While there hasn't been any real shift in the Illinois Legislature in about 15 forevers, the truth is that when they return to session early next year--and by that I mean this weekend--it'll still technically be a lame duck session.
There will be some new faces coming into office a bit later, and some of the outgoing faces might well hope to push through a few things on their way out the door, but there isn't really any rush to get things passed before control of the legislature changes hands.
That's not stopping lawmakers in the state from potentially infringing on gun rights even further than they already have.
With Illinois legislators scheduled back to the capitol Saturday, Jan. 4, some are watching what the lame duck session could mean for gun control laws.
During the previous lame duck session in early January 2023, legislators approved the ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines. That measure continues to be challenged in the courts.
Before adjourning the fall veto session last month, state Rep. Daniel Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, said legislators should approve an expansion of the state’s red flag law.
“That will clarify and strengthen the law to require a firearm to be removed when a domestic violence survivor is granted the firearm remedy in an order of protection,” Didech said. “I understand that this is a complex issue, but the time to get this done is now.”
Current law already requires subjects of an order of protection to turn over their firearms. The proposed measure would require police to go and take possession of firearms in such instances.
Illinois State Rifle Association’s Ed Sullivan said this is a “straight confiscation” proposal.
Sure it is, but in lawmakers' minds, that's a feature, not a bug.
What gets me is why the rush? Why do this in the lame duck session, when it feels especially sketchy when there's not much difference in what the new legislature will look like?
There's no reason to push this through now except that they don't want to waste time on debate, which is never a good look.
While the idea of actively disarming people who have been temporarily stripped of their rights isn't the most controversial idea out there--they can't legally have the guns anyway, as many people see it--I can't help but wonder what else is contained in the bill where they'd need to rush it through, and yeah, they'll have to rush it through since the new session kicks off on January 8th.
Are they hiding something and thus the push? Or is it that they simply don't care?
Either way, this is a big problem and the shady nature of this is enough reason in and of itself to oppose the measure, even if you might otherwise support it. I sincerely believe there's something hiding in the bill that they don't want people to notice or discuss, so if they can push it through in the next couple of days, it'll be too late for anyone to do anything.
The only thing harder than passing a law in the first place is repealing one through legislation.
That means the courts would have to handle that, and since that will take years to actually do anything, that's a crisis for another day, at least in lawmakers' minds.
