The US Supreme Court has declined to put a temporary hold on an Illinois law that bans the sale of assault-style weapons and a variety of other guns and accessories.
The law will require existing owners of the restricted items to register them by 1 January.
A gun rights group and the owner of a gun shop have sued to stop the implementation of the law.
Their case has consistently been rebuffed by lower courts.
The legislation took effect in January and sales of the restricted guns were stopped immediately.
Here’s how the law defines “assault weapons.”
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-1.9
I’m curious how this law as written would apply to one specific firearm off the top of my head, skimming through the specific firearms it names as assault weapons I noticed that it calls out “all Uzi types.”
At one point in, I think, the 90s some company, I want to say Mossberg but don’t quote me on that, was importing the IWI/IMI Jericho 941 (an otherwise pretty normal pistol that otherwise wouldn’t fall under the assault weapon category) and branding it as the “Uzi Eagle.” Does that make it an “Uzi type,” even though it has no real connection mechanicaly to other Uzis?
And if so, since the section uzis fall under is phrased as
What would that mean for when the same gun when it’s been imported branded as a Jericho or some other name? And since the Jericho is essentially a clone of the CZ-75, what would that mean for the CZ and other CZ clones?
If you think you can make an argument that having one import stamp/mark versus not having another would stand up in court, have fun.
But you would probably be better off using the flow chart (like in basically any situation). Where, from a quick glance at wikipedia, it looks like it is fine and doesn’t violate any rules. But if you start modding it to add a stock or an extended barrel to add a compensator or suppressor then you are playing with fire.
Which is similar to current gun laws. Assault rifle is fine so long as it is semiautomatic… until you make the barrel too short. That doesn’t mean that Fox Mulder is going to materialize in your shed and beat you to death. But it does mean that you are going to be prosecuted a LOT harder if you get caught committing a crime or if you piss off someone when you take your gun to the range… or a Wendy’s.
It’s illegal to make a machine gun now…all “assault rifles” are semi automatic… putting a shorter barrel on it requires NFA stamps and makes it a SBR. Doesn’t make it more deadly. These laws are written by ignorance and emotion.
Ok, but the way I’m reading the law, Uzis are specifically called out separately by name, so even if they didn’t have any of the banned features, they would still be considered an assault weapon under this law.
But it doesn’t exactly define what an “uzi type” is.
The Jericho and Uzi are both manufactured by IWI, and under license the Jericho was for a time marketed under the Uzi name, meaning that IWI was cool with whoever was importing them calling it an Uzi. And while I’m no certainly no lawyer, that really feels like something that the right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) combination of cop, judges, lawyers, and juries could determine makes the Jericho an “Uzi type.” It probably wouldn’t even be the stupidest ruling I’ve heard this week if it came to pass.
And if it did, what would that mean for Jerichos imported without the Uzi name attached, and what about other CZ clones?
That honestly sounds like something you call the appropriate contact for if you are that concerned. But considering the context is
(xiii) All Thompson types, including the following: (I) Thompson TA510D. (II) Thompson TA5. (xiv) All UZI types, including Micro-UZI.It seems fairly obvious they are referring to the Uzi submachine gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi and semiautomatic (con)versions of it.
I do agree this is not worded well. But it is also trivial to get confirmed and either keep a printed out official document in your gun safe or register your pistol anyway.
Which is how most laws like this work. Dealing with export control and similar laws is also a giant headache where you sometimes have an over specified or vague clause that just means you send an email/write a letter and keep the response on file.