Illinois advances ban on semi-automatic weapons, “turn in your guns to the state police and avoid prosecution”

Illinois Senate Democrats advanced legislation late Wednesday to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups.

Amid the developments, the Illinois State Rifle Association issued an “urgent alert” to its members warning them that Democratic legislators were trying to push through last-minute anti-gun legislation.

“There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering,” the group stated in its alert. “You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the state police and avoid prosecution.”

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • camsaure

    When will the NRA figure out what damocrats really stand for. Does anyone think Hidey Ho would protect your 2nd ammendment rights if she could get away with it?

  • Neiman

    This is what these Communists is Illinois have done in the past. They know this is unconstitutional, so they will get sued, they will lose at SCOTUS, they will slightly rewrite the law, more suits, more losses, many years to appeal, meanwhile all these things have the force of law and the are violating the Constitution and the sheeple will do nothing.

  • sbark

    Wow I’ll bet the Bloods, Crips and other Dem’cat Gang-bangers are lining up at the state capitol to turn in their AR’s and SK’s………..
    Maybe Rahm should get into the chicago ghettos and go door to door as a gun grabber, and go with Al Sharpton—those meth’d up gangbangers will fall in line then.
    Dem’cats——act with emotions, forget about long term effects—or worse yet–know exactly what the long term effects actually are.

  • Bat One

    In an editorial yesterday titled,“500 Murders In Chicago Show Gun Bans Don’t Work” (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010213-639108-500-murders-rahm-emanuel-chicago-gun-ban.htm) Investors Business Daily said the following:

    The problem is that Emanuel’s ban, in place from 1994 to 2004, had no measurable effect on crime.

    Statistics compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings and victims from 1976 to 2010 has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

    Some 2,956 people have been killed in 646 mass shootings over this 35-year period, with a mass shooting defined by the FBI as one in which four or more people (not including the shooter) are killed in a single incident and typically in a single location. FBI homicide data show no discernible trend in the number of mass shootings or victims during that time.

    Confronted with clear evidence that bans on so-called “assault weapons” or bans illicit substances such as cocaine or heroin, have NEVER been shown to be effective, the anti-gun leftists will undoubtedly try to reinforce their argument by citing their good intentions (“… its for the children.”), hurling epithets at those who cite the Second Amendment and the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding individual gun rights, or, failing that, blaming Bush.

  • JW-American

    Have we any proof that the latest doped up piece of trash even used his AR in that school? I could swear they found it in the trunk of his car. But that has never been brought up since the very first report.

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    Whenever this issue is resurrected, I usually try to explain the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in this manner.

    Some people find the construction of the amendment difficult to understand. So, try reading the last bit, “the right of the people…” bit first. Now that pretty clearly lays out what the founding fathers want to happen and I don’t see anything that I could misinterpret as including “reasonable regulation”. (N.B. Salami-slicers love this conclusion the most.)

    The first part of the amendment is the founding fathers’ justification (“raison d’etre” pour Senator Kerry). It addresses the “enemies, foreign or domestic” issue as these are the primary dangers to our democratic republic, invasion by foreign enemies or a government that becomes tyrannical.
    It doesn’t address crime or self-protection from it; and it doesn’t address hunting either, although I’m quite sure the founding fathers had some understanding of both.

    The Constitution is what “the people” authorizes our government to do and prohibits it from doing. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights for a reason. In the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, it is the ultimate “checker” and “balancer”.

Top