Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day: 2022 Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: Lunchtime briefing
Posted in:
* Some background is here if you need it. I gave subscribers a brief heads up about this today…
Protect Illinois Communities launched today in support of efforts to pass much needed gun reform in Illinois that will make our communities safer. The newly formed organization will provide resources to engage voters across the state as well as members of the state legislature as they consider the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which was introduced last week by Representative Bob Morgan (D-Deerfield).
The Protect Illinois Communities Act includes common sense measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands, starting with an assault weapons ban. Additionally, the bill would raise the minimum age to obtain a FOID card to 21, and increase resources to enforce red-flag laws and stop the influx of illegal weapons into Illinois. Illinoisans are too familiar with the devastating toll of gun violence, and voters across zip codes and political affiliations know that now is the time to take action.
“Complacency and inaction leave the door open for bad actors to obtain weapons with only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Communities across our state can’t afford to wait any longer to act on gun reform,” said Becky Carroll, Chair and President of Protect Illinois Communities. “Protect Illinois Communities is proud to join the efforts of lawmakers around our state as they work on passing this lifesaving legislation, and we will provide significant resources to communicate with communities across Illinois to ensure a successful outcome in January.”
Statistics and data overwhelmingly support a need for passing the Protect Illinois Communities Act immediately. Mass shootings using assault weapons result in nearly 22 times as many people wounded per incident on average. These excessively lethal weapons are capable of firing 30 rounds in 10 seconds and can hit bystanders one-quarter mile away. 18 to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 years or older, and current gun laws make it too easy for disturbed young people to access guns. The strength of our gun laws are undermined by weak laws in neighboring states, and we must empower the Illinois State Police to combat the influx of illegal guns into Illinois. Restricting who can access deadly weapons is crucial to protecting our communities.
Protect Illinois Communities is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation operating as a 501(c)(4) organization. To learn more or receive updates from the organization please visit www.protectillinoiscommunities.com.
The phrase “significant resources” jumps out.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 11:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day: 2022 Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: Lunchtime briefing
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Glad to see an outside group formed to get this extremely necessary legislation across the finish line.
Comment by coop Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 12:07 pm
–“significant resources” jumps out.–
Hopefully not just in financial terms.
Hopefully they have a good strategist who can take full advantage of the position almost all of the SAs have stupidly put themselves in by jumping all-in on the proft propaganda bandwagon regarding other recent legislation.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 12:16 pm
This is good to see. What stands out to me is that none of the pre-existing gun safety groups seem to be involved. IGVP, Everytown, G-PAC, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign haven’t shown they can do what needs doing here. Becky Carroll taking this on seems like a good sign that the legislature is serious this time.
Comment by vern Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 12:18 pm
Follow the money.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 12:24 pm
More bans, more restrictions…until the Federal courts overturn all of them in compliance with the ’strict scrutiny’ standard and modern Second Amendment rulings such as recently done overturning bans and restrictions in NY (’may issue permits’), CA and NJ (magazine restrictions), MD (’assault’ rifle ban), and HI (’need to carry/good cause to carry’ firearm permits). All these cases were remanded to the lower court to re-decide based on the NY case’s ’strict scrutiny’ standard which actually was ignored since being declared in Heller v. DC in 2008. The same will happen with the under 21 ownership law, no matter how IL tries to two-step around the 2nd Amendment.
Comment by thisjustinagain Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 12:33 pm
==until the Federal courts overturn all of them==
Yes because we certainly wouldn’t want to have any restrictions. You have the absolutely bonkers case out of Texas where the judge ruled you couldn’t take a gun away from a guy with a domestic violence issue. And he based that ruling on the Supreme Court ruling by stating that there was no historical standard for removing guns from domestic abusers. That’s just crazy, though probably not for the people who don’t believe in any regulation of firearms. I’m sure those people are just fine with that guy having guns.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 12:40 pm
Let them spend their money. Public opinion matters little within the law.
Based upon the oral arguments I heard today in the Maryland semi-auto case (4th COA), MD is gonna loose lose theirs.
We’ll save our efforts for the 7th for the lawmakers who don’t want to listen to New York.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 1:22 pm
* Statistics and data overwhelmingly support *
Statistics and data overwhelmingly prove that Carroll is lying, because the stats say rifles aren’t the problem.
Comment by Free Illinois Communities Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 1:57 pm
Tax effort redux. Better luck this time.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:02 pm
@Todd:
I’m interested in your thoughts on the domestic violence case I mentioned.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:03 pm
@Todd- want to tell us more about your “resume”? Lol
There are already numerous restrictions on guns that have been upheld by the courts for going on a century. More can happen and be upheld.
If there weren’t restrictions, there would be no such thing as a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:06 pm
Demoralized –
Sure. you have two sides to the DV stuff. One is misdemeanor convictions being life time prohibitors, even for pled cases and the restraining order stuff.
On the restraining order stuff I think it falls to a judicial proceeding with due process and an adversarial hearing with the chance for council. Not the divorce court lawyer tactic of make an allegation to better your position in the divorce.
I think ALL ex parte, DV or red flag will have issues without the chance to show up and all the rights of council, challenge the evidence and so on. without those due process protections, they will fall.
in order for a restraining order to be valid I think it will have to have come from a hearing where both sides are noticed and given a chance to present their side and the burden of proof will be akin to beyond a reasonable doubt, because you have two parts the denying of new Aqisitions and the current possession. in order to withstand a constitutional challenge on those two fronts I think that is what it will take.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:17 pm
Statistics are people - shooters and victims: too many shooters who shouldn’t have access to guns to begin with and too many people dead. And voters are growing tired of the violence. This time it’s timing to get done.
Comment by Shytown Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:20 pm
there are already numerous restrictions. Indeed there have been. and what has the outcome been. hunting firearms are not AR style weapons and an age limit of 21 on these types guns will solve nothing.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:22 pm
The idea that the gun violence prevention movement needs to be saved by a white woman is condescending at best. In the last several years, the movement that centers the voices of BIPOC survivors of gun violence has enacted gun dealer certification, created and strengthened the firearm restraining order, improved the FOID system including requiring truly universal background checks, and banned ghost guns. While it’s always great to have allies, let’s give credit where credit is due.
Comment by Hear Survivors Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:26 pm
@Todd:
I understand the viewpoint on orders of protection. Those can be granted far too easily sometimes. I would be in agreement on the standards. I was just curious as to whether you would continue to support restricting gun access to those sorts of people
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:26 pm
=and an age limit of 21 on these types guns will solve nothing.=
All evidence to the contrary. And short of an actual solution from the right, this is what will happen.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:27 pm
Perfectly normal to mow people down from a rooftop on the Nations birthday. All part of the 2nd Amendment. I have “Religious Liberty” and my god hates guns. Why didn’t the old white guys think of this back in the late 1700’s?
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:31 pm
JSMill. please cite your sources on 18 yr olds who have completed a hunter education course and used hunting guns in the commission of a felony involving g guns.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:39 pm
I’m against the 21 year old age limit but it’s all kinds of goofy to suggest that hunter safety courses are somehow the answer to the problem that they are trying to address.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:41 pm
Some problems have no good solution…and who wants to hear that?
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:42 pm
=== Public opinion matters little within the law. ===
The law doesn’t matter when dealing with the changing opinions of judges. Allowable restrictions before, including an assault weapon ban, may not be allowable now because the judges changed - not the law.
I still have yet to hear from gun worshippers how the originalist language of the 2nd amendment allows a restriction of automatics, but not semi automatics. It isn’t logical and neither is the country’s acceptance of gun related carnage.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:43 pm
putting an age limit on the FOID prohibits an 18 yr old from squirrel hunting by himself. is that the problem they are trying to solve.
Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:50 pm
What amazes me is that many of the same anti-gun ownership people are the same people that have no problem killing unborn children.
Comment by JA Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:51 pm
D — “curious as to whether you would continue to support restricting gun access to those sorts of people”
Given the right due process yes as I outlined.
The whole lautenburg misdemeanor DV has to be re-thought as well.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:00 pm
Norseman — “I still have yet to hear from gun worshippers how the originalist language of the 2nd amendment allows a restriction of automatics, but not semi automatics. It isn’t logical and neither is the country’s acceptance of gun related carnage.”
We’ll you have a couple of issues here. First is the dangerous and unusual standard articulated in Heller. Since the Houghs (sp) amendment in 1986 limited the number of full autos to 186,000 and the regulations on them since 1934 has kept down the number of them, are they unusual because of the regulation? And but for the law would they be more prolific making them in common use? Remember that for SCOTUS to find stun guns common they cited 200,000 in Massachusetts.
If the reg/law falls because of a chicken and egg legal theory but for the law/reg they would be, then are they dangerous _and_ unusual to comport with a ban based upon Heller and New York? Dunno.
Dunno what that line of legal thinking looks like until we flush out New York and the Courts a bit more.
Could I see the Court saying yea full autos have a relationship to militia service and are protected up to 1. Crew served guns and 2. GE 134 mini guns. Mind you I believe there is a very easy line to start with things that go bang and not boom i.e cartridges from .50BMG and below as enumerated in the NFA.
But semi-auto ARs, AKs, FALs are not in the same league as full autos, full auto belt feds and mini guns.
Does that help?
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:13 pm
@Hear Survivors. 1) oh snap 2) who are the leaders of whom you write? I get what you are saying, but with the population of Illinois a much higher percentage white than anyone seems to remember, we need to convince white legislators to vote the right way. everyone is welcome to the fight. 3) there must be more dialogue of survivors, victims to go against the wall of sound supporting defendants that comes in criminal justice talk now. Everyone be a part of that.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:14 pm
One way to cut down on the number of guns would be to limit their possession to “law-abiding” people, as permitted by the court’s Heller decision. Require every person seeking to possess a gun to first certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have not violated any municipal, state, or federal law in the last 10 years.
Comment by pc Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:16 pm
What does any ban do to solve the underlying issues of violence? Not just violence using firearms, but all objects and actions.
Nothing in the legislation addresses poverty (although very few impoverished people resort to criminality), mental health (I know not all people with mental health issues are violent), cultural aspects that glorify unjustified violence or even education. Every thing I have mentioned has been found in many who commit violence. And then there are some people wo are just plain evil and will do things contrary to the social contract. Habitual offenders that don’t seem to learn should also be addressed, maybe removing them from free society would help.
We teach children about sex to keep them safe, we teach about drinking and driving, why can’t firearm safety be taught? If it is considered grooming to teach firearm safety, why do we teach about sex?
I get it many people are firearm averse. There are things I don’t like to do either, but I am not going to demand you to stop if you are not harming others. The vast majority of people who own firearms pose no risk to anyone. They have not harmed anyone or have shown the propensity to do so. Yet this type of legislation is directed more at those who are not the problem.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:38 pm
===What does any ban do to solve the underlying issues of violence?===
No bill can do that. No bill can ever solve all problems. People who use this logic are never brought to the table because it’s completely specious.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:41 pm
Reform on who can access guns, especially assault rifles, is long overdue. Good to see this being taken seriously
Comment by Barty Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:44 pm
@Vern: Let’s take a step back here. Your comment just ignored the work of gun violence survivors to pass landmark laws in Illinois like the Fix the FOID bill, Gun Dealer Licensing, and a ban on ghost guns. A lot of the survivors who advocated and lead this work at the organizations you claimed “can’t get it done” are people of color who have worked in coalition, turning their pain into action. Furthermore, I don’t think anybody is served by the creation of a new organization with no record of success helmed by a media spin-artist with no connection to the issue.
Comment by Peace Activist Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:49 pm
@PeaceActivist, that’s just the kind of commentary that divides people on the same side of the equation while the other side is full metal NRA nonsense. while I’m tired of group after group appearing on the issue—yes, including some you reference—let’s all work together to get it done.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 4:15 pm
Peace activist, having someone experienced at running IL advocacy campaigns is not ignoring BIPOC survivors. They’re being smart about organizing a campaign to pass this bill where many voices will have to be involved.
Comment by Shytown Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 4:26 pm
Rich, I didn’t properly convey my thought. I do know no Bill or even law will solve all of societies problems. Human nature precludes that. I am arguing we need to do things to mitigate the underlying causes. Mitigation will not solve the issue, but it will give a positive result. That is why I mentioned the education in schools. We wouldn’t have those classes still if there wasn’t a positive result. We didn’t ban people under 21 from driving nor did we ban motor vehicles that could drive in excess of speed limits. Yet the problems of youths with DUIs and accidents decreased.
Is this a better argument or a more clear explanation of my thoughts?
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 4:46 pm
Regarding the limitations of any one policy proposal to address the gun violence epidemic: I am not sure why anyone would have that standard or expectation. When we as a society decided to tackle deaths in cars, we did not just try one solution. It was a combination of things — seatbelts, airbags, improved braking and roll cage standards, speed limits, lowering DUI blood alcohol limits, changes to how teenagers become licensed and how many non-relatives under 18 they could drive, and so forth. In 1969, we had a death rate of 27.7 people per 100,000. In 2020, that rate was 12.9. Wouldn’t we have the same expectation of a multi-pronged approach here? Just because one strategy won’t fix the whole problem is not a reason to make incremental changes.
Comment by Andrea Durbin Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 5:19 pm
say what you will about the new group…astroturf…but the named leaders are Black, White, Hispanic. that’s a good start.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 5:36 pm
Todd, you dragged out all the talking points, but you still haven’t pointed to the language in the 2nd amendment that gives justification for the distinction. There isn’t any. It’s a contrived distinction created by so-called originalist judges. Since they’re pretending their is a difference, let’s ban assault rifles that shred kids bodies and adults for that matter.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 6:41 pm
Norse — it allows restictions as interpreted by the Court the same way the First — Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of …or abridging the freedom of speech.
I don’t see an exemption in there for libel or slander yet the Court says they are there.
there are plenty of gun guys who think the NFA runs afoul of the Constitution and you should be able to walk in and buy a full auto. But the Court is not there yet. And neither is my wallet for the ammo bill to sustain one.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Dec 7, 22 @ 9:04 am
=== it allows restictions (sic) as interpreted by the Court ===
Eureka, there it is, “interpretation”, not the original meaning of the 2nd amendment or the plain language. It’s an opinion by different judges as to what they want the law to be. It wasn’t the opinion of previous judges. The “interpretation” of enough appointed extreme right judges now allow weapons of war to be held in the hands of anyone. Prolific killing tools. Tools solely created to kill.
When the public gets tired of this insane opinion that has made America the top killing zone among civilized nations, we can get replace these judges.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Dec 7, 22 @ 10:57 am
Norse –
It took 50 years to overturn Roe. I’ll take that bet and timeline, neither of us will be around then.
In the mean time, we’ll be going to court and gutting the infringements that have been put in place. if the FOID card goes away like I believe it will, and we get 25 years or so of no FOID card, you may find it not so easy to put it back in place. not to mention when people decide they won’t comply with stupid laws.
you are already seeing it with the background checks. You’ll see it with the semi-auto bans. Mass only got about 15% compliance.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Dec 7, 22 @ 11:33 am
God is watching
Comment by Good Luck Wednesday, Dec 7, 22 @ 4:30 pm