Across the river in Illinois, it's that time of year again--time for the push for extremist 'gun control' laws. Right on schedule, three were introduced yesterday.
First, we have HB 1294. This bill would ban so-called "assault weapons," .50 caliber rifles and ammunition, and magazines capable of holding 11 or more rounds of ammunition. The ban extends to possessing, buying/selling, and manufacturing--so long to the tax revenue and good jobs provided by companies like Rock River Arms, Armalite, D.S Arms, and probably others. What's more, the law would be confiscatory:
Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act.
Who keeps sales receipts for every rifle, magazine, and round of .50 caliber ammo? Representative Edward Acevedo (more on him in a minute) has introduced identical legislation for years now (at least as far back as 2005)--he is passionately anti-rights.
Next up is HB 1599. This one builds on HB 1294, by making an Unlawful Use of Weapons charge more serious (making a crime "more illegaller," as we gun rights advocates like to say), if the offender is in possession of an "assault weapon" or "high capacity ammunition(?)" at the time of the offense. What, pray tell, is "high capacity ammunition"? Good question. The answer, on the other hand, is not so good:
"High capacity ammunition" means ammunition of 50 or more caliber.
Not only is that bizarre use of the term "high capacity," blogger Thirdpower notes that the definition makes no distinction between rifle and pistol ammunition on the one hand, and shotgun shells (which are all, accept for .410 bore cartridges, greater than .50 caliber) on the other.
Finally, we have HB 1855, which could render an Illinois resident ineligible to own firearms or ammunition, simply for failing to report to the police the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours of knowing about it (how it is determined when the owner found out is left unexplained). In other words, now an obligation is imposed on a crime victim, which the victim must meet or be victimized again, by the state.
All three of these bills were introduced by Rep. Edward Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat (of course). He is both an anti-rights politician and a Chicago "Only One." Let's hope he has the drinking and anger issues under control by now.
If HB 1294 passes, Acevedo and friends will have another problem. We "assault weapon" owners won't feel compelled to present our "proof of ownership"--proving that our hands aren't cold and dead will be enough--and Acevedo is not likely to enjoy that proof.
Comments