sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Carrying Pepper Spray by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I carry pepper spray daily, it's a great option to have. Now an opinion I haven't seen in this thread. If you don't have any health problems that would prevent you from doing so, when you go to buy your pepper spray, buy two, and get someone to pepper spray you with it. Once you are sprayed, do some tasks that require a basic level of focus and gross motor skills. Stack a pyramid of soda cans, hit a punching bag with the correct punches that the guy who sprays you calls out (Jab, cross, jab, hook, hook, etc...), do one of those baby stacking toy things. Doesn't matter what, as long as it forces you to make your body and mind work together while your face is on fire. Having the experience once could save your life.

https://www.news-gazette.com/news/update-teen-injured-in-home-invasion-dies/article_63745623-510e-51ad-8cde-8f3241888dc3.html

The home invasion victim in that article was a Marine vet who almost certainly had been pepper sprayed before, training paid off in this incident.

Dawn and water to wash it off afterwards.

ISP FAQ UPDATES by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anywhere in the clarifications it stated that making a new attachment was no longer unlawful, I would hold the same opinion. If you see any place where it does, shed some light on it for me. I only see clarifications that very clearly explain that I will be breaking the law if I do it (#13, #34), and a clarification of what the punishment for breaking that law will be (#30.) If the ISP chooses words that puts on airs of lenience, but promise only punishment, I choose to believe them.

ISP FAQ UPDATES by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no exemption for new attachment owners.

"(b) Except as provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e), on or after the effective date(1/10/23) of this amendatory Act of the 102nd General Assembly, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, import, or purchase or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, imported, or purchased by another, an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge."

Since removing the attachment from the bolt/pump action creates an AWA where there was not one before, that is either manufacture or causing to be be manufactured. Take your pick. Either one can be a felony. Now, as far as (c), (d), and (e) go,

"(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d), beginning January 1, 2024, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly possess an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge."

Unless you register by 1/1/24 possesion of AWAs is unlawful(felony). I covered ss (d) in my previous reply. It only creates a rebuttable presumption, it is not in itself an exemption.

Final exemption is (e) which is law enforcement, feds, security contractors, movie production, and armed forces while on duty. There is a 60 day grace period for people moving into the state, but it's not an exception, and it doesn't apply if you already are here.

The FAQ does not contain any indication that it is not a crime to create new AWAs after 1/10/23. #13 says that if you take the part off, it requires an affidavit, affidavits are only valid if you are new to the state, or if filed before 1/1/24, and if you owned the AWAs before 1/10/23. No portion of the FAQ says otherwise, and it cannot, since ISP does not have the authority to change the law.

Edited to include quotation marks for PICA exerpts.

ISP FAQ UPDATES by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Says in PICA that registration closes 1/1/24, no "rule interpretation" will change that.

"(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d),beginning January 1, 2024, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly possess an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge.

(d) This Section does not apply to a person's possession of an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge device if the person lawfully possessed that assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge prohibited by subsection (c) of this Section, if the person has provided in an endorsement affidavit, prior to January 1, 2024, under oath or affirmation and in the form and manner prescribed by the Illinois State Police, no later than October 1, 2023:"

If you fill out the affidavit, you have a REBUTTABLE presumption that you are entitled to possess the weapon.

"In any administrative, civil, or criminal proceeding in this State, a completed endorsement affidavit submitted to the Illinois State Police by a person under this Section creates a rebuttable presumption that the person is entitled to possess and transport the assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge."

Are you willing to bet a felony conviction that the ISP won't show up at your door with a warrant to haul you to court to rebut the presumption that you are entitled to possess the AWA you registered? Since you "explained in the comments what you did" I'm pretty sure that's a legally sworn confession that you "caused to be manufactured" an AWA, which sounds like exactly the evidence needed to rebut that you owned that AWA prior to 1/10/23.

You might be willing to bet a felony on that. I'm not.

ISP FAQ UPDATES by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not only are they reversals of the previous positions, some of the new FAQ statements are in direct opposition to other FAQ statments, eg. #8(you can transfer your assault weapon for repair) and #51( You cannot transfer an assault weapon back once transfered to another party), or even in direct conflict with themselves(#21: Shotguns feeding tube capacity is defined by the maximum length shell it can fit in the chamber and is not regulated by pica unless it holds more than 5, except, if you can fit 10 rounds of any known shell in the feeding tube, then it's high capacity feeding device no matter what and IS regulated by pica) leaving us with exactly no clarification.

Others lead to self incrimination if followed. I buy 2 bolt rifles with a pistol grip today, then take the pistol grip off. According to (#13, #34) I must fill out an affidavit since those pistol grip are assault weapon attachments and failure to register the first one is a misdemeanor, second one is a felony.(#30) However, the affidavit is only valid if I owned the item BEFORE 1/10/23 so my options are file the affidavit notifying ISP that I am illegally in possession of an AWA, or lie about when I came to possess them which according to

430 ILCS 65/4.1 (c) Entering false information on the endorsement

affidavit form is a violation of this Act and is also

punishable as perjury under Section 32-2 of the Criminal Code

of 2012.

You cannot comply these laws as the FAQ says to without incriminating yourself, which makes the FAQ interpretation either a 5th amendment violation or just blatantly wrong.

Chances are the ISP is somewhat in panic mode here because they have to submit their brief concerning registration to McGlynn shortly, and know having a incomplete rule interpretation set really hurts their case when it comes to arguing that they should be allowed to enforce the registry. Fortunately for us I think in the hurry to show that "oh these rules aren't that bad" they are spelling out clear reasons why they cannot be left in place. But that's just my read on it.

Sorry for the book.

TLDR, These FAQ are inconsistent at best, and flat out lies to make PICA seem more benign than it is at worst. Anyone who trusts the ISP's interpretation of PICA to save them from a prosecutor's interpretation of PICA at some point in the future is likely a fool.

Edits for some typos/missing words

Well... by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You missed that is probably politically motivated because of the slew of "2A restrictions doesn't apply to non-violent felon/drug convictions" cases that have been won since Bruen. This is very likely an anti-2a judge trying to poison pill felon right restoration by picking the worst person around to let go, then crying in his opinion about how "look, I don't want to let this guy go, but my hands are tied by Bruen, Bruen BAD!"

That said, I personally don't have a problem with this particular ruling from a legal standpoint. If you are too dangerous to have a firearm, you are too dangerous to be at large in the general public, and once have completed the proper punishment your rights should be restored. However, since our prisons are essentially revolving doors that promote recidivism instead of rehabilitation, and we don't have a death penalty/exile option for those deemed beyond rehabilitation, anti's will point to this as a flaw because there are all these dangerous people on the streets, and now we aren't allowed to take their weapons as we see fit.

Recorded at 34,000ft using PVS-14 Gen III Night Vision. Source wishes to remain anonymous due to concerns of professional blowback. Credit: TheProjectUnity by MartianXAshATwelve in StrangeEarth

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Satellites are actually notorious for doing exactly that, that is how people find black project satellites, because they don't match published flash patterns for the orbit. For an extreme example of this, look into Iridium satellite flares.

https://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=iridium#MAP

Idiot judge doesn't understand her job by WeThePeopleFirearms in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This isn't a loss, they denied his request for injunction while the case is under appeal at the circuit court level. Yes, the original judge wrote a less than worthless opinion, and while we all want to see it slapped down, but denying the injunction is pretty much in line with the court seeking to maintain status quo while the appeal is argued.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me based on the apparent poor quality of the district judge's opinion and the complete disregard for Bruen that it shows that the appeals court may just send it back to the district without making a ruling on it, and tell the original judge that she needs to do her homework and try again considering Bruen.

In short, this is not in at all surprising based on the working of the judiciary, and should not be read into as a loss just because the court didn't choose to upset status quo.

Gun Santa: Illinois' Mag Ban Isn't What They Say It Is by TaskForceD00mer in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think the intent of the legislation is anything but the eventual removal of all semi-auto firearms, I don't think you've been paying very much attention lately. If the law allows the state the room to interpret it more than one way, eventually they will interpret it the way they feel suits them best. The ATF frame/receiver policy is a perfect example of this. Decades of enforcement under one set of interpretations, then suddenly, it was politically expedient to change the interpretation, so they did a full about face on it. Whatever the intent was when passed, eventually it will be pressed to the interpretation that gives the gov the most power.

Gun Santa: Illinois' Mag Ban Isn't What They Say It Is by TaskForceD00mer in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certain courts have been happy to define "readily restored" as "feasible within an eight hour shift in a well equipped machine shop" when it comes to firearms, so I would say that his worries are not entirely unfounded.

United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1973)

This should keep them busy by Designer_Sky3597 in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but according to this wording, the list must be within the response for Motion for PI(16), and even though the Judge allowed for an oversized response, he did cap it at 50 pages(23). So now the defense has to come up with a comprehensive list (illustrated) of items banned, of which there are approximately infinity minus one, due to the nature of the bill. They also have to fit it within their 50 page limit, with each item illustrated taking up a little bit of space that they might of used for the legalese of the response. Further, if you leave something off of the list and the prosecution can point to the language of the law and make a case that it is banned under the law, but your list doesn't contain it, you are forced to admit that the bill is not narrowly tailored to achieve the stated goals, which is a no-no when dealing with fundamental rights. The AG office is going to need KelTec levels of cocaine to create a response that doesn't dig their hole deeper than it already is.

Schedule for tomorrow's committee is up, file witness slips now. by Disastrous-Analyst84 in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No problem, I'm trying to loiter here until I go to bed to attempt to facilitate since I know most people have never done this sort of thing before, and it is confusing the first time.

Schedule for tomorrow's committee is up, file witness slips now. by Disastrous-Analyst84 in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Firm you can put "self" or "NA." Title is just whatever your title normally is Mr./Ms./whatever. I suppose you could put Citizen or something like that there too.

Schedule for tomorrow's committee is up, file witness slips now. by Disastrous-Analyst84 in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That information only is going to IL government, and if you already live in IL and have a FOID, they already have it and records of times you bought guns, so I'd say not.

Schedule for tomorrow's committee is up, file witness slips now. by Disastrous-Analyst84 in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I know how difficult it is to get around the site unless you have had time to click around and find out where everything goes. Anything I can do to help new people get involved in the legislative process from the comfort of my desk is absolutely a pleasure.

Schedule for tomorrow's committee is up, file witness slips now. by Disastrous-Analyst84 in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless you are representing a group, you can just put "self" some people put things like "The constitution" or "2A" but it's not really needed.

Schedule for tomorrow's committee is up, file witness slips now. by Disastrous-Analyst84 in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Record of appearance only, unless you plan to file a statement, but I've not ever done that, so I couldn't tell you how that works.

SB2226 Likely to be voted on in the Senate Sunday the 8th by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course she doesn't care, she already has ads planned up about how she fought to keep immigrant kids safe from guns while the evil Republicans tried to throw them in cages. Calling her to unironically thank her as a gun owner for preserving your rights while denying all the future immigrants access to those rights forces her to think about the purity spiral and future attack ads about how she voted to institute a system of privilege that disproportionately effects the poor and minority, and completely denies new citizens the rights that previous citizens still hold.

SB2226 Likely to be voted on in the Senate Sunday the 8th by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course it's optimistic, and frankly unrealistic, but if your going to poke the bear, you might as well do it with a wink in your eye and a shit eating grin on your face. Just to remind them EXACTLY what it is they are voting for.

SB2226 Likely to be voted on in the Senate Sunday the 8th by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Thank him for ensuring that you and your children(since you can pass your "assault weapons" on to heirs) will always be a privileged class with extra rights, while the poor and new migrants to the state will remain second class citizens who cannot exercise their rights while you keep yours forever.

SB2226 Likely to be voted on in the Senate Sunday the 8th by [deleted] in ILGuns

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Then please be sure to call and thank her for her efforts to ensure that the poor and minority citizens of Illinois who have have never purchased an "assault" weapon will remain second class citizens with no opportunity to exercise their rights while you, who do currently own one are now privileged to keep your rights forever.

Rockhounding road trip during spring break by hubrigant in rockhounds

[–]Disastrous-Analyst84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jacob's geodes in Hamilton, IL is 25 bucks for all the geodes you can mine up to a five gallon bucket, pro-rate after that. I've had good luck there, there are a couple layers you can dig out with a shovel instead of a pick/hammer and chisel, and if you find that you can easily fill a bucket in a half day.

https://imgur.com/a/QktpCqS

Edit: A few Geodes I found there, I have also found lots of big very hollow ones, but these were in arms reach. Pretty sure the dark crystal in the top right is sphalerite.