featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:54 am

highdesert wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:15 am

Yes every right has some limitations and it's the limitations that are in contention.

And SCOTUS has largely defined what hardware limitations are unconstitutional. AWBs and magazine bans are unconstitutional under Heller's in common use for lawful purposes and Miller's useful for militia service.

But they haven't defined what those terms actually mean or how they are measured. It's the old "You know it when you see it" meaningless limitations. The result is as we see, local laws passed that then get tested and we end up with contradictory determinations.

AbE: For example less than 10% of the firearms I own are capable of holding more then ten rounds. And I also have ten round magazines for all but one of those.

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 11:30 am

featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:54 am

highdesert wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:15 am

Yes every right has some limitations and it's the limitations that are in contention.

And SCOTUS has largely defined what hardware limitations are unconstitutional. AWBs and magazine bans are unconstitutional under Heller's in common use for lawful purposes and Miller's useful for militia service.

But they haven't defined what those terms actually mean or how they are measured. It's the old "You know it when you see it" meaningless limitations. The result is as we see, local laws passed that then get tested and we end up with contradictory determinations.

AbE: For example less than 10% of the firearms I own are capable of holding more then ten rounds. And I also have ten round magazines for all but one of those.

They have defined lawful purposes as keep and bear (and further clarified with self defense, hunting and sporting). They have defined common use in the low 100s of thousands. It is a frivolous argument to claim "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines are not in common use for lawful purposes. They are more common than a Toyota Camry or Ford F150. It is a frivolous argument they must be used (as in shot) in self defense to qualify. That would mean no arms are protected unless one can show such, clearly not the point of the 2A or the SCOTUS opinions.

If one must make such frivolous arguments to defend the "constitutionality" of ones laws, it is likely one is barking up the wrong tree and just fucking wrong. A right should not be subject to limitations based on the frivolous.

I do not take issue with limitations on rights. I take issue with frivolous limitations on rights. Need a limitation? Show your work and make a valid argument.

featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 12:11 pm

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 11:30 am

featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:54 am

highdesert wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:15 am

Yes every right has some limitations and it's the limitations that are in contention.

And SCOTUS has largely defined what hardware limitations are unconstitutional. AWBs and magazine bans are unconstitutional under Heller's in common use for lawful purposes and Miller's useful for militia service.

But they haven't defined what those terms actually mean or how they are measured. It's the old "You know it when you see it" meaningless limitations. The result is as we see, local laws passed that then get tested and we end up with contradictory determinations.

AbE: For example less than 10% of the firearms I own are capable of holding more then ten rounds. And I also have ten round magazines for all but one of those.

They have defined lawful purposes as keep and bear (and further clarified with self defense, hunting and sporting). They have defined common use in the low 100s of thousands. It is a frivolous argument to claim "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines are not in common use for lawful purposes. They are more common than a Toyota Camry or Ford F150. It is a frivolous argument they must be used (as in shot) in self defense to qualify. That would mean no arms are protected unless one can show such, clearly not the point of the 2A or the SCOTUS opinions.

If one must make such frivolous arguments to defend the "constitutionality" of ones laws, it is likely one is barking up the wrong tree and just fucking wrong. A right should not be subject to limitations based on the frivolous.

I do not take issue with limitations on rights. I take issue with frivolous limitations on rights. Need a limitation? Show your work and make a valid argument.

But the reality is not what you or I think, it is what the courts decide.

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 12:39 pm

featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 12:11 pm

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 11:30 am

featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:54 am

And SCOTUS has largely defined what hardware limitations are unconstitutional. AWBs and magazine bans are unconstitutional under Heller's in common use for lawful purposes and Miller's useful for militia service.

But they haven't defined what those terms actually mean or how they are measured. It's the old "You know it when you see it" meaningless limitations. The result is as we see, local laws passed that then get tested and we end up with contradictory determinations.

AbE: For example less than 10% of the firearms I own are capable of holding more then ten rounds. And I also have ten round magazines for all but one of those.

They have defined lawful purposes as keep and bear (and further clarified with self defense, hunting and sporting). They have defined common use in the low 100s of thousands. It is a frivolous argument to claim "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines are not in common use for lawful purposes. They are more common than a Toyota Camry or Ford F150. It is a frivolous argument they must be used (as in shot) in self defense to qualify. That would mean no arms are protected unless one can show such, clearly not the point of the 2A or the SCOTUS opinions.

If one must make such frivolous arguments to defend the "constitutionality" of ones laws, it is likely one is barking up the wrong tree and just fucking wrong. A right should not be subject to limitations based on the frivolous.

I do not take issue with limitations on rights. I take issue with frivolous limitations on rights. Need a limitation? Show your work and make a valid argument.

But the reality is not what you or I think, it is what the courts decide.

This is true, of course. If we wish to be a country of laws and rights, the courts had best start adhering to such. I find it dangerous to our country's future when courts disregard rulings they don't agree with. It's not too far removed from that place that the people stop giving a shit about the laws. If politicians and judges don't, why should the rest of us? I'm not super interested in anarchy.

featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 1:31 pm

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 12:39 pm

featureless wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 12:11 pm

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 11:30 am

But they haven't defined what those terms actually mean or how they are measured. It's the old "You know it when you see it" meaningless limitations. The result is as we see, local laws passed that then get tested and we end up with contradictory determinations.

AbE: For example less than 10% of the firearms I own are capable of holding more then ten rounds. And I also have ten round magazines for all but one of those.

They have defined lawful purposes as keep and bear (and further clarified with self defense, hunting and sporting). They have defined common use in the low 100s of thousands. It is a frivolous argument to claim "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines are not in common use for lawful purposes. They are more common than a Toyota Camry or Ford F150. It is a frivolous argument they must be used (as in shot) in self defense to qualify. That would mean no arms are protected unless one can show such, clearly not the point of the 2A or the SCOTUS opinions.

If one must make such frivolous arguments to defend the "constitutionality" of ones laws, it is likely one is barking up the wrong tree and just fucking wrong. A right should not be subject to limitations based on the frivolous.

I do not take issue with limitations on rights. I take issue with frivolous limitations on rights. Need a limitation? Show your work and make a valid argument.

But the reality is not what you or I think, it is what the courts decide.

This is true, of course. If we wish to be a country of laws and rights, the courts had best start adhering to such. I find it dangerous to our country's future when courts disregard rulings they don't agree with. It's not too far removed from that place that the people stop giving a shit about the laws. If politicians and judges don't, why should the rest of us? I'm not super interested in anarchy.

In the US we have long lived in that reality. Just take a drive. The average person in the US seems to believe in the Rule of Law as long as it doesn't prevent them doing what they want or cause them inconvenience.

That really isn’t a reason to make it worse.

sikacz wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 5:47 pm That really isn’t a reason to make it worse.

But we live in a world of reality rather than wishful thinking.

The evidence shows that Americans claim to believe in a rule of law but show that they obey the law only when it doesn't interfere with their desires.

The evidence shows that the courts issue mutually exclusive and contradictory rulings.

The evidence show that states disregard federal laws and rulings with impunity.

Reality can be a bitch but it is still reality. Does Texas have a new Attorney General to replace the one who lost just about every case?

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 6:03 pm

sikacz wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 5:47 pm That really isn’t a reason to make it worse.

But we live in a world of reality rather than wishful thinking.

The evidence shows that Americans claim to believe in a rule of law but show that they obey the law only when it doesn't interfere with their desires.

The evidence shows that the courts issue mutually exclusive and contradictory rulings.

The evidence show that states disregard federal laws and rulings with impunity.

Reality can be a bitch but it is still reality. Does Texas have a new Attorney General to replace the one who lost just about every case?

Your position implies exactly what was posted earlier, allow states and courts to ignore rule and higher precedents. In the end there really is no need for any of us to comply with any law. That is the “reality” you are speaking about. If that is the case it doesn’t matter which party is in power or who is president. It doesn’t even matter if one votes or not because no law needs to be obeyed and all agreements are meaningless. It only matters who is standing last. That is what your position leads to, it’s your realism.

Ignoring laws and set precedents is not realism, it’s anarchy.

sikacz wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 6:31 pm

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 6:03 pm

sikacz wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 5:47 pm That really isn’t a reason to make it worse.

But we live in a world of reality rather than wishful thinking.

The evidence shows that Americans claim to believe in a rule of law but show that they obey the law only when it doesn't interfere with their desires.

The evidence shows that the courts issue mutually exclusive and contradictory rulings.

The evidence show that states disregard federal laws and rulings with impunity.

Reality can be a bitch but it is still reality. Does Texas have a new Attorney General to replace the one who lost just about every case?

Your position implies exactly what was posted earlier, allow states and courts to ignore rule and higher precedents. In the end there really is no need for any of us to comply with any law. That is the “reality” you are speaking about. If that is the case it doesn’t matter which party is in power or who is president. It doesn’t even matter if one votes or not because no law needs to be obeyed and all agreements are meaningless. It only matters who is standing last. That is what your position leads to, it’s your realism.

Ignoring laws and set precedents is not realism, it’s anarchy.

Learn to read.

It is not my position but rather a summary of the available evidence.

Look at the subject of this thread. We have two different courts each issuing a mutually exclusive and contradictory finding.

We exist in a reality were Justices are selected and enabled on a political basis at all levels.

Look at the reality on the highways. Does everyone obey speed limits, refrain from talking or texting while driving, obeying stop signs, traffic lights, signal lane changing, stay in one's lane?

Look at people walking. Are they paying attention to conditions or looking at their iPhone or isolated from their surroundings listening to music or pod casts wearing ear buds?

We do live in a society that believes in the Rule of Law as long as the Law does not cause personal inconvenience or prevent someone from doing what they want to do.

Look at our Governors latest decree authorizing State and local police to arrest immigrants.

It's not my position, it is reality and so far there does not seem to be any model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that has any realistic chance of changing the current reality.

sig230 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:51 am

sikacz wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 6:31 pm

sig230 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 6:03 pm

sikacz wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 5:47 pm That really isn’t a reason to make it worse.

But we live in a world of reality rather than wishful thinking.

The evidence shows that Americans claim to believe in a rule of law but show that they obey the law only when it doesn't interfere with their desires.

The evidence shows that the courts issue mutually exclusive and contradictory rulings.

The evidence show that states disregard federal laws and rulings with impunity.

Reality can be a bitch but it is still reality. Does Texas have a new Attorney General to replace the one who lost just about every case?

Your position implies exactly what was posted earlier, allow states and courts to ignore rule and higher precedents. In the end there really is no need for any of us to comply with any law. That is the “reality” you are speaking about. If that is the case it doesn’t matter which party is in power or who is president. It doesn’t even matter if one votes or not because no law needs to be obeyed and all agreements are meaningless. It only matters who is standing last. That is what your position leads to, it’s your realism.

Ignoring laws and set precedents is not realism, it’s anarchy.

Learn to read.

It is not my position but rather a summary of the available evidence.

Look at the subject of this thread. We have two different courts each issuing a mutually exclusive and contradictory finding.

We exist in a reality were Justices are selected and enabled on a political basis at all levels.

Look at the reality on the highways. Does everyone obey speed limits, refrain from talking or texting while driving, obeying stop signs, traffic lights, signal lane changing, stay in one's lane?

Look at people walking. Are they paying attention to conditions or looking at their iPhone or isolated from their surroundings listening to music or pod casts wearing ear buds?

We do live in a society that believes in the Rule of Law as long as the Law does not cause personal inconvenience or prevent someone from doing what they want to do.

Look at our Governors latest decree authorizing State and local police to arrest immigrants.

It's not my position, it is reality and so far there does not seem to be any model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that has any realistic chance of changing the current reality.

Perhaps some need to learn how to right. No worries, I’ll just ignore your comments from now on.

To me, the most devastating part of PICA in Illinois is the registration of existing "assault weapons" if we wish to keep them. This is a blatant disassembly of the 5A - I have the Right to not give them information that might help them convict me. Yet the "Disclosure Affidavit" to keep me legal requires me to agree that I relinquish my right willingly. They don't know (supposedly) who has what so they are requiring those of US who possessed firearms now designated as "Assault Weapons" to tell them what we have thus admitting we are in possession of something that is now deemed illegal even though it has been legal for me to possess for decades.

And if I don't willingly relinquish my right to not incriminate myself, I can be changed with a felony and jailed/fined/lose my FOID card and my ability to possess *any* firearms in the State of Illinois.

PICA is an erosion of 2A, 5A, and 14A Rights - it's as if the Constitution means nothing to these people. They blatantly ignore SCOTUS precedent as there are no consequences for doing so. The State Supreme Court and the justices who ruled/enforced PICA have both received *millions* of $ in campaign funds from the Governors personal cash. He literally bought/bribed 2 of the 3 justices who upheld this travesty and refused to recuse themselves. This is Tyranny.

Coming to a Federal Assault Weapons ban soon.

VooDoo

VodoundaVinci wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:14 pm To me, the most devastating part of PICA in Illinois is the registration of existing "assault weapons" if we wish to keep them. This is a blatant disassembly of the 5A - I have the Right to not give them information that might help them convict me. Yet the "Disclosure Affidavit" to keep me legal requires me to agree that I relinquish my right willingly. They don't know (supposedly) who has what so they are requiring those of US who possessed firearms now designated as "Assault Weapons" to tell them what we have thus admitting we are in possession of something that is now deemed illegal even though it has been legal for me to possess for decades.

And if I don't willingly relinquish my right to not incriminate myself, I can be changed with a felony and jailed/fined/lose my FOID card and my ability to possess *any* firearms in the State of Illinois.

PICA is an erosion of 2A, 5A, and 14A Rights - it's as if the Constitution means nothing to these people. They blatantly ignore SCOTUS precedent as there are no consequences for doing so. The State Supreme Court and the justices who ruled/enforced PICA have both received *millions* of $ in campaign funds from the Governors personal cash. He literally bought/bribed 2 of the 3 justices who upheld this travesty and refused to recuse themselves. This is Tyranny.

Coming to a Federal Assault Weapons ban soon.

VooDoo

I totally agree. Dems are moving toward police state authoritarian, at least if you're a gun owner (what group will be targeted next, one wonders). It's bullshit.

featureless wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:37 pm

VodoundaVinci wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:14 pm To me, the most devastating part of PICA in Illinois is the registration of existing "assault weapons" if we wish to keep them. This is a blatant disassembly of the 5A - I have the Right to not give them information that might help them convict me. Yet the "Disclosure Affidavit" to keep me legal requires me to agree that I relinquish my right willingly. They don't know (supposedly) who has what so they are requiring those of US who possessed firearms now designated as "Assault Weapons" to tell them what we have thus admitting we are in possession of something that is now deemed illegal even though it has been legal for me to possess for decades.

And if I don't willingly relinquish my right to not incriminate myself, I can be changed with a felony and jailed/fined/lose my FOID card and my ability to possess *any* firearms in the State of Illinois.

PICA is an erosion of 2A, 5A, and 14A Rights - it's as if the Constitution means nothing to these people. They blatantly ignore SCOTUS precedent as there are no consequences for doing so. The State Supreme Court and the justices who ruled/enforced PICA have both received *millions* of $ in campaign funds from the Governors personal cash. He literally bought/bribed 2 of the 3 justices who upheld this travesty and refused to recuse themselves. This is Tyranny.

Coming to a Federal Assault Weapons ban soon.

VooDoo

I totally agree. Dems are moving toward police state authoritarian, at least if you're a gun owner (what group will be targeted next, one wonders). It's bullshit.

Second the agreement.

I need to add as well that there has never been any official notification from the ISP (who administers the State FOID card) of the requirements or definitions of what is now illegal/banned. I literally have friends who I shoot with and asked them about their ideas on PICA and they have *no Clue* of what is going on. The LGS tells me they have a customer a day who walks in to buy magazines, stock upgrades, grip upgrades etc. and is blindsided that they are supposed to be registered in 9 days now or possibly face felony charges for possession of an unregistered "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Weapon Attachment".

The rules and definitions of these items has never been finalized by the States Joint Committee on Administrative Rules- We are just supposed to understand the ISP's ever changing emergency rules. It's as if The State has deliberately attempted to create as many felons as possible out of what was once law abiding firearm owners. At this time, only about 0.34% of FOID card holders in the State have registered roughly 16000 "Assault Weapons" even though statistically we know there are about 500,000 AR platform firearm's alone in Illinois.

This is Tyranny.

VooDoo

VodoundaVinci wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:39 pm I need to add as well that there has never been any official notification from the ISP (who administers the State FOID card) of the requirements or definitions of what is now illegal/banned. I literally have friends who I shoot with and asked them about their ideas on PICA and they have *no Clue* of what is going on. The LGS tells me they have a customer a day who walks in to buy magazines, stock upgrades, grip upgrades etc. and is blindsided that they are supposed to be registered in 9 days now or possibly face felony charges for possession of an unregistered "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Weapon Attachment".

The rules and definitions of these items has never been finalized by the States Joint Committee on Administrative Rules- We are just supposed to understand the ISP's ever changing emergency rules. It's as if The State has deliberately attempted to create as many felons as possible out of what was once law abiding firearm owners. At this time, only about 0.34% of FOID card holders in the State have registered roughly 16000 "Assault Weapons" even though statistically we know there are about 500,000 AR platform firearm's alone in Illinois.

This is Tyranny.

VooDoo

California does it the same way. A half dozen or more new gun laws every year. No effort to notify, you're just supposed to keep up. Agreed, the point is to make as many people as possible prohibited persons, as well as kill gun culture by making it so complicated that people just give up. That's how rights are supposed to work, right?

4 days left after today to get your banned items Registered in Illinois. The registration stats nearly doubled since Christmas Presently 15,164 people have completed disclosure affidavits meaning that of the 2,415,481 FOID card holders in Illinois 0,63% have complied with Registration. But even if the number of registrations doubles and then doubles again in the next 4 days, it means that 2.5% have complied. We'll see what happens.

VooDoo

sig230 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:51 am Learn to read.

It is not my position but rather a summary of the available evidence.

Look at the subject of this thread. We have two different courts each issuing a mutually exclusive and contradictory finding.

We exist in a reality were Justices are selected and enabled on a political basis at all levels.

Look at the reality on the highways. Does everyone obey speed limits, refrain from talking or texting while driving, obeying stop signs, traffic lights, signal lane changing, stay in one's lane?

Look at people walking. Are they paying attention to conditions or looking at their iPhone or isolated from their surroundings listening to music or pod casts wearing ear buds?

We do live in a society that believes in the Rule of Law as long as the Law does not cause personal inconvenience or prevent someone from doing what they want to do.

Look at our Governors latest decree authorizing State and local police to arrest immigrants.

It's not my position, it is reality and so far there does not seem to be any model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that has any realistic chance of changing the current reality.

And that's the very "reasoning" that was used to justify things like Negro slavery and later Jim Crow in this country. To quote the Hall & Oates, "I can't go for that."

CowboyT wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 2:58 pm

sig230 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:51 am Learn to read.

It is not my position but rather a summary of the available evidence.

Look at the subject of this thread. We have two different courts each issuing a mutually exclusive and contradictory finding.

We exist in a reality were Justices are selected and enabled on a political basis at all levels.

Look at the reality on the highways. Does everyone obey speed limits, refrain from talking or texting while driving, obeying stop signs, traffic lights, signal lane changing, stay in one's lane?

Look at people walking. Are they paying attention to conditions or looking at their iPhone or isolated from their surroundings listening to music or pod casts wearing ear buds?

We do live in a society that believes in the Rule of Law as long as the Law does not cause personal inconvenience or prevent someone from doing what they want to do.

Look at our Governors latest decree authorizing State and local police to arrest immigrants.

It's not my position, it is reality and so far there does not seem to be any model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that has any realistic chance of changing the current reality.

And that's the very "reasoning" that was used to justify things like Negro slavery and later Jim Crow in this country. To quote the Hall & Oates, "I can't go for that."

Reality really is a bitch.

And we will very likely repeat it.

Again, so far I can see no model, method, mechanism, process or procedure likely have any chance to change the reality.

America was founded out of a disregard for Rule of Law by a distant and unaccountable authority.

Okay, for the Rule of Laws that inconvenienced wealthy and powerful white men who merely wanted to be left alone to commit genocide, practice slavery, and exploit the land and poor for profit.

Point is, our culture values neither submission nor compliance. This presents a number of challenges. Democracy is supposed to lend legitimacy to the law as the will of the majority of the governed, but we don't strictly have one. We have a republic - an oligarchy by any other name. Distant but supposedly accountable authorities. Of course, gerrymandering and partisanship mitigate that accountability.

Constitutional Rights are supposed to provide a backstop for liberty, protecting those democracy does not. Adjudication of those rights subjects them to the threat of salami-slicing and gradual erosion by the adjudicators - typically distant and unaccountable authorities.

If I remember, Miller was decided the way it was in part because Miller was murdered before the appeal was heard and his lawyer didn't show up in court. On the other hand, the NFA appears to have been successful in balancing the ability to keep and bear arms with the regulatory desire to limit the criminal use of those arms. Suppressors, SBRs, sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons are rarely used in violent crime, yet many Americans lawfully possess them. Is it a royal PITA to go through the NFA process? Heck yeah. Does it put those weapons out of reach for many? Undoubtedly. Would we appreciate amendments to the law? You betcha. But it makes the case that a strict regulatory framework does not necessarily make for an absolute ban, and can contribute to minimizing the use of those arms in violent crime.

Try to NFA gas-operated semi-autos and you'll find a whole new world of noncompliance though.

VodoundaVinci wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:14 pm To me, the most devastating part of PICA in Illinois is the registration of existing "assault weapons" if we wish to keep them. This is a blatant disassembly of the 5A - I have the Right to not give them information that might help them convict me. Yet the "Disclosure Affidavit" to keep me legal requires me to agree that I relinquish my right willingly. They don't know (supposedly) who has what so they are requiring those of US who possessed firearms now designated as "Assault Weapons" to tell them what we have thus admitting we are in possession of something that is now deemed illegal even though it has been legal for me to possess for decades.

And if I don't willingly relinquish my right to not incriminate myself, I can be changed with a felony and jailed/fined/lose my FOID card and my ability to possess *any* firearms in the State of Illinois.

This is the most powerful argument I have ever heard against registration.

I can wrap my head around there being a compelling government interest in registering the arms available for the militia in case of need, but we all know that isn't the reason registration is promoted. I can imagine a legal framework that excludes registration as inadmissible evidence in court, but that wouldn't prevent its use in investigations. Plenty of that used for "parallel construction" these days as is.

To my knowledge and study of history, Registration = Confiscation. I fully expect a similar act comparable to Illinois PICA Act to be shoved at US Federally in coming years especially if Biden is re elected. The sundown of firearm possession in Amerika is coming IMO.

VooDoo

NFA involves registration. There hasn't been a lot of confiscation involved. But historically, other countries? You betcha.

Joe can't ban guns on his own. The Senate's guaranteed to go GOP this year, and the Supreme Court has been decidedly pro-gun the past few decisions. We haven't seen the feds ignore their decisions on abortion, and that's way more popular than gun control. I'm admittedly sanguine about this.

Today is the last day to register "Assault Weapons" or Attachments in Illinois. Tonight at midnight anyone in possession of such things is guilty of a misdemeanor on the first offense and a class 3 felony on any subsequent convictions. Something like 0.6% of FOID card holders have registered 33,065 firearms. Apparently, in private, Governor Pritzker is livid. There is retaliation being planned and apparently they are drafting legislation that will go into effect upon the first mass shooting in 2024, no matter if it is in Illinois, that will force people in possession of grandfathered Assault Weapons to turn them in within 60 days. Failure to do so will result in the ISP coming to your home to collect them and with a warrant for your arrest on felony charges.

I'm living in a Police State. Luckily all my items are stored out of State and I am off the hook for filing disclosure affidavits which detail makes, models, and serials of all offending weapons and asserts that I have waived my 5th Amendment rights to not convict myself willingly.

Happy New Year.

VooDoo

The U.S. Supreme Court has failed to take up the case of Illinois’ ban on the sale, possession or manufacture of semi-automatic weapons like the type used in a mass shooting at a 2023July Fourthparade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park.

--snrp--

Libraries that indiscriminately ban books will not be eligible for state funds. They must adopt the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights stating “materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.”

The library association reported that attempts to censor books reached a 20-year high in 2022, especially those with LGBTQ+ themes and those written by people of color.

https://apnews.com/article/illinois-new ... 4e22c39b47

I find that an unacceptable trade off. Neither books nor weapons should be banned. Rather, people should be educated and made secure in food, housing, public safety, recreation, health care, and free and fair elections. I say it's best to remove reasons people want to shoot each other. Cheating spouses will likely remain a thing, however. Don't do it.
CDFingers

Agree, CDFingers.