(IL) Dangerous maneuver to create Registry

[MountainGirl]

Ok. Hope I can convey this.

There's a new Act passed in Illinois - with the usual 'ban assault rifles' stuff - but in watching the whole vid I spotted something, briefly mentioned at 4:30, that is more threatening than anything I've seen to date.

In short - EVERYONE who already owns one of the 'now illegal' weapons MUST file an Affidavit by Jan 1, 2024 swearing that they owned it prior to this law's enactment (Jan 10, 2023).

Grandfathered? Can you keep it? Who knows. Maybe yes, maybe no... however that plays, it plays.

IMO - the nuclear thing here is they'll now know who has one and who has not.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Generally speaking, it is very difficult for the government to successfully prosecute someone retroactively. Government will try and appeals may be required, but for it to stick is difficult.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It's already against the law to kill people.

How are more gun "laws" going to help?!

 

[Big Dipper]

Ok. Hope I can convey this.

There's a new Act passed in Illinois - with the usual 'ban assault rifles' stuff - but in watching the whole vid I spotted something, briefly mentioned at 4:30, that is more threatening than anything I've seen to date.

In short - EVERYONE who already owns one of the 'now illegal' weapons MUST file an Affidavit by Jan 1, 2024 swearing that they owned it prior to this law's enactment (Jan 10, 2023).

Grandfathered? Can you keep it? Who knows. Maybe yes, maybe no... however that plays, it plays.

IMO - the nuclear thing here is they'll now know who has one and who has not.

Actually not much different than what was required by the National Firearms Act of 1934.


Sec. 5. (a) Within sixty days after the effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm [those specified in the act] shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment. and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof…

 

[MountainGirl]

Generally speaking, it is very difficult for the government to successfully prosecute someone retroactively. Government will try and appeals may be required, but for it to stick is difficult.

Agree, and retroactive prosecution for ownership isn't what I had in mind... rather the when/if confiscation (peaceful or willing) is attempted they'll know whose door(s) to knock on first. <-- That's the extreme end of the stick; there are other ways that databased info could be used against you...i.e.. are you the 'right kind of person' for this loan, job, etc.

This is all weaving together, into a noose around necks. Sorry for the folks in IL; hope TX keeps liberty more at the fore.

 

[MountainGirl]

Actually not much different than what was required by the National Firearms Act of 1934.


Sec. 5. (a) Within sixty days after the effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm [those specified in the act] shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment. and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof…

Thanks -

Were there any ill results from those Registrations?

It would be interesting to compare the quantity of NFA weapons that were out there, even nationwide, in 1934 - with the quantity of 'now illegal' firearms in IL today.

 

[MountainGirl]

I don't want to start a separate thread on this, so I'll ask here -

If the State of Texas wanted to create a gun registry, can it?

 

[MountainGirl]

A friend in IL just sent this to me...

*****
It's worse than even what you saw in the video. Their definition of "assault weapons" is the most aggressive I have seen actually get passed into law. My Taurus TX-22 .22lr pistol is an "assault weapon" under their law. There is no exclusion for rimfire and Taurus was nice enough to ship all of them with threaded barrels. It is pretty much the same feature list approach as the old ban with a few new twists and a shift to any single "bad" feature makes it an assault weapon instead of the old two "bad" features. Pistols and shotguns have their own assault weapon definitions under this stupid law. The mags are 16 rounders which will also be a no-no. Pump shotguns with multiple cylinders like the KSG are out. Rifle mags will be capped at 10 rounds, pistol at 15.

They did have to compromise away harsh penalties for being caught with an oversize magazine ( was going to be a felony ). Now it's a misdemeanor if you are caught with them in public.

I believe the whole being caught in possession of any accessory that is part of their "bad" features list in your possession is a felony. So if you have a stock flash suppressor you took off a rifle and threw in a drawer somewhere because it wasn't important - that's enough to put you away.

I hate this state.

***********

 

[servis]

Once again turning law abiding citizens into criminals.

 

[majormadmax]

If the State of Texas wanted to create a gun registry, can it?

It's the state, it can do what it wants...

However, I feel the likelihood of that happening is very slim to nil.

 

[MountainGirl]

Once again turning law abiding citizens into criminals.

I will be the very best law abiding citizen I can.
And when the gov't turns me into a criminal -
I will be the very best criminal I can.

 

[Hoji]

It's the state, it can do what it wants...

However, I feel the likelihood of that happening is very slim to nil.

And I feel like the likelihood of compliance would be even smaller

 

[benenglish]

I wish Mad John would weigh in on this.

 

[rotor]

If you bought it legally (4573) they know who you are.

 

[MountainGirl]

If you bought it legally (4573) they know who you are.

If you meant 4473, sure, the Feds do.
Do they share that info with a State? Even if they don't - this required Affidavit is for everyone who owns one; regardless of when, where or how purchased; whether through an FFL or a private buy in a parking lot.

 

[seeker_two]

I don't want to start a separate thread on this, so I'll ask here -

If the State of Texas wanted to create a gun registry, can it?

Probably....enforcing it will be an entirely different (and bloody) matter....

 

[oldag]

Generally speaking, it is very difficult for the government to successfully prosecute someone retroactively. Government will try and appeals may be required, but for it to stick is difficult.

But I suspect it will be up to the gun owner to produce proof they owned the rifle prior to the ban taking effect.

Purchased from an individual? Probably no proof available. Hmmm, maybe a BOS...

 

[oldag]

If you bought it legally (4573) they know who you are.

But not if you bought from an individual.

Unless somebody has been turning in their private BOS's to the government.

 

[vmax]

Generally speaking, it is very difficult for the government to successfully prosecute someone retroactively. Government will try and appeals may be required, but for it to stick is difficult.

Unless your name is Donald Trump..

 

[MountainGirl]

But I suspect it will be up to the gun owner to produce proof they owned the rifle prior to the ban taking effect.

Purchased from an individual? Probably no proof available. Hmmm, maybe a BOS...

But but but - a filed Affidavit attesting to ownership prior to the ban taking affect - that could be your proof. See? Lot's of reasons to comply!
For your own protection, of course.