Tweet
They actually don't register firearms in IL like they do in Hawaii (all), NY (handguns) or the states that require reporting of ownership inventory from new residents (CA, MD). As I understand it, the FOID (which has been a requirement since 1968) acts almost identically to a mandatory background check with a wait period, except that it is generally a one-time nuisance (subject to scheduled renewals, which may be applied for in advance). Approval of applications is ministerial unless the resident falls into a prohibited category (felon, mentally disabled, etc.), and then there is an appeals process for denials. There are also a bunch of exemptions for out-of-state hunters and other customary carveouts, and concealed carry is a thing state-wide but no open carry.
Pre-McDonald, IL (especially and more specifically Chicago) had the country's most aggressive gun legislation/regulation. From 2010 - 2014, courts clawed back the most aggressive restrictions on the basis that the 2nd Amendment provided a higher baseline of rights than what the state was providing via its own legislation - the supremacy clause invalidated that legislation (a clause most aggressive states rights advocates truly despise, but here it aligned with their interests so cool beans) since the 2nd amendment was held to be incorporated by the due process clause at the state level.
Big cities like NY, SF and CHI will continue to implement restrictions in the future aimed at curtailing firearm acquisitions and ownership in their municipalities. They'll draft the legislation in a way that incrementally and further restricts access without a total ban - it will be interesting to see what future courts decide when this resurfaces at the highest level in another decade or two.
Mass confiscation has been predicted with gusto since the Brady Bill and although helpful for SWHC and RGR share prices, it doesn't seem like a movement for state-wide confiscations has gained any ground.
Pre-McDonald, IL (especially and more specifically Chicago) had the country's most aggressive gun legislation/regulation. From 2010 - 2014, courts clawed back the most aggressive restrictions on the basis that the 2nd Amendment provided a higher baseline of rights than what the state was providing via its own legislation - the supremacy clause invalidated that legislation (a clause most aggressive states rights advocates truly despise, but here it aligned with their interests so cool beans) since the 2nd amendment was held to be incorporated by the due process clause at the state level.
Big cities like NY, SF and CHI will continue to implement restrictions in the future aimed at curtailing firearm acquisitions and ownership in their municipalities. They'll draft the legislation in a way that incrementally and further restricts access without a total ban - it will be interesting to see what future courts decide when this resurfaces at the highest level in another decade or two.
Mass confiscation has been predicted with gusto since the Brady Bill and although helpful for SWHC and RGR share prices, it doesn't seem like a movement for state-wide confiscations has gained any ground.
Comment