What a pain. If I lived there, I might not be able to move because of it, but I'm sure glad I don't (yet anyway) have to put up with such foolishness.
Upvote 0
Illinois Law Question: Propelling .177 Cal. Pellets Over 700 FPS
- Thread starter Space_Monkey
- Start date
What a pain. If I lived there, I might not be able to move because of it, but I'm sure glad I don't (yet anyway) have to put up with such foolishness.
I have lived in The heart of Dixie. Still one of the states that doesn’t surrender. Maybe they have a history of what happens when surrender..LOL
My best years before getting married was in Alabama…Sand Mountain, Flat Rock.
Upvote 0
totally agree! Most cities even small ones will have some sort of ordinance prohibiting shooting of projectiles in all different forms. It is unavoidable and completely sensible because of ID10T! As population grows so does number of idiots, I’m all for 2nd amendment but we all know people who should NOT own even a pencil sharpener. Not to get into politics but it’s an idiot problem, not a gun problem and laws are needed to limit the idiot problem.
As far as I know my city and county doesn’t specifically prohibit shooting of airgun but I’m sure eventually that will change and in the mean time I don’t want to be the reason to push that issue forward. This is why I shoot 177 @7fpe in my yard with as quiet of a moderator as possible and in a manor that’s as safe as possible.
Upvote 0
@space_monkey,
Thanks. Those links help clarify.
My take on this hasn't changed from my initial post.
Under the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, both the Constitution and federal law supersede state laws.
https://www.bonalaw.com/when-does-federal-law-preempt-state-law.html
Federal laws are the supreme law of the land and judges in every state are bound by them regardless of conflicting state laws.
The United States Code contains the general and permanent laws of the United States, arranged into 54 broad titles according to subject matter.
https://uscode.house.gov/detailed_guide.xhtml
U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 § 921 (a)(3)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
In the U.S. Code that defines "firearm", there is no mention of air or gas weapons. This point is not open for discussion. The U.S. Code determines the definition.
The IL law makes an attempt to redefine "firearm" to include air or gas weapons:
If the intent is to include airguns as firearms, then this is a clear violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Now I'm going to go all English Language Nerdy on you. We all remember the difference from English 101 between a "restrictive clause" and a "nonrestrictive clause", right?
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/relative-pronouns/
A restrictive clause is a part of a sentence that may not be removed without rendering that sentence incomplete, difficult to understand, or with its meaning substantially changed.
A nonrestrictive clause adds information to the sentence, but it is not imperative to include it. Usualy bracketed with commas.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage specifies that one use the word "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause.
So why am I bringing up something esoteric like the correct usage of "which and that" and restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and correct grammar? IDK. Words matter. Clear grammar matters. Especially when attempting to write laws.
Reading the above IL definition is confusing. Does the compound "which" clause add clarity? Not really. Does it only apply to B-B guns? It kind of appears that way. If the clause in question applies to "any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun", then the proper english would have been "expel" instead of "expels". When you refer to a group of things..they expel..they do not expels. A singular thing expels. So the entire "which" nonsense must apply to B-B guns. Nit picking, I know..but words and sentence structure matter.
As part of their oath of office, all public servants swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, right? Do we assume the IL authors intended to follow the Constitution and federal law by excluding "any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun"? We kind of have to assume that. No public official would knowingly break their oath, right?
The use of "which", in "which expels a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter or which has a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second;", implies a non-restrictive clause..IE not required to understand the sentence..which implies the operative word in the sentence is "excluding". This is further supported by the IL definition of "Firearm Ammunition"
One would assume that in order to be a firearm, said firearm must use "Firearm Ammunition". Cartridge has a very specific definition. By defining "firearm ammunition" with the terminology "self-contained cartridge", the IL lawmakers expressly excluded airguns from their legislation. Airguns do not use cartridges. Well, the exception is the Brocock Air Cartridge..so the law covers airguns that use that system. The IL redefinition of what constitutes ammunition would also likely run afoul of the Supremacy Clause, as ammunition is defined by Code 18 USC § 921(a)(17).
If the intent of the lawmakers was to preempt the Constitution, then they violated their oath of office. They also wrote crappy legislation that is easy to circumvent.
Here's a pic of the IL work-around..
Make sure you have a BB less than .18 in you pocket..put BB in straw..blow into straw..guaranteed not to exceed 700 fps..done ;-)
CA is bad enough. Sure glad I don't live in IL.
Thanks. Those links help clarify.
My take on this hasn't changed from my initial post.
Under the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, both the Constitution and federal law supersede state laws.
https://www.bonalaw.com/when-does-federal-law-preempt-state-law.html
Federal laws are the supreme law of the land and judges in every state are bound by them regardless of conflicting state laws.
The United States Code contains the general and permanent laws of the United States, arranged into 54 broad titles according to subject matter.
https://uscode.house.gov/detailed_guide.xhtml
U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 § 921 (a)(3)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
In the U.S. Code that defines "firearm", there is no mention of air or gas weapons. This point is not open for discussion. The U.S. Code determines the definition.
The IL law makes an attempt to redefine "firearm" to include air or gas weapons:
If the intent is to include airguns as firearms, then this is a clear violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Now I'm going to go all English Language Nerdy on you. We all remember the difference from English 101 between a "restrictive clause" and a "nonrestrictive clause", right?
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/relative-pronouns/
A restrictive clause is a part of a sentence that may not be removed without rendering that sentence incomplete, difficult to understand, or with its meaning substantially changed.
A nonrestrictive clause adds information to the sentence, but it is not imperative to include it. Usualy bracketed with commas.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage specifies that one use the word "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause.
So why am I bringing up something esoteric like the correct usage of "which and that" and restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and correct grammar? IDK. Words matter. Clear grammar matters. Especially when attempting to write laws.
Reading the above IL definition is confusing. Does the compound "which" clause add clarity? Not really. Does it only apply to B-B guns? It kind of appears that way. If the clause in question applies to "any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun", then the proper english would have been "expel" instead of "expels". When you refer to a group of things..they expel..they do not expels. A singular thing expels. So the entire "which" nonsense must apply to B-B guns. Nit picking, I know..but words and sentence structure matter.
As part of their oath of office, all public servants swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, right? Do we assume the IL authors intended to follow the Constitution and federal law by excluding "any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun"? We kind of have to assume that. No public official would knowingly break their oath, right?
The use of "which", in "which expels a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter or which has a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second;", implies a non-restrictive clause..IE not required to understand the sentence..which implies the operative word in the sentence is "excluding". This is further supported by the IL definition of "Firearm Ammunition"
One would assume that in order to be a firearm, said firearm must use "Firearm Ammunition". Cartridge has a very specific definition. By defining "firearm ammunition" with the terminology "self-contained cartridge", the IL lawmakers expressly excluded airguns from their legislation. Airguns do not use cartridges. Well, the exception is the Brocock Air Cartridge..so the law covers airguns that use that system. The IL redefinition of what constitutes ammunition would also likely run afoul of the Supremacy Clause, as ammunition is defined by Code 18 USC § 921(a)(17).
If the intent of the lawmakers was to preempt the Constitution, then they violated their oath of office. They also wrote crappy legislation that is easy to circumvent.
Here's a pic of the IL work-around..
Make sure you have a BB less than .18 in you pocket..put BB in straw..blow into straw..guaranteed not to exceed 700 fps..done ;-)
CA is bad enough. Sure glad I don't live in IL.
Upvote 0
I live in IL, the law is anything over .18 cal. and 700 fps is considered a firearm. A .177 is not over .18 and there are no regulations on a .177. You can literally order a .30 cal. to your door, if it's under 700 fps. You can place an order with an airgun company, it will tell you restricted or not. If it is, then you will need a FOID card.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I checked my City regulations. I live in a city near Atlanta GA. Looks like I can shoot on my property even thought the area all around me is very heavily developed. However I think it is a very old regulations and has been missed as the Zoning laws have changed. Will only take one incident or complaint to make it illegal to shoot. Important point to remember when shooting. Don't talk about it, be very very safe and hide the activity from the neighbors.
It shall be unlawful for any person to project an object or cause an object to be projected from any slingshot, air rifle (BB gun, pellet gun, paintball gun, etc.) or bow and arrow within the corporate limits of the city, except as follows:
(1) If the person is operating the slingshot, air rifle, paintball gun or bow and arrow on the premises of a licensed shooting or archery gallery or range under such circumstances that such instruments can be fired, discharged or operated in such a manner as not to endanger persons or property and also in such manner as to prevent the projectile from traversing any grounds or space outside the limits of such gallery or range;
(2) If the person is using the slingshot, air rifle, paintball gun or bow and arrow on his own property in such a manner as to prevent any projectile emanating there from from leaving that person's property. For the purposes of ownership, all members of a person's family and all invited guests shall be deemed to be owner
It shall be unlawful for any person to project an object or cause an object to be projected from any slingshot, air rifle (BB gun, pellet gun, paintball gun, etc.) or bow and arrow within the corporate limits of the city, except as follows:
(1) If the person is operating the slingshot, air rifle, paintball gun or bow and arrow on the premises of a licensed shooting or archery gallery or range under such circumstances that such instruments can be fired, discharged or operated in such a manner as not to endanger persons or property and also in such manner as to prevent the projectile from traversing any grounds or space outside the limits of such gallery or range;
(2) If the person is using the slingshot, air rifle, paintball gun or bow and arrow on his own property in such a manner as to prevent any projectile emanating there from from leaving that person's property. For the purposes of ownership, all members of a person's family and all invited guests shall be deemed to be owner
Upvote 0
Supremacy Clause
preemption
Preemption is a doctrine in constitutional law that applies when two authorities conflict with one another. It refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority of law when the two authorities come into conflict.
Federal Firearms Act. 15 U.S.C. Chapter 18.
Firearm. Any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the term shall not include an antique firearm. In the case of a licensed collector, the term shall mean only curios and relics. The term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. The term shall not include a weapon, including a weapon parts kit, in which the frame or receiver of such weapon is destroyed as described in the definition “frame or receiver”.
The Federal government has defined what a “firearm” is. Illinois may NOT legally redefine it. The key point is that the weapon “expel a projectile by the action of an explosive”.
The definition is clear. The federal law is clear.
Upvote 0
W
Do not know if anybody has challenged an air gun classified as a firearm state or city law in Federal Court. New Jersey also has a law like Illinois but classifies all airguns as firearms. If no such challenges, it would be nice if the NRA and/or the airgun community spend the $$$$$ and would bring such a challenge in Federal Court.Supremacy Clause
www.law.cornell.edu
preemption
Preemption is a doctrine in constitutional law that applies when two authorities conflict with one another. It refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority of law when the two authorities come into conflict.www.law.cornell.edu
Federal Firearms Act. 15 U.S.C. Chapter 18.
Firearm. Any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the term shall not include an antique firearm. In the case of a licensed collector, the term shall mean only curios and relics. The term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. The term shall not include a weapon, including a weapon parts kit, in which the frame or receiver of such weapon is destroyed as described in the definition “frame or receiver”.
The Federal government has defined what a “firearm” is. Illinois may NOT legally redefine it. The key point is that the weapon “expel a projectile by the action of an explosive”.
The definition is clear. The federal law is clear.
Upvote 0
It's been there over and over. Have friend that's a muckity in IL NRA.
Attorney no less. It's all talk!
There is only 1 reason for registration, CONFISCATION!
NRA is a money sponge.
Attorney no less. It's all talk!
There is only 1 reason for registration, CONFISCATION!
NRA is a money sponge.
Upvote 0
MOVE! I was a Long Islander (NYC suburbs) all my life (58 years) until this year. I left in a hurry because of the political environment has gotten so ridiculously over bearing. It's the land of NO.
I retired early with heavy pension penalties just to get out. I moved to a free state where I don't need a permit to put up a shed. Plus I can shoot ANYTHING I want from my front porch. TOTALLY worth it. GET OUT OF OPRESSIVE STATES. Take your money and leave them with their leaches. Don't ask me where I went. I don't miss the hoards. I like my rural America.
I retired early with heavy pension penalties just to get out. I moved to a free state where I don't need a permit to put up a shed. Plus I can shoot ANYTHING I want from my front porch. TOTALLY worth it. GET OUT OF OPRESSIVE STATES. Take your money and leave them with their leaches. Don't ask me where I went. I don't miss the hoards. I like my rural America.
Upvote 0
From what I have seen on some gun law YouTube channels, Illinois is requiring all firearms to be "registered" by Jan 1. From what i hear less than 1percent compliance so far as it should be (actually 0 percent would be best). I think moving if possible is best for a place like Illinois, or non compliance.
Upvote 0
Badges?We ain't got no badges.
We don;t need no badges
I don't have to show you any stinking badges!
Oh Yea!
Sorry I do see all of this as too much interference by any government.People should make sure who they vote for and take more action to prevent dumb laws.After the fact has become too much of a pass word.
Rights are what and for who,I thought the majority ruled,tough my thoughts seem to be outdated.The majority do not care and talking to people about it on the very small community is not going to help,you have to educate people that do not care into people that do care.
BS here and ther3e and everywhere,BS gets elected because BS spreads,this is a very small part of the larger problem that is pure BS which divides and conquers dumb BS every time....
We don;t need no badges
I don't have to show you any stinking badges!
Oh Yea!
Sorry I do see all of this as too much interference by any government.People should make sure who they vote for and take more action to prevent dumb laws.After the fact has become too much of a pass word.
Rights are what and for who,I thought the majority ruled,tough my thoughts seem to be outdated.The majority do not care and talking to people about it on the very small community is not going to help,you have to educate people that do not care into people that do care.
BS here and ther3e and everywhere,BS gets elected because BS spreads,this is a very small part of the larger problem that is pure BS which divides and conquers dumb BS every time....
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I can say all most all gun laws are written by people that don't even own a gun"thats what make's it so mysterious. I like the Canadian one"no air guns can exceed 495fps. Thats means a 45cal. pellet must not exceed 495fps.Guess what a 1911 will do 875fps.I hope nobody gets hit at 495 with a 45cal pellet"OO i just looked up their law? now they added the Jollys- muzzle energy greater than 5.7 joules (4.2 foot-pounds) are firearms for purposes of both the Firearms.Hi jim whats in for ?my bb gun shot over 700 fps. OK Jim that really lam"here come;s the wardem bend over"
OO i just looked up their law? now they added the Jollys- muzzle energy greater than 5.7 joules (4.2 foot-pounds) are firearms for purposes of both the Firearms.Hi jim whats in for ?my bb gun shot over 700 fps. OK Jim that really lam"here come;s the wardem bend over" Last edited:
Upvote 0
Good, honest Americans simply need to stop “complying“ with unConstitutional, unjust laws… Constitutional Carry is the law and already acknowledged by 27 States… Too many petty tyrants…
Upvote 0
Way to many people think, oh well it’s not that bad but I’ll just do what is best for society/per the government guidelines. All okay until it effects that person who had their head buried in the sand..
Upvote 0