Residents Fear Their Guns May Be Taken Away (IL)

illinoishomepage.net ^ | Aug 23, 2007 | Matt Franzblau

[neverdem]

(URBANA)---Some people in Champaign County are afraid their guns will be taken away. That's why pro-gun advocates are trying to get a resolution passed that would promise the 2nd amendment would be protected. People say they feel Chicago and Cook County is trying to run the rest of the state of Illinois. That's because Cook County put a gun ban into effect this past February on long guns, like rifles and shotguns. The ban says people can't even have the guns in their own home. Some people in Champaign County feel that's unconstitutional, and they went to the county board meeting Thursday night to speak up before the ban moves south.

"I don't understand how one county can do that to their citizens." Says Guns Rights Advocate Valinda Rowe "Then turn around and try to do it to the rest of the state. We've got to take a stand."

They did try and take that stand as around a dozen people spoke at the meeting, urging county board members to pass a resolution, saying Cook County's ban is unconstitutional. They'll have to wait though, because the board tabled the issue.

29 counties in the state have already passed an anti-gun ban resolution, people at the meeting hope Champaign County becomes the 30th to do so.

[Western Phil]

” Some people in Champaign County feel that’s unconstitutional, and they went to the county board meeting Thursday night to speak up before the ban moves south.”

Good luck with the county board. It is controled by the Champaign/Urbana city democrats

[VR-21]

"Does the 2nd amendment mean anything anymore?"

One could ask that about the document it ammended.

[VR-21]

Freewheeling Frank sez; “Conservatism will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no conservatism.”

[William Tell]

12Gauge687 said: "... but I had to sell my carbines. "

I've stored mine out-of-state since Kalifornia passed their brain-dead "assault weapons" laws. I've since been able to replace them with virtually identical arms (except one).

Does the Chicago ban include the Ruger Mini-14?

[robertpaulsen]

"This tells me that the Government of the State of Illinois granted themselves the power to be a "police state" and deny the population their inalienable rights. How do you read it?"

Basically the same way. But the Government of the State of Illinois did not grant themselves the power -- the citizens of the state did that. Though I disagree with the wording, I'll defend the right of the citizens of each state to live the way they wish to live and codify that in their state constitution.

Oh, there's a big difference between the police power of a state and a police state.

[daku]

Thanks for the info

[wjcsux]

I really don’t know.

[robertpaulsen]

"LOL. I know you're incoherent on the drug war threads, but on the gun threads too?"

"Incoherent" is the wrong word. "Incredibly astute" is much better.

Sit at my feet and learn, grasshopper.

[El Gato]

It was constitutional when done by Congress under the second amendment

And when did the Supreme Court rule that the federal AWB on militia style weapons was constitutional?

[robertpaulsen]

"I assume then that you would have no problem with a state, say California, deciding that medicinal marijuana is legal and the Feds should have nothing to say about it."

Correct. Unless a federal law to the contrary exists, which it does. When that happens, federal law trumps state law (according to Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S.Constitution).

The State of Illinois has home rule, meaning that a city like Chicago may pass laws affecting only their jurisdiction, as long as those laws don't violate the state constitution (or, of course, the U.S. Constitution or federal law).

[BBell]

I know what you mean. I live in Southeastern LA. and it took an act of God to help metastasize our cancer to other Citys.

[El Gato]

Sec. 22. Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To that must added this, bearing on the extent of "the police power"

The Sixth Illinois Constitutional Conventions Committee on Bill of Rights in their official commentary interpreted this provision in 1970 as a guarantee that “a citizen has the right to possess and make reasonable use of arms that law abiding citizens commonly employ for purposes of recreation or protection of person and property.” Any use of the police power, the Committee said, that “attempted to ban all possession or use of such arms, or laws that subjected possession or use of such arms to regulations or taxes so onerous that all possession or use was effectively banned, would be invalid.”

But of course Hizzonnar da Mayor, and his machine don't care about no steenking Constitution, state or Federal. They care about power.

[robertpaulsen]

"And when did the Supreme Court rule that the federal AWB on militia style weapons was constitutional?"

They didn't. They let stand lower court rulings in the Navegar and Olympic Arms cases against the federal AWB.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is not necessary to make a law constitutional.

[El Gato]

anything with more than a 5-round magazine or a pistol grip is not allowed.

And what is the defintion of a "pistol grip". The New and Improved Assault Weapons ban now lurking in Congress defines it this way:

Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

Your hunting shotguns and rifles may be in more danger than you think.

That sure looks like a pistol grip to me. (Course it's not a semi-automatice, which is a criteria in the NIPAWB, and apparentlly this law as well, but they'll get around to your double, probably right after they ban slide actions with "pistol grips".

[robertpaulsen]

"Does the Chicago ban include the Ruger Mini-14?"

No, but 10 round magazine maximum.

The Ruger Mini-14 wasn't on the federal AWB, was it?

[EEDUDE]

“Correct. Unless a federal law to the contrary exists, which it does. When that happens, federal law trumps state law (according to Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S.Constitution).”

You seem to make a distinction between federal law and rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Can you please explain why you see that difference?

[oyez]

The Volstead Act proved how well prohibition laws work.

[El Gato]

They let stand lower court rulings in the Navegar and Olympic Arms cases against the federal AWB.

And they have said numerous times that failure to take up a case means absolutely nothing regarding the issue concerned with the case(s). In any event no second amendment violation argument was made in either the Navegar cases or the Olympic Arms case.

< A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is not necessary to make a law constitutional.

True, but calling a pig a goat doesn't make it one either, no matter who is doing the calling. A law either is or is not a violation of the Constitution.

[vetvetdoug]

Sorry Cook County, you guys voted for these excremental law makers and therefore the law, now deal with it. If you don’t like it, move away. The workers are more likely Republican and the taxers and receivers Democrat. Once the Republicans and 2nd Amendment folks move away, the city will collapse in anarchy.

[El Gato]

No, but 10 round magazine maximum. The Ruger Mini-14 wasn't on the federal AWB, was it?

Generally its the "abilty to accept" rather than the actual size magazine installed. The Mini-14 was not listed by name on the original federal AWB, but it would be covered *by name* as well as by "features" in the version now in the House of Representatives.

You are, as usual, wrong. The Mini-14 is specifically listed in the Chicago Ordinance 06-O-50

It would probably be banned by features as well, if one construes it to have a barrel shroud, which I'll bet the Chicago PD and prosecutor would do:

(a) “Assault weapon” means:

(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:

(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;

(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;



(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

(D) 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; or

(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

As you can see the heat shield, which Ruger calls the hand guard assembly on the top of the mini-14 is a shroud as defined by the law.

of course if your Mini-14 looks like this one

You're screwed blued and tatooed.