, AWB doesn't actually have any impact on crime. >
  
  The DOJ’s own analysis after the expiration of the 94 AWB said that it “had no significant effect” on gun violence.  Frankly, that should have been expected—and should still be the expected outcome—for a number of reasons, notably that “assault weapons” are rarely used in crime, there’s numerous obstacles to enforcing an AWB to any effective degree, and AWBs completely ignore the actual causes of gun violence.
  Either these politicians are oblivious to both crime stats and all the research showing how to reduce violent crime, which is hard to believe since this is basically part of their job, or they’re more interested in lobbyist money and votes than reducing crime and saving lives. >
  
  Theyre reducing the ability of citizens to threaten their power >
  
  Yes...let's go overthrow the government with our weapons...that is definitely the hallmark of the most civil society on the planet...that is why the US is the most free. /s >
  
  Unfortunately the major push of feature bans fails to address root causes of gun violence, and as a result has limited impact on gun deaths. Predisposition to violence is one of the greatest indicators to using a gun in a violent crime, not whether the gun has a barrel shroud or adjustable stock. When America decides to implement universal Healthcare and provide economic opportunity to communities via co-operative business investment, allowing for communities to strengthen via collaboration vs competition, it gives these frustrated young men hope and opportunity vs joining a gang or randomly killing innocent people. >
  
  What.  The reason we have so many gun deaths is simply because of easy access to guns.  Full stop. >
  
  The reason we have obesity is easy access to forks. >
  
  Do you think you'd eat as much food if you didn't have a single fork in your house >
  
  Have you never heard of a spoon? Chopsticks? >
  
  I didn't say "you would starve to death without a fork" >
  
  
  Do you think you'd eat as much food if you didn't have a single fork in your house
  
  Do you not get how you would just use a spoon/chopsticks to eat as much food?
  But this does explain why people can't get why assault weapons bans wouldn't solve gun violence. >
  
  
  could 
  
  "Could" is not the same as "will". >
  
  Legislators to citizens: You can't have these guns, they exist only to kill people as weapons of war and we will protect you  
  Legislators to police: Here is more money, you can keep buying all the military weaponry you want, please shoot the plebs if they get out of line. >
  
  Not just police departmentas but the officers themselves. Even if they quit or retire they get a special exemption from the law.
  This exemption has never ever made sense to me. If you want to make the department exempt fine but not the individual. Once you leave the agency you're not a cop anymore so you have "no need" for such items. >
  
  Ban on paper. Won’t be enforced. >
  
  It won't be enforced. There's already numerous sheriffs departments and local police departments that are releasing written statements saying they won't enforce it. >
  
  By numerous, you mean practically the entire state, right? Over 70 counties now saying they won’t enforce the ban. The new law is unjust and unconstitutional. Those lawmakers need to be thrown into jail and put on trial for treason for violating our second amendment. >
  
  You gonna go shoot them? >
  
  This ban will have very little effect on violent crime because almost all violent crimes with firearms are carried out with handguns that you can conceal in a waistband, a holster or a pocket. I also think it is immoral to go after peaceful people (which includes a 30% people of color community) who have these types of weapons by sending armed law enforcement after them, with these types of weapons. >
  
  I recall reading a stat that the majority of gun crimes committed in Illinois are committed with handguns purchased from Indiana. Don't have it at hand so it could be malarkey. >
  
  ATF trace data shows the top five states where guns recovered in Illinois were originally purchased:  
  1) Illinois (49.8%)  
  2) Indiana (16.7%)  
  3) Missouri (5.4%)  
  4) Wisconsin (3.9%)  
  5) Kentucky (2.6%)    
  With 21.6% unable to be traced.
  So a sixth of those guns can be traced to Indiana. >
  
  Only going to hurt law abiding citizens. It won’t slow gun violence in that state.  POINTLESS >
  
  It will be over turned as AR-15s are in common use also the law was very very poorly written and ended up banning a very wide variety of guns that are not “assault” weapons. >
  
  George Washington used his AR-15 to defeat the British and someday so will you. >
  
  The 3d printer has ended gun control as a concept. >
  
  Fosscad has entered the chat. >
  
  Turning a bunch of gun owners into felons if they don’t comply and carving out exemptions for police sure seems like a strange “win” >
  
  It's only strange if you never understood the endgame. >
  
  I’m in Illinois right now, been shooting for a long time, I think that there’s a ton that can be done to stem gun violence, much of which is socio-economic, and some of which directly pertains to gun ownership and how we decide who is sufficiently responsible to own a gun. I even agree with most of the measures that passed alongside the assault weapons ban like prosecuting straw purchasers of firearms, improving our background check system, and refining our licensing system. That said, I think that the ever persistent idea that liberals have to ban certain categories of firearms is absurd and will do literally nothing to stem gun violence. I’ve shot basically every kind of gun you could imagine and I’ve more or less come to the conclusion that any given gun can sling high velocity lead about as well as any other. I say as a democrat voter in a deep blue city that this proposal only serves to assuage the anxieties of wealthy liberals who are so alienated from the root causes of gun violence that they don’t even understand why or how it happens, and every establishment politician left and right would rather engage in this kind of political showmanship than actually address why people shoot up each other’s houses or schools. >
  
  So is it a ban of the sale of new AR type rifles, or does it ban the ownership of existing rifles?  And can those existing rifles be bought or sold?
  No one seems to be addressing this, but you look like you might know. >
  
  The law says that all existing examples are grandfathered in but must be registered with the state police. Not sure whether you’re allowed to transfer ownership but I’m looking into it as we speak >
  
  Cool so spending money on a law that won’t be enforced and will soon be struck down, and would have had little effect on gun violence as is even if it stayed
  Meanwhile, the ATF allows automatic handguns to be openly bought, sold, and used by gangs to kill. And they just gloss over it because it’s easier to arrest people for having a barrel 1/4 inch too short on their rifle or something than actually cracking down against real gun violence >
  
  This is the worst place for this to happen.  Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws.   Coincidentally they have some of the highest gun crime stats in the nation. >
  
  How does that figure? Where do you think the guns come from? >
  
  It's almost like criminals don't follow gun laws. It's illegal to buy a gun in Illinois without a FOID card, even through private sales. If you go to a gun store in Indiana near the border they won't even let you handle a gun if you are from Illinois because of their laws. >
  
  It turns out they often do, at least until the point where they're trafficking the weapon into the state/city. Again, where do you think the guns come from? It's not a rhetorical question. The guns have to come from somewhere. They aren't making them in Chicago, conjuring them from the ether just to flaunt their gun laws. So where do they come from?
  It's easy to just chalk this all up to crime, but that doesn't tell you anything meaningful. They still have to come from some place, and then make their way into Chicago. When you say criminals don't follow gun laws, are you saying they're getting guns from Indiana in spite of not even letting you handle a weapon if you're from Illinois? Or what? If you want to fault the laws it still remains to be demonstrated where they're failing. >
  
  I don't have to guess where the guns came from because that information is readily available. ATF Trace data shows the top five states where guns recovered in Illinois were originally purchased from are Illinois (49.8%), Indiana (16.7%), Missouri (5.4%), Wisconsin (3.9%) and Kentucky (2.6%). 
  So firstly, out of the guns they traced almost half were originally bought in Illinois, so the idea that all guns used in crimes in Chicago come from out of state is not even true.
  Secondly, my main point is that you can pass any gun control measures you want, criminals will either disregard them or find other illegal means of getting weapons. Do you really think a gang member with a list of felonies is gonna register his illegally owned AR because of this ban? Gun laws only effect law abiding gun owners who are willing to follow them. >
  
  
  so the idea that all guns used in crimes in Chicago come from out of state is not even true.
  
  No one said they all came from out of state.
  
  Secondly, my main point is that you can pass any gun control measures you want, criminals will either disregard them or find other illegal means of getting weapons.
  
  You're too fixated on throwing your hands up and arguing nothing can be done about the problem. But pointing out that they're criminals isn't nearly as meaningful as you seem to think it is.
  Case in point: the guns still are being purchased in the first place. Are they all illegal purchases? Legal purchases that end up in the hands of criminals afterwards? Because that matters.
  
  Do you really think a gang member with a list of felonies is gonna register his illegally owned AR because of this ban?
  
  You're kinda missing the point. Where did the illegally owned AR come from if not a legal source at some point? Those are the vulnerabilities that are being exploited. >
  
  
  No one said they all came from out of state.
  
  The comment I was replying said, "The guns have to come from somewhere. They aren't making them in Chicago, conjuring them from the ether just to flaunt their gun laws. So where do they come from?" So I was just explaining that the majority of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from Illinois.
  
  You're too fixated on throwing your hands up and arguing nothing can be done about the problem. 
  
  I wasn't trying to say that nothing could be done, I just don't think that banning assault weapons is gonna reduce gun violence even a percentage point. The systems we already have in place like background checks and Illinois FOID system should just be enforced. Almost every law abiding gun owner would be okay with increased penalties for people who commit crimes with illegally obtained guns. 
  You really want to address the violence in Chicago? Address stories like this. From the article, "A man is charged with killing three people outside a bar in an early Sunday morning shooting on the city's Northwest Side, Chicago police said." "Parsons-Salas is already a convicted felon, released on parole in September after serving time for a 2009 home invasion in Albany Park in which two people were killed."
  I'm sorry but if you were involved in a home invasion that killed 2 people in 2009, you should not be out on the streets until at least 2036, or never depending on what part he had in it. >
  
  
  Almost every law abiding gun owner would be okay with increased penalties for people who commit crimes with illegally obtained guns. 
  
  How about the issue of how legal guns end up in the hands of criminals? Because it's the ease at which criminals obtain their weapons that's at the heart of the issue. 
  Gun proponents say things like "just enforce the laws we've already got" but it's because of how easily some guns are available that those laws are undermined. You can't solve gun violence by ignoring the guns.
  
  I just don't think that banning assault weapons is gonna reduce gun violence even a percentage point. 
  
  Probably not, although I think they play a role in American gun culture that's not healthy. That said, good luck getting anyone to cede ground on the matter of pistols in American gun crime. >
  
  Firstly I want to say that I respect your opinion but I think we disagree on what the real cause of gun violence. I believe that criminals are the problem and you believe guns are the problem. The only reason I infer that is because you completely disregarded the fact that the man behind a triple shooting was convicted of being a part of a double homicide/ home invasion in 2009 is out on parole. You would ask how did he get a gun and I would ask why was he not in prison, and both are valid questions.
  In my opinion it is much more reasonable to get harsher on violent criminals than it is to try and ban guns. For the sole reason that it would only punish people convicted of already committing crimes. You shouldn't lose rights if you personally did nothing wrong. It also seems much more realistic than banning the sale or production of guns, because of the millions of guns already out there.  
  
  How about the issue of how legal guns end up in the hands of criminals?
  
  I would say that they either steal them or get them from other criminals since it is illegal to sell a felon a gun. No legal gun store is gonna risk losing their business to sell a criminal a $400 gun.
  What do you think we should do to target guns rather than my idea of focusing on criminals with guns? What realistic laws should we pass and how should we enforce them? >
  
  Oh well, time to switch to, .458 SOCOM. Can buy plenty of 10-round mags for those... >
  
  Just tell magpul to fix their labels. >
  
  Now only the rich can have them >
  
  Or anyone with a tank a gas who can just go to most of IL where this won’t be enforced.  That is already what people in Chicago or Lake county where they already had bans were already doing. >
  
  Despite the bluster from various counties, I doubt most FFL's will put their licenses on the line, nor will suppliers and distributors. Will be interesting to see if they do and what actions the state or suppliers actually take. >
  
  What those FFLs will do is sell IL-complaint ARs on one side of the store and on the far wall will be the accessory aisle that sells all those naughty things Lord Pritzker thinks are bad. >
  
  Exactly >
  
  
  Illinois bans military-style weapons in win for gun control advocates
  
  Not sure this will hold if it is looked at by the supreme court for 2nd amendment violations. >
  
  Come and take mine >
  
  That your fantasy? >
  
  Such a useless effort.  Most people will just make the drive up to Wisconsin to get an AR just as people from Wisconsin make the drive to Illinois to get their weed.  Not to mention this law will disproportionately be enforced on minority communities, just like the war in drugs. >
  
  Here is a scary military style weapon of war. This is a .22 caliber Olympic precision target pistol. It is now banned as an assault weapon in Illinois. I am not making this up. Common sense gun control, everybody. >
  
  Those sheriffs who refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws are so brave. >
  
  those sheriffs probably don't have the educational background to review constitutionality. >
  
  I guarantee you those sheriffs have at least a bachelors. >
  
  Bachelors in what? >
  
  Liberal arts >
  
  ….and the cops aren’t going to obey the laws…………what’s new? >
  
  They did, it includes most semi auto pistols.
  Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
  All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
  All AK types, including the following:
  Centurion 39 AK pistol.
  CZ Scorpion pistol.
  Draco AK–47 pistol.
  HCR AK–47 pistol.
  IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol.
  Krinkov pistol.
  Mini Draco AK–47 pistol.
  PAP M92 pistol.
  Yugo Krebs Krink pistol.
  All AR types, including the following:
  American Spirit AR–15 pistol.
  Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol.
  Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II.
  CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol.
  Daniel Defense MK18 pistol.
  DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol.
  DPMS AR–15 pistol.
  Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol.
  Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol.
  Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol.
  POF USA AR pistols.
  Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol.
  Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol.
  Calico pistols.
  DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol.
  Encom MP–9 and MP–45.
  Heckler & Koch model SP–89 pistol.
  Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9.
  IWI Galil Ace pistol, UZI PRO pistol.
  Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol.
  All MAC types, including the following:
  MAC–10.
  MAC–11.
  Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.
  Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11.
  Velocity Arms VMAC.
  Sig Sauer P556 pistol.
  Sites Spectre.
  All Thompson types, including the following:
  Thompson TA510D.
  Thompson TA5.
  All UZI types, including Micro-UZI. >
  
  Those aren't the type of handguns used for crimes really. Those are just pistol length versions of rifles or smg's. >
  
  I am aware but the language allows.them to add more shit to the list at will. A THREADED barrel on a handgun is all.it takes
  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.
  A threaded barrel on your Glock >
  
  
  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
  
  This would effectively ban the overwhelming majority of all semiautomatic rifles. >
  
  Welding gloves for the win. >
  
  I don't know if I consider this a win honestly.
  These firearm bans tend to fire up the MAGA crowd. 
  I really think we should just quiet down for a decade or so with gun control and focus on just enforcing and standardizing existing rules. Also more attention to mental help services (maybe give police the power to confiscate guns in some cases on a temporary basis, such as when responding to domestic violence cases). >
  
  
  These firearm bans tend to fire up the MAGA crowd. 
  
  Good? 
  Believe it or not the national discourse on firearm regulation is nowhere near the standard Reddit 'All laws restricting firearms are unconsitutional and me and my gun are gonna start the killing soon to keep it that way' argument. >
  
  It won’t stop the killings in Chicago.  It only hurts legal gun owners. >
  
  Back in the 90s and early 00s there was a very similar ban at the federal level. It was challenged many times, but the SC refused to take it up because it was upheld by lower courts.
  Probably going to be a different story this time around due to Republicans efforts to install conservative judges over the past few years. >
  
  It was never challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds and the environment around that type of gun has changed in the last few decades. They have become one of the most popular type of the guns in the country which means Heller decision would protect them on 2nd Amendment grounds. >
  
  Scalia states in the Heller decision:
  
  the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
  
  So the Heller decision can also be used to argue for the ban. 
  It will be very interesting to watch arguments interpreting a decision in front of the judge who wrote it, that's for sure. >
  
  The decision went on to explain more about how to decide between the ones that can and can't be banned. To banned it would need to be both dangerous and unusual, and also not appropriate for militia uses. 
  Examples of things that likely meet that would be weapons banner from war by Senate confirmed treaties- nuclear weapons, anti-personnel land mines, mustard or sarin gas. Or manner / purpose restrictions - such as making it illegal to directly threaten someone by pointing a weapon at them, or laws against possession of a firearm during a bank robbery (heightened sentence, or a higher charge). >
  
  But that's my point, that the definition of "dangerous and unusual" is open to interpretation, that the scope of intent is open to interpretation, and that Scalia purposefully put in careful language so that this ruling could not be used to call into question every other gun law on the books.
  I'm not arguing for or against the ban, I'm just saying that both sides can find ways to interpret the Heller decision to try and support their seperate arguments and that the changing makeup of the judiciary is going to have a big influence on how these cases get decided. >
  
  
  But that's my point, that the definition of "dangerous and unusual" is open to interpretation
  
  And calling these "dangerous and unusual" when the same people are fine with having them in the back of police cruisers says a lot about their intellectual honesty. >
  
  Would you find it acceptable if just anyone could put on a police uniform and drive a cop car around, pulling people over and arresting them? No, of course not.
  "But the cops get to do it, why can't I?"
  C'mon, man, you can't see the irony of using that argument to complain about "intellectual honesty"? >
  
  
  put on a police uniform and drive a cop car around
  
  Retired law enforcement can't do this either. But they are exempt from the law. >
  
  Good job to the liberal gun owners! You have no one but yourselves to blame for this >
  
  Yes, we should have voted for conservatives who side with us on some gun control issues but are either batshit crazy in most other respects, vehemently disagree with fundamental beliefs we hold about human rights, or both. >
  
  Seriously, I’d much rather watch gun laws get challenged in courts while knowing that reproductive rights and voting rights aren’t being completely dismantled >
  
  gary, indiana has entered the chat >
  
  Article fails to define military style weapons 
  Can someone explain, please?
  Rocket launchers and grenades? >
  
  What they mean is weapons that bear a resemblance to firearms issued in the military but haven't ever actually been issued to any military in the world. You know, because how they look is really what matters here... /s >
  
  See, what we're thinking is semi automatic weapons. Because looks do not define function. 
  Or so we thought. 
  My husband has an Israeli made jericho 941. It's actually been used in combat or police duty. It's a semi automatic pistol. 
  He also has a 8+1 round 30/30 Henry. He can empty that in a few seconds. But not semi automatic. 
  Maybe he should take his Hawkins black powder and make it look tactical/scary. And it is the scariest of all his firearms. Takes about a minute to reload, but I've seen him blow a javelina in half with it. And I don't know how people could hunt a turkey with that because if you miss the head it turns thr turkey into a poof of feathers. 
  Anyway, still don't know what military weapons are or why civilians have them. But part of me really wonders if they mean semi automatics. That's going to not go over well. >
  
  They do mean semi-automatic weapons. Generally when they say “military style,” they mean civilian (semi-automatic) firearms that are designed to look like military firearms. >
  
  This is only a temporary win it will eventually be overturned and then back to square one again >
  
  There was a map floating around here yesterday about how many counties would actually be enforcing it, and then I was less optimistic. >
  
  Link to the map. Sort by controversial for the same arguments that will happen in this thread before long >
  
  Ignorant, authoritarian shit asses. >
  
  Yay now the next school shooting in Illinois will only have 2 or 3 casualties instead of 10 or 20. I wish I were feigning enthusiasm but this is a big step forward. >
  
  
  Yay now the next school shooting in Illinois will only have 2 or 3 casualties instead of 10 or 20. 
  
  Based on what? >
  
  Based on the idea that people who are interested in killing others will, for some reason, comply with a law telling them the weapon they want to use to do so is illegal. >
  
  Why make things illegal? People will do what they want to do. A criminal justice system will only stop people after the fact, what is the point? /s
  I’m sorry, but this line of reasoning is so poor it actually hurts my spirit. You can find the faults of it by casually breathing and applying it to damn near anything. >
  
  
  I’m sorry, but this line of reasoning is so poor
  
  Your framing of that line of reasoning is poor. The issue is how these laws are already redundant to laws that prohibit murder, assault with deadly weapons, etc. If someone is motivated to ignore the possibility of prosecution for murder charges, then how is the possession charges for the weapon supposed to be a meaningful deterrent? You are just making the whole thing extra special illegal when it was already likely to result in serious prison time anyway.
  Edit: This user was so incapable of supporting their position they just blocked me. The justifications for gun control are so feeble that criticisms must be blocked. >
  
  It gives us an opportunity to intervene BEFORE it turns in a mass shooting. And mass shootings with pistols will be less deadly than mass shootings done with rifles, as rifles are a more powerful, and more lethal weapon system. If you have 30 rounds before you need to reload, you're a much more dangerous person than someone who has to reload every 10 rounds.   
  Charging someone with a crime shouldn't be a "deterrent". It should be viewed as a chance to intervene in their life before they do something really stupid/bad...such as murder. Will it work for everyone? No, some people will just want to kill and there is no reasonable deterrent. So if you can't deter them... what else can you do? Limit access to the tools that make their crimes so deadly.   
  The ability for more people to have access to more powerful weapons is not a recipe for safety. It's a recipe for disaster.   
  Listen to yourself, "making the whole thing extra special illegal when it was already likely to result in serious prison time anyway." YES THATS THE POINT! I'd rather someone be charged with possession, than them to be charged murder AFTER they kill someone.  What're you talking about?!  
  Why can't we do anything at all before a mass shooting has happened? Background checks? Unnacceptable. Mental Health Checks? An invasion of privacy that will be struck down. Restricting access to more powerful firearms? Why not just charge them with murder? That's the more important charge right?  What the fuck? Just prevent the murders in the first place!  
  We're uncomfortable with backgrounds checks, with mental healthcare, with restricting the firearms in general. So there is only one option left. Fire engine red coffins for our school children. We all know that little Timmy wanted to be a firefighter just like his dad. School shooter drills and media panic instead of firearm safety education and regulation.   
  I'm sorry, but that isn't the future I want for Americans. Why the fuck do we have to just throw our hands up and pretend like we can do nothing when children are being killed in fucking school? >
  
  
  Charging someone with a crime shouldn't be a "deterrent".
  so you are admitting it doesn't deter mass shootings or homicides. 
  
  Should point out that the operative word here is "shouldn't". They didn't say it doesn't currently deter anything in this quote.
  Anyways, in all this discussion, seems like we do acknowledge that handguns are much more widely used in crime than assault rifles. In that case, a well-enforced handgun ban wouldn't work either? >
  
  This is like slapping a bandaid on a car crash victim that just got flung out of a windshield. America is fucked. >
  
  A quick glance at the legislation it looks a lot like the California restrictions i.e. guns can't have a grip, detachable mags, accept more then 10 rounds, etc. They also apply these restrictions to pistols and shotguns so it could actually have some minor benefits to the crime issue in bigger cities 
  Good luck on this surviving a challenge in the current supreme court unfortunately. When it will absolutely get sued over the howler monkey contigent of the court will be frothing at the mouth to overturn more gun regulations >
  
  As you've figured out, this doesn't really ban anything. It just means sales of fin-grips or maglocks.
  Politicians just want to be able to hail it as a victory for their side and move on. They aren't really trying to get into the messy and difficult  business of reducing gun deaths. They just hope that everybody who wants a ban will think one exists now so they'll shut up and just keep donating. >
  
  Am I wrong in it not actually including language about them coming to get anything? It just says the serial numbers need to be registered for the guns people already have, doesn’t it? >
  
  For a lot of people, registration is the slippery slope to confiscation. The magazine capacity limit amounts to confiscation though, they are not grandfathered in. Possession of rifle magazines with capacity greater than 10 becomes a felony. This happened as soon as the law went into effect so there's likely a whole lot of people in IL technically committing felonies. >
  
  Just play it the Republican way. If you lose, put it back in with one word changed. Or let's do the civil method like Texas, that is approved by Supreme Court. >
  
  Not in USA >
  
  And 74 illinois sherif departments vow not to enforce it >
  
  Yeah this won't survive the courts. >
  
  Yes, but almost no counties are enforcing it >
  
  
  “You’ve got to know that the actions that you are taking right now are tyrannous,” a state senator, Darren Bailey, said during Monday’s debate.
  
  'Then call me Tyrannosaurus Rex' -Governor Pritzker 
  Seriously though, I will enjoy all the gun humpers who are going to show up here and go 'well ackshully assault rifles aren't a thing' when the bill defines it. >
  
  "If you take weapons away from non-law-abiding shooters, then you are left with targets." - Lauren Boebert. >
  
  Did you really just quote Boebert >
  
  Americans fucking love shooting people. Its a way of life in America. We will be historically remembered as a bunch of crazy warlords. No education or healthcare but we armed to the teeth. >
  
  Or if you read reddit comments "a terrible, no good thing to do, and you can trust me, I'm a leftist". >
  
  That's a lot more credible than the "This law will ensure that weapons of war are only carried on the street by police, which are trustworthy and will not unfairly persecute minorities with this law, and you can trust me, I'm a leftist" >
  
  I don't find it credible at all. And if they are actually leftists I question the value of being a leftist if it means doing nothing in the face these mass shootings. If it means a middle of the road democrat is doing more.
  Also, it's complete bullshit to try and act like these weapons are a break against police abuse, where have they been all this time? That's only ever been true when the Black Panthers did it and look at what happened?
  The VAST majority of people arguing to keep these weapons have a hard on for police violence anyway. I am ope to being proved wrong though, have them show up to police arrests armed and with cameras rolling.
  If the goal is to not get shot in a spree killing then people shouldn't have these weapons. Fucking period.
  If you want to talk about demilitarizing the police and holding them accountable that is a separate issue. >
  
  
  And if they are actually leftists I question the value of being a leftist if it means doing nothing in the face these mass shootings. If it means a middle of the road democrat is doing more.
  
  False, a middle of the road democrat is doing less by supporting these useless laws while the leftist is supporting social programs that address the causes of mass shooting such as mental health access.
  
  Also, it's complete bullshit to try and act like these weapons are a break against police abuse, where have they been all this time? That's only ever been true when the Black Panthers did it and look at what happened?
  
  When the Black Panthers did it, the middle of the road democrats went racist and increased gun control. Yet another way they are harming society.
  They prevent police abuse, and the lack of police brutality on the armed BLM protesters compared to the unarmed ones is proof of that. >
  
  
  the causes of mass shooting such as mental health access.
  
  These people that shoot up supermarkets and parades aren't usually suffering from mental problems, they're assholes. And in either case making it harder for them to get guns and walk around with them reduces the amount of damage they can do.
  
  the middle of the road democrats went racist and increased gun control. Yet another way they are harming society
  
  You realize you're talking about 1960's Republicans? Reagan signed the Mulford Act.
  You're blaming current Democrats for what Republicans did 60 years ago. >
  
  Well, there hasn’t been a day without a shoot in like 3 years. So, probably time to do something about gun legalization. >
  
  You sure as hell dont want to hear about the shootings we had in the 80/90s >
  
  But how will they have a well-regulated militia now? /s >
  
  Yeah and there are gun shop owners pissed and others going: “you can’t take my guns.” As the law says those who have their permits and legal registrations are good to go. Yet they are hauling guns straight out if Rambo movies with: “can you tell how small my penis is?” “I must own this gun that costs more money as my giant gas guzzling truck.” The whole “I need to own a gun that could take out a small troop because I have second amendment rights to it.” Then when asked if they know how to shoot it they go: “you crazy I be arrested by the FBI I just want it to show I’m some asshole.” >
  
  It’s interesting seeing people both simultaneously panic about the “ban” while also claiming it will functionally do nothing at all. >
  
  Exactly. I mean I just want to go: “so you are panicking but plan on ignoring it? How is that suppose to work?” >
  
  “This is the worst thing that won’t have any impact on us that has ever happened!” >
  
  “Damn those liberals.” /s >
  
  Nice >
  
  “…in win for gun control advocates and middle schools everywhere!” >
  
  That will certainly help, but most of Illinois guns don't come from Illinois already. They flood in from neighboring red states. Gun control will only really work if its national, targets the manufacturing and sale of firearms directly, and includes a buyback program. Also, while assault rifles (intermediate range, magazine fed, semi-automatic and automatic rifles) are certainly preferred for mass shootings, handguns are far and away the largest source of firearm related fatalities in the US (this includes homicide, suicide, and accidents).
  Also, how confident are we that cops will enforce this law? >
  
  Just scrolling though reddit…. Saw the police officers will not honor the ban. Not all counties tho… but it seemed like a majority of them will not honor this ban. >
  
  Police across the state are literally saying they won't enforce this law.
  Their one job, law enforcement, and they won't do it because they just don't like the law.
  That's a scary thing for whole agencies to just decide what laws they feel like enforcing.  Regardless of this one law, you can't have police picking and choosing what they will or won't enforce. Kind of defeats the purpose of having state laws in the first place. >
  
  So laws must be enforced even if they are contrary to the morality of those asked to enforce them? Seems like there’s way more potential for harm there than the inverse. >
  
  Until there is a liberal bias on the supreme court every single law restricting guns will be overturned. So its really a waste of everyones time. >
  
  Over 600 mass shootings last year. That ain’t normal in any country except ours. >
  
  My take on the whole gun thing here is a bit... Bleh.
  I think "Assault Weapons Bans" are a bit misguided, considering the vast majority of gun violence is committed using pistols, generally your standard magazine fed ones over revolvers and the like. It'll likely put more red tap for mass shootings, but barely any considering shooters often don't get their weapons from the more strict jurusdictions.
  Frankly, I think the Second should be updated to be less... Vague. The problem with the language used in more modern times is that it's not clear how regulations would go with it. Does it allow heavy restrictions or are people allowed to essentially have what the standing US military does? It's also been IMHO outdated due to that second part for a while, as "military" and "civilian" weapons have become more and more different, compared to even the later 19th century where the military generally used about the same weapons a private citizen would. I think an update being considering the gap between civilian and military from the past century might be warranted, as to not be so up to wide interpretation nowadays.
  In terms of how private gun ownership would go, I'd optimally say licence them like cars. Problem with that is it's impossible to do on a wide scale in the US, seeing that the gun culture is so... What's a good word for it? Ingrained as-is? That any massive change would be shot down. But I'd say have licenses that give access to weapons, IE a Hunting License allows you to access weapons of calibers for what would be under that license, concealed carry for pistols, competition license for that kind of deal, enthusiast license for your more exotic shit that wouldn't cause collateral damage.
  Obviously you also want to focus on other underlying issues behind gun crime, such as horrible access to mental healthcare, socioeconomic issues, I could probably also safely lump bad policing policy in there, too.
  I dunno, I'm probably way off base, but "Assault Weapons" bans and a good chunk of anti-gun stuff is nonsensical, without wanting to cry support for the other end of the spectrum with no CCW licencing requirements and lax means to obtain stuff. >
  
  I'm not sure giving the Supreme Court a new gun case to rule on is actually a win for gun control advocates. >
  
  With Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh catching a GVR from SCOTUS, I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block. IL is just working on their SCOTUS speedruns. Have to compete against NY, NJ and CA after all. >
  
  
  I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block.
  
  Assault weapon bans were on the chopping block before Bruen decision. It actually got more time because of the decision. There was a case that got knocked down the the lower courts again after Bruen that was against California's ban. Assault Weapon bans will fall because of the Heller decision as they are extremely common use now. Also if you use democrat's words against them with them being "weapons of war" then it would also fail because of Miller decision. Remember that the 94 AWB was never challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds and since it's ending they have become one of the popular styles of guns in the country. >
  
  From what I understand in talking to some of the older guys, the 94 AWB basically made the AR platform what it is today. Prior to that, it was kind of a niche market. I HATE everything the SCOTUS has done recently, but I hope they smack the shit out of IL for this (and other states). As I see discussed in this thread, and others like this, AWB doesn't actually have any impact on crime. >
  
  The DOJ’s own analysis after the expiration of the 94 AWB said that it “had no significant effect” on gun violence.  Frankly, that should have been expected—and should still be the expected outcome—for a number of reasons, notably that “assault weapons” are rarely used in crime, there’s numerous obstacles to enforcing an AWB to any effective degree, and AWBs completely ignore the actual causes of gun violence.
  Either these politicians are oblivious to both crime stats and all the research showing how to reduce violent crime, which is hard to believe since this is basically part of their job, or they’re more interested in lobbyist money and votes than reducing crime and saving lives. >
  
  Theyre reducing the ability of citizens to threaten their power >
  
  Yes...let's go overthrow the government with our weapons...that is definitely the hallmark of the most civil society on the planet...that is why the US is the most free. /s >
  
  If you think our society is civil OR free you havent been paying attention for probably your entire adult life >
  
  Here is a scary military style weapon of war. This is a .22 caliber Olympic precision target pistol. It is now banned as an assault weapon in Illinois. I am not making this up. Common sense gun control, everybody. >
  
  Legislators to citizens: You can't have these guns, they exist only to kill people as weapons of war and we will protect you  
  Legislators to police: Here is more money, you can keep buying all the military weaponry you want, please shoot the plebs if they get out of line. >
  
  Not just police departmentas but the officers themselves. Even if they quit or retire they get a special exemption from the law.
  This exemption has never ever made sense to me. If you want to make the department exempt fine but not the individual. Once you leave the agency you're not a cop anymore so you have "no need" for such items. >
  
  Unfortunately the major push of feature bans fails to address root causes of gun violence, and as a result has limited impact on gun deaths. Predisposition to violence is one of the greatest indicators to using a gun in a violent crime, not whether the gun has a barrel shroud or adjustable stock. When America decides to implement universal Healthcare and provide economic opportunity to communities via co-operative business investment, allowing for communities to strengthen via collaboration vs competition, it gives these frustrated young men hope and opportunity vs joining a gang or randomly killing innocent people. >
  
  What.  The reason we have so many gun deaths is simply because of easy access to guns.  Full stop. >
  
  The reason we have obesity is easy access to forks. >
  
  Do you think you'd eat as much food if you didn't have a single fork in your house >
  
  Have you never heard of a spoon? Chopsticks? >
  
  I didn't say "you would starve to death without a fork" >
  
  
  Do you think you'd eat as much food if you didn't have a single fork in your house
  
  Do you not get how you would just use a spoon/chopsticks to eat as much food?
  But this does explain why people can't get why assault weapons bans wouldn't solve gun violence. >
  
  
  could 
  
  "Could" is not the same as "will". >
  
  Cool so spending money on a law that won’t be enforced and will soon be struck down, and would have had little effect on gun violence as is even if it stayed
  Meanwhile, the ATF allows automatic handguns to be openly bought, sold, and used by gangs to kill. And they just gloss over it because it’s easier to arrest people for having a barrel 1/4 inch too short on their rifle or something than actually cracking down against real gun violence >
  
  Only going to hurt law abiding citizens. It won’t slow gun violence in that state.  POINTLESS >
  
  Ban on paper. Won’t be enforced. >
  
  It won't be enforced. There's already numerous sheriffs departments and local police departments that are releasing written statements saying they won't enforce it. >
  
  By numerous, you mean practically the entire state, right? Over 70 counties now saying they won’t enforce the ban. The new law is unjust and unconstitutional. Those lawmakers need to be thrown into jail and put on trial for treason for violating our second amendment. >
  
  You gonna go shoot them? >
  
  It will be over turned as AR-15s are in common use also the law was very very poorly written and ended up banning a very wide variety of guns that are not “assault” weapons. >
  
  George Washington used his AR-15 to defeat the British and someday so will you. >
  
  He used everything that he technologically could at the time. >
  
  This ban will have very little effect on violent crime because almost all violent crimes with firearms are carried out with handguns that you can conceal in a waistband, a holster or a pocket. I also think it is immoral to go after peaceful people (which includes a 30% people of color community) who have these types of weapons by sending armed law enforcement after them, with these types of weapons. >
  
  I recall reading a stat that the majority of gun crimes committed in Illinois are committed with handguns purchased from Indiana. Don't have it at hand so it could be malarkey.