An AR-15 with an extended capacity ammunition magazine. | File
SPRINGFIELD - Driven by the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, gun-control legislation designed to ban assault weapons and the ammunition that feeds them passed a Senate panel late Wednesday, setting the stage for likely floor votes on Thursday.
The Democratic measures advanced out of the Senate Public Health Committee, which historically has been dominated by gun-control advocates, on party-line votes.
"The goal is to reduce the amount of incidents that occur where there are a significant amount of people shot in a short period of time," said Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), the chief Senate sponsor of legislation banning the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines that allow shooters to fire at high speeds without reloading.
His proposal, which passed by a 6-3 vote, accompanied a measure sponsored by Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago) that would impose similar restrictions on military-style weapons, like the ones used in last month's murders of 26 people in Connecticut, 20 of whom were children.
Both measures were fought by the National Rifle Association.
"You don't hunt with a 50-caliber weapon, my friend," Munoz derisively told NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde before the panel voted for the weapons ban by a 6-4 vote.
Earlier, Vandermyde ridiculed how Democrats were aiming to restrict responsible gunowners from protecting themselves in the same manner as police officers or the state's top elected officials, like Gov. Pat Quinn or Mayor Rahm Emanuel, are through their security details.
"I don't understand why certainly the only ones who think their lives and their families, like the mayor and governor, are worthy of armed guard protection 24-7, yet now they want to dictate the terms and conditions I or my family use to protect ourselves when I have gang members living down the block in the suburbs," Vandermyde told the panel.
Late Wednesday, Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) told the Chicago Sun-Times that he expects both measures to get full Senate votes on Thursday. Senate Democratic sources predicted ultimate narrow passage of the contentious legislation, but Cullerton was not prepared to publicly handicap things that way.
I don't know yet. We didn't do any roll calls yet," Cullerton said when asked to assess the measures' likelihood of passing the full Senate. "We just got them out of committee. People are working them."
See also: State must pass concealed carry law.
This legislation is absurd, and frightening.
1) First, it shows that many lawmakers possess a complete misunderstanding(or worse, a twisting of the meaning) of the second amendment (the right to bear arms is not the right to hunt or to shoot in sporting events, it is associated with the word "militia" which absolutely references weapons used for defense). Any person of normal intelligence can read the second amendment and readily understand its meaning. There is no "sporting purposes" restriction in the second amendment.
2) Second, it exhibits an alarmingly insensitive, self-promoting use of the crisis at Sandy Hook to scare the public and our "public servants" into a knee-jerk passage of legislation that will automatically make felons of millions of law abiding gun owners. Liberal law-makers have been pushing for draconian gun control measures for years, and it seems clear that they are monopolizing on this terrible tragedy to self promote their agenda.
3) To put senseless death into perspective, according to Dept. of Transportation statistics, more people are killed by drunk drivers every year in this country than are killed by homicides of any and all varieties. Yet, no legislators are pushing for a return to prohibition. I would guess that, in part, this is because many of our lawmakers are guilty of driving under the influence. Sen. Kennedy did not see a moment in jail for leaving a dead woman in a creek in his personal vehicle. From a historical perspective, it is almost a certainty that this was a DUI related death. One for which he was never held accountable because his aristocratic family holds a power the common man or woman simply does not possess.
4) This issue is much bigger than just gun control and the second amendment. If lawmakers can strip of all power one of our ten basic freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights, then what is to stop them from creating a domino effect of messing with the other nine? Is it possible that the second amendment is a test case to see if the constitution can be undermined on multiple levels? Don't think this cannot possibly happen. Even the attorney general of the US went on record in 2012 that if she were looking for a model constitution, it would not be ours. This same woman took an oath of office to "...protect and defend the constitution of the United States." She has abrogated her duty. And if the chief legal officer in US government does not support the US Constitution, perhaps the Constitution itself is in greater danger than most of us want to believe.
This panel just committed treason. Period.
As usual the libers, think they have accomplished something great banning assult rifles in Illinois, BFD,
Don't worry libbies if someone wants to shoot you, they don't need an assualt rifle.
"You don't hunt with a 50-caliber weapon, my friend," Munoz derisively told NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde before the panel voted for the weapons ban by a 6-4 vote.
-=-
So that means he wants to ban muzzle loaders too? (They exist in .45 cal and .50 cal versions)
Sorry, but this is a sad day for IL politics.
Rather than spend time crafting a solid conceal carry bill, or talk about real gun reform, the Illinois politicians prove that they still haven't learned their lesson or have started to take their jobs seriously.
Please do more research and stop spreading at best half truths. The proposed legislation is Draconian and much more far reaching than simply against so-called "assault" weapons and magazines. On its face, the proposed legislation is in direct opposition to both the state and US Constitutions. Additionally, if implemented, such law would do nothing more than strip law-abiding Illinoisans of their firearms. Of course, the criminals will not give up their weapons just because Springfield passes a law. Just ask the residents of Chicago how well that gun ban is working out for them.
Bottom line: this legislation would make many, many weapons illegal, including a large percentage of handguns and shotguns. The state Senators who are trying to ram this through during the lame duck session are using those "evil" black rifles as a smokescreen to go after as many firearms as they can possibly ban. Those who refuse to turn their weapons over to the state police become felons.
These are not the actions of legislators in a democratic republic. These are the actions of would-be tyrants. Tyrants, by the way, who are themselves protected by guards with firearms. It's sickening.
I am in hopes that no gun or any ammo is banned. If this happens I fear that it will only be the first step to banning all guns. The people who legally have guns aren't the ones who abuse them in most cases. AND, we are far enough in debt...how much spending will it take to enforce getting all these off the streets...even for the good guys. You will be punishing all the wrong people.