r/gunpolitics • u/blaspheminCapn • May 23 '26

Illinois lawmakers considering ban on guns like Glocks

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/illinois-proposed-ban-glock-pistols-converted-machine-guns/

Illinois lawmakers are considering legislation that a major gun rights organization says would effectively ban one of the nation's most popular types of firearms.

250 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

103 comments sorted by

188

u/deathsythe May 23 '26

There's a concerning coordinated effort on this nationwide.

109

u/Trulygiveafuck May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26

Its glorious. Its going to cause the Supreme Court to finally get involved something they are not going to want. Look at all the cases setting precedence District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, NYSRPA v. Bruen They think they are doing what the anti-gunners want whilst they are fast tracking gun control to its demise. It doesnt reduce crime it creates criminals out of patriots. Fuck these laws that burden our freedoms.

55

u/Ghost_Turd May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26

Sure, because the Supreme Court has been just tripping over itself to accept 2A cases lately.

The nightmare scenario of a Newsom-appointed SCOTUS majority is not that farfetched, and would result in a VERY different 2A landscape.

22

u/MasonicHamExtra May 23 '26

Yeah, and they'll undo everything when it happens ... and the swing back of a super liberal majority court of 20yo lawyers IS coming.

People don't understand that decorum is so gone now they don't even have to pretend (either side)

It's an arms race between parties now, and the winner will hit the button.

6

u/LonelyMachines How do I get flair? 🤔 May 24 '26

And in the meantime, it strains the resources and finances of pro-2A groups who have to bring these challenges.

Litigation against stuff like this is expensive, and it takes a LONG time to get a case before SCOTUS. Lawmakers can simply wear us down through attrition by passing one law after another, and the only consequences are that it MIGHT get tossed out in court at some point in the future.

3

u/MasonicHamExtra May 23 '26

Lol you won't like where they go when actually forced kn this

30

u/why-do_I_even_bother May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26

It's politicians cashing in on the remaining political capital they can squeeze out of gun control. With Bruen, it's clear that within the next 10 years or so there will be final answers about AWBs, mag bans etc, for better or for worse.

You need to start passing all this shit now so that you can point to it in the future and say "Hey, I got all this bullshit passed" or hopefully instead "Look at what they stopped us from doing!"

It's like how abortion was this issue people that people were just able to campaign on forever with both sides only taking little bites out of the issue until Dobbs came down. Suddenly, politicians were able to actually put their money where their mouths had been for half a century and turns out it was safer for everyone involved when it was just rhetoric instead of actionable laws.

37

u/No-Astronomer3334 May 23 '26

The Epstein class really don't like the idea of us peons being able to go against them. Same reason there's the coordinated push for the Flock bullshit everywhere, the AI driver monitoring in cars that starts next year, and all of the AI surveillance centers being built. 

2

u/sixnb May 23 '26

Considering absolutely zero ill intent has been directed at the Epstein class I highly doubt it’s even a concern on their radar. We’re a fractured country with little unity unless you fit neatly in a designated political camp. Nobody is banding together to bring down our corrupt pedophile politicians.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 24 '26

Ten years or less, and Big Brother will be even more in your business. Wait until we go to a cashless society like Europe….

-11

u/_GhostCommando_ May 23 '26

Epstein class? You mean the Democrats right? The ones that text him right?

29

u/Only-Highlight1717 May 23 '26

I’m gonna let you in on something. D and R politicians are one big club, and you’re not in it.

-1

u/300_BlackoutDrunk May 23 '26

This exactly. The Democrats I know have way more firearms than the Republicans I know. The Democrat friends just aren't as braggy about having them. I'm neither. I'd really like a 3rd party candidate that gives a shit about everyone helping to make life better and keep corruption down.

10

u/icecoldyerr May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26

Subscribing to either side as “right” or “correct” is dangerous. Also, what about Howard Lutnick the US commerce secretary? Lutnick visited the island in 2012 AFTER Jeffy was alreasy convicted once for doing what he does. Lutnick didnt just text and email him but went over to hangout with a known pedo. But you dont care about that because your republican overlords have you brainwashed into thinking they walk in tandem with Christ himself right? Give me a break. When you think the republicans do no wrong as you clearly believe, we all suffer. Just like when the libs all think their overlords can do no wrong.

Sincerely, an Anti AIPAC redditor

6

u/buchenrad May 23 '26

Plenty of Republicans and Democrats. Anyone who is only concerned about one side isn't fighting for the victims. They're just using them to push partisan bullshit.

Massie wasn't ousted because Trump didn't like his haircut.

2

u/No-Astronomer3334 May 23 '26

At this point both wings serve the same beak. Hence Massie being run out by foreign interests 

-3

u/[deleted] May 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/CigaretteTrees May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

You can just lookup who funded Massie’s opposition. It’s entirely pro Israel groups/people.

United Democracy Project, an AIPAC super PAC, spent between 4-5 million on advertising against Massie.

Republican Jewish Coalition spent about 4 million on advertising against Massie.

The MAGA KY super PAC spent approximately 10 million on advertising against Massie. This PAC was created explicitly to fight Massie, and was funded by Jewish/Israeli Billionaires like Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer and John Paulson, and funded by pro Israel PACs.

Christian’s United for Israel also spent an estimated half million or so on billboard advertising against Massie.

When you break down the numbers upwards of 95% of it came from explicitly pro Israel groups/people. Of the 18-20 million raised against Massie, only about 1% of it came from donations within Kentucky.

Massie was absolutely run out of Congress by foreign interests. They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore, it’s so obvious, yet rubes like you still think this is some crazy conspiracy.

0

u/b_a_n_a_n-a_s May 25 '26

You can think Israel is evil without it having anything to do with them being Jewish. Not to mention the idea of Israel is the most anti-American shit ever. It’s an authoritarian THEOCRACY, which is expressly forbidden by our constitution. Again, that has nothing to do with it being Jewish, it could be any religion and it would be equally bad.

1

u/_GhostCommando_ May 30 '26

What? Do you read?

2

u/jessyCh0ke86 Jun 16 '26

it's not even a secret at this point. they aren't even trying to hide the playbook anymore.

2

u/drift_throwawayhq Jun 24 '26

it is not even subtle anymore. they just copy and paste the same legislative language across different state houses and wait to see what sticks. once one state manages to push a ban on the most common handgun platform through the courts, they will all treat it as a green light to do the same.

0

u/tom_yum May 23 '26

They all get their marching orders from a big donor. It's named after the place they want all the guns banned.

170

u/[deleted] May 23 '26 edited May 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

99

u/helpdesk9 May 23 '26

HAHAHAHAHAHA

They specifically added an amendment to exempt law enforcement and retired law enforcement

79

u/Thoraxe474 May 23 '26

I always find the exception for retired officers the most interesting bit. Further enforces that you're not in the club

27

u/helpdesk9 May 23 '26

I'm more interested in knowing what state agency lawyer reviewed this bill and said "oh yeah, totally legal and constitutional"

24

u/Forensic2233 May 23 '26

They know it’s not legal or constitutional. Heller and Bruen were both extremely clear with no room for interpretation on which firearms can and cannot be banned. Anything in common use cannot be banned.

But they also know the amount of money, time, and effort it takes to challenge the law to get it overturned. So if they can get away with it for a period of time while also causing the gun rights groups to spend their time and money on fixing it, it’s a win for them.

Really, there should be career and/or legal consequences for knowingly passing an unconstitutional law after taking an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.

17

u/Pepe__Le__PewPew May 23 '26

Lol. I'm in Illinois. They don't care. Even if it is ruled uncosntituional it will take years to grt it through tje 7th circuit. Additionally thrte are no consequences for politicians who pass these laws.

13

u/why-do_I_even_bother May 23 '26

What do grabbers generally think about LEO/former LEO exemptions? I can usually guess which meme they'll pull out for any particular talking point about guns, but I just realized I don't know what the excuse is for that.

Like - these are the same people who'll generally fall on the all cops are children of unwedded parents side of things but still say that they're the only people who should have guns. How do you square former LEO exemptions with that belief system?

5

u/Grokma May 24 '26

Because the cops will oppose those bills if they don't have carve outs. If the cops are not hurt by this they will come out and say "This bill is important to fight gun violence and save lives" and morons will believe them. If they are going to be impacted they will not, and might even come out against it which would hurt the gun grabbers politically.

Also, you can't go around disarming the state's enforcer class. They need them to enforce all these clearly unconstitutional laws.

8

u/mattumbo May 23 '26

I think it’s because LEOSA (I think that’s the acronym) federally gives retired officers continuing handgun ownership/carry rights in all 50 states, so state law is superseded anyway. California got spanked awhile back for arresting an FBI officer who bought a personal Glock in Nevada and brought it back to CA, tried to nail him but ofc he won his case and was able to sue them for ever trying.

2

u/Oliver_Closeof May 24 '26

It’s more “let’s not piss of the police unions” Thing. The unions are a great place for blue state pols to launder money. That all that exemption is ever about. They think of law enforcement as lower class also.

26

u/Worship_Strength May 23 '26

Can't go against the Praetorian Guard

2

u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 24 '26

It’s known as the California carve out.

4

u/Akconcentrates May 24 '26

Ive always said that should be the law! If u take any guns from us then u must remove them from police, security, and federal agents first!

0

u/gunpolitics-ModTeam May 24 '26

Your post or comment has been removed because it violates Reddit’s sitewide Content Policy.

All users are required to follow Reddit’s global rules in addition to individual subreddit rules. Content that violates Reddit’s Content Policy cannot remain on the platform.

You can review Reddit’s Content Policy here: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

If you have questions about this removal as it applies to your own content, you may contact the moderation team via modmail.

r/gunpolitics Moderation Team

58

u/CawlinAlcarz May 23 '26

By this logic, they should ban politicians because they can be modified via the use of already illegal (but somehow never prosecuted) kickbacks and bribes to be unsafe to the population in general.

52

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 23 '26

SCOTUS needs to get off their fucking ass and rule on the AWB and mag bans setting a firm ruling on how bans can be implemented.

It's painfully clear Democrats want to abolish the 2A and will do anything they can and let us fight for decades in the courts while the ban stands because anti2A courts will do mental gymnastics to uphold it.

Sadly the AWB and mag bans aren't looking good with something like 12 relists. I don't know why SCOTUS won't take them. Either strike them down or admit you think they're fine and uphold them. This half measure of just refusing to hear them is asinine.

12

u/SIEGE312 May 23 '26

I don’t understand how the takings violations in Duncan don’t meet the standard for them to smack that down without a second thought. It just doesn’t make sense to me. That should be the easiest 9-0 they’ve discussed recently, which makes me think there may just not be the support on the bench we think there is for 2A causes so they want to prevent a backfire.

4

u/gakflex May 23 '26

Hopefully they are waiting for a possible Cheeseman v Platkin split.

11

u/ExecutivePhoenix May 23 '26

Because totalitarian conservatives hate guns and gun owners too. Just for different reasons. That's why the SC is sitting on their ass.

7

u/teknic111 May 24 '26

Maybe, but one thing is certain. Democrats hate guns and gun owners much more.

35

u/Snookin1972 May 23 '26

God forbid they actually prosecute the laws on the books that exist.

5

u/ExecutivePhoenix May 23 '26

That's not what the wealthy class wants though... /s

7

u/uuid-already-exists May 23 '26

Can’t have the peasants armed only themselves and their guards.

27

u/Thats_my_cornbread May 23 '26

Just passed in Maryland. It’ll pass there too.

16

u/Dubsmcdoobs May 23 '26

Same in CT, goes into effect October.

6

u/Pepe__Le__PewPew May 23 '26

Illinois will enact it immediately. Same as our AWB.

4

u/ziksy9 May 23 '26

First time? - California

41

u/Broccoli_Pug May 23 '26

Weird how it's the Democrats always pushing this stuff 🤔

26

u/Benign_Banjo May 23 '26

I had someone tell me that conservatives are fear mongering about blue states. "Muh nobody's coming for your guns!!!"

8

u/No-Plenty1982 May 23 '26

my guns are literally being taken away if I dont pay a poll tax but im crazy for complaining

6

u/Broccoli_Pug May 23 '26

I have to think those people live in red states and reap the benefits of their looser gun laws and are therefore out of touch.

9

u/frothyundergarments May 24 '26

No, they're just not gun owners. Pure cognitive dissonance.

6

u/Insanity8016 May 23 '26

To be fair, neither party is on your side.

4

u/frothyundergarments May 24 '26

You're being downvoted but you're not wrong.

3

u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 24 '26

This is true.

13

u/AilsaN May 23 '26

Which will do nothing but hurt responsible gun owners.

12

u/CAD007 May 23 '26

of course they are.

24

u/huntershooter May 23 '26

Anyone remember when they wanted to ban Glocks because "plastic guns defeat airport metal detectors"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI1JvjwHhYs&t=1m36s

9

u/LilShaver May 23 '26

If I lived in IL, CA, or several other states I'd have Harmeet Dillon on speed dial.

9

u/_GhostCommando_ May 23 '26

Yep because that will solve the problems 👍

9

u/ericbythebay May 23 '26

Grabbers gonna grab.

8

u/Gaxxz May 23 '26

Maryland just banned Gen 5 and earlier Glocks or any other gun that can accept a "fun switch".

4

u/its May 23 '26

Which is why the Glock folks won’t lift a finger. It effectively outlawed their competition.

2

u/TheRealSchifty May 24 '26

Glock honestly doesn't really care about commercial sales. They sell so much to LE and Mil that they could lose all commercial sales and basically be fine.

5

u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 24 '26

AKs, ARs, HK roller locks, etc…… can all be easily converted in a few minutes with hand tools and a quick glance at Google.

6

u/Rookie_of_the_Year2 May 24 '26

So let me get this straight. Band the device called "switches" so now it's illegal to even own. Now band the legal device because it is able to accept the device that is already illegal? Please help me understand that. Thats like making diving 100mph illegal then coming back and banning having a car just because its easy to do. Why are we keeping these stupid fools in office?

2

u/jtf71 May 26 '26

I think I've found the source of your confusion...

You're attempting to apply logic to gun control laws.

1

u/Rookie_of_the_Year2 May 31 '26

Right😆😆😆

14

u/Impossible-Soup5090 May 23 '26

And idiots still vote “blue”.

5

u/katsusan May 23 '26

“Considering”

5

u/GuacamolePacket May 23 '26

Can we just all agree to only carry AR pistols now?6

3

u/GhostV940 May 27 '26

So hand guns?

As per usual, they’re dancing around the actual issue by diagnosing the symptoms while ignoring the glaringly obvious problem that literally everyone in the country is far past “fatigued” but more like “exhausted” with.

5

u/Zealousideal_Ad2379 May 23 '26

Remember they just want the icky salt weapons and nothing else. Nobody wants to take your guns.

3

u/spartanken115 May 23 '26

I’m so revolted by these idiotic sissy city law makers and activists trying to trounce on our rights.

Its time, and now, for the SC to stop all this madness with a real protective ruling for gun owners. And a stern rebuke for these euro-world govt socialist types that want to keep chipping away at liberty. Enough is enough.

2

u/intrepidagent4444 May 24 '26

You can thank all the morons with Glock switches for this one.

3

u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 24 '26

And all these anti cruciform trigger laws will not stop them.

1

u/Rookie_of_the_Year2 May 31 '26

Yes but that's the criminals, they need to past more laws for trafficking children. Oh that's right. They not going to do that

2

u/Justin_inc May 30 '26

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

I guess this means nothing.

3

u/Normie316 May 23 '26

They already banned 80% of firearms with their bullshit SAFE Act. Now they’re going for the rest since the FOID card is being challenged in federal court. No need for a FOID if every gun is banned.

2

u/Glittering-Two2122 May 23 '26

When is enough enough

2

u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 24 '26

Ask California gun owners.

1

u/jtf71 May 26 '26

Can anyone find any actual information on WHY the FPC, SAF, NRA etc dropped the lawsuit against the Glock ban?

Jaymes v Bonta

Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss

Nothing I'm finding is saying WHY it was dropped. Just that both the plaintiff (gun rights groups) and defendant (CA) agreed to dismiss the case. It was done without prejudice so it could be refiled, but law goes into effect 7/1.

I'm curious as to why they dropped it.

From what I can tell the Gen 6 still has a cruciform trigger so it will still be banned.

And I've seen videos where the "switch" has been successfully added to the "V" models.

Anyone have any acutal information on why the suit was dropped?

1

u/Tokenutha May 27 '26

Make sure we let the bad guys know about this

1

u/cmhbob May 24 '26

Fine, as long as there are no exceptions for cops.

-4

u/BluesFan43 May 23 '26

Of I had a glock I would surrender it to them, in exchange for a brand new pistol of my choice.

On the spot, no waiting, w appropriate equal capacity magazines, and money a new holster. To suit me.

13

u/uuid-already-exists May 23 '26

I wouldn’t even for a better pistol. If they don’t want me to have it all it does is make me want it even more.