search
top

Details on Governor Quinn’s New Assault Weapons Ban

Thirdpower has the details. Apparently it’ll ban Glock pistols, and you’ll be required to register all your magazines over 10 rounds. One wonders how the mechanics of that work, given they don’t stamp serial numbers on magazines. Either way, Governor Quinn said in his statement vetoing important pro-gun legislation regarding ammunition:

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution– the right to bear arms.

The last refuge of scoundrels, is that statement. They’re all supporters of the Second Amendment in their own minds. Even Bloomberg. Theyare no such thing. Not when banning Glocks and numerous common shotguns. I’d note, because of this, it would also ban the Beretta 92. Not to mention all the jobs that will be cost downstate when companies like Armalite are forced to leave the state. Don’t you love how these bills also have language that just happens, you know, to ban hundreds of commonly owned firearms no one in their right mind has ever considered assault weapons? You’d almost think the assault weapons issue was just a ruse to ban as many guns as these cretins can get away with.

5 Responses to “Details on Governor Quinn’s New Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. WhatHey says:

    The 2nd amendment refers to militias and therefore guarantees the right of the people to possess and use artillery as well as explosives. Any present day politician who claims to support the 2nd ammendment is a goddam liar.

  2. Mistereveready says:

    Seems to be as insidious as when people try to sneak creationism into science classrooms. Politicians and the like love silly words like “Assault Weapon”, cause it can be so malleable. Can range from a M60 machine gun to a pocket knife. Get foot in door with vague/obscene definitions and then weasel the rest of the nonsense in later.

    I think one of the reasons politicians love doing silly stuff like this is that by using ineffective methods they can stay keep getting elected to “fix” problems. That and they probably fear civilians who have weapons. The biggest leap in most places between those in power and those who aren’t is who has the weapons. Whether it be swords or guns.

  3. Zermoid says:

    This can never stand as it restricts handguns, specifically the Glock which is one of the most popular handguns in the country, and the District of Columbia v. Heller Decision specifically noted handguns used for defensive purposes, did it not?

    Other question is how can the govt deprive you of your property without compensation? If they say you can no longer own your gun, do they not have to give you fair market value for it?

    • Mistereveready says:

      @Zermoid
      Well depends. Excluding that my father used to be routinely robbed by police in his teens, I’d have to wonder if it would fall under being confiscated as being part of a crime. Or if it is like where I am if a gun is taken the owner has a few weeks or something, forgot the exact time to go get their gun, if not it is destroyed. So don’t pay the fine within the allotted time, boom it’s either destroyed or added to a police officer’s private collection.

      As far as the handgun remark. If the people making these silly laws don’t care about our Constitutional rights, why do you think they’d care about DC vs Heller? They are trying to weasel in whatever nonsense that will support their stance.Plus with finely worded laws, like the fees included for owning a weapon+magazines, you’d technically would be able to own a handgun, but you’d have to be J.R. Rockefeller’s well to do love child to keep it.

  4. Bram says:

    Agree with all except the part about Armalite having to leave. Karr and Springfield are still in MA, and Colt is still in CT despite their crazy laws.

top