Gun control measures proposed in Illinois

[TexasTowelie]

SPRINGFIELD — At least two gun control measures could be addressed in the upcoming veto session of the Illinois General Assembly.

The proposed measures come as reaction continues to the mass shooting in Las Vegas that left 58 people dead and more than 500 wounded, The State Journal-Register reported.

The legislation introduced by Rep. Martin Moylan, a Des Plaines Democrat, would ban the sale of assault weapons, large-caliber rifles, bump stocks” that allow rapid firing of weapons and large-capacity magazines, which are described in the bill as holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition.

Moylan has previously proposed similar measures, but they haven’t passed the legislature. He thinks circumstances may change since it was discovered that Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, had reserved hotel rooms in Chicago overlooking the Lollapalooza music festival last summer. Paddock didn’t use the rooms.

Read more: http://rockrivertimes.com/2017/10/14/gun-control-measures-proposed-in-illinois/

[ClarendonDem]

1. The ten-rounds-or-more requirement is interesting

Most similar laws ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and the only such ban that I've seen struck down was the NY law that attempted to limit magazines to 7 rounds. Since 7 round magazines are rare/non-existent, NY said you could have a 10 round magazine but only load 7 rounds, and the Second Circuit said that violated the 2d Amendment.

[Nitram]

3. The article reads, "10 OR MORE..."

[ClarendonDem]

4. That's what I said

Other similar laws ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, but this one proposes a ban on magazines that hold ten rounds or more. So this proposed law differs in that regard from others that have been upheld. So what did I get wrong?

On edit, perhaps my reference to NY's attempt to limit a magazine to 7 rounds was inarticulate. I was simply pointing out that the one effort to limit a magazine to less than 11 rounds - in NY's case, 7 rounds -- was ruled unconstitutional.

[Not Ruth]

2. I think that you might want to read the article again