I’m always slightly amazed that of all the gun control states out there, Illinois doesn’t have an assault weapon ban. Despite having some tough anti-gun regulations on the books, you can still buy an AR-15 there.
Well, you can for now.
As it stands, state lawmakers are considering a measure that will put an end to that practice. Yet it seems they’re considering a few amendments that would slightly roll back some of the proposed restrictions.
Would it be enough? Well, probably not.
It’s possible there could be changes to a proposed gun ban at the Illinois statehouse. Whether they advance is unclear.
House Bill 5855 would ban future sales of certain semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols and require a registry of guns already legally purchased. The measure would also ban the possession of magazines over 10 rounds and prohibit anyone under 21 from getting a required Firearm Owner ID card, unless they’re in the military.
Gun-rights advocate Todd Vandermyde says they won’t negotiate despite hearing there could be amendments.
“They’re looking to modify the magazine limits,” Vandermyde told WMAY Wednesday. “We hear the number they’re kicking around now is 12. Not a big jump from 10 to 12. And we think that they’re having some discussions about the age limit stuff. I think reality is setting in with some people that they have constitutional issues with what they’re proposing.”
Honestly, the fact that these are the amendments they’re proposing is downright insulting.
It’s proof that these people have never really listened to the arguments countering their gun control narrative. Not really.
If they had, they wouldn’t think that a two-round addition to the limit would appease literally anyone. While anti-gunners aren’t likely to get upset over a two-round increase, it’s not making them happy. Additionally, gun rights advocates aren’t going to be excited over two rounds.
Not even in Illinois.
I think Vandermyde is right that some lawmakers may be questioning the constitutionality of the bill and trying to create the most restrictive measure they can while still sort of complying with what’s laid out in Bruen, but I also think they’re not really doing that.
After all, you’re not going to find an 18th-century law on round capacity.
Now, killing the age limit provisions might be smart–I find it very difficult to see how completely cutting off legal adults from a constitutional right is, well, constitutional–but they miss that the overall problem is that we’re still talking about a gun ban.
Those are never going to sit well with pro-gun voices, nor should they. They’re blatantly unconstitutional, especially following the Bruen decision.
Moreover, they’re the state government here telling gun owners that not only will they be prohibited from buying the most popular model of firearm in the nation, but they that have to register those weapons with the government. We know that registration leads to confiscation. We’ve said as much time and time again.
And yet, as I noted before, they haven’t listened. They don’t understand that the big asks from them, the ones they won’t budge on, are precisely the problem. Yet because they don’t get that, they offer amendments with mind-numbingly stupid and minor revisions that offer absolutely nothing of substance.