gun bans

Chicago-Area Democrats Push To Expand ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Throughout Illinois

After a federal court upheld an “assault weapons” ban by the City of Highland Park, gun “control” supporters in Chicago’s far north suburbs are trying to expand the ban on these military-pattern semi-automatic rifles throughout the state of Illinois- under the guise of “local control.” Deb McCarver reported on the Illinois Senate Democrats website Tuesday:

In response to a recent federal court ruling in support of Highland Park’s assault weapons ban, state Senator Julie Morrison introduced a measure to restore the right to ban assault weapons to every city and village in the state.

“This is about local control,” the Deerfield Democrat said. “Highland Park decided to protect its citizens by banning assault weapons. Every other city and village in Illinois should have that same right.”

The highly controversial 2013 law that allowed Illinois residents to carry concealed weapons also prohibited local governments from banning assault weapons…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

According to the “synopsis” of Illinois Senate Bill 2130:

the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Deletes provision that the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Deletes provision that any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with the Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of Public Act 98-63 (July 9, 2013). Deletes provision that any ordinance or regulation described in the stricken provision enacted more than 10 days after the effective date of Public Act 98-63 is invalid. Effective immediately…

This Tuesday I noted something Robert McCoppin reported on the Chicago Tribune website April 28. From his piece:

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court…

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said he was confident the law could be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the National Rifle Association would have to decide whether to make a costly appeal.

“The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms,” Pearson said. “The government doesn’t get to pick the list.”

After Senator Morrison’s action- supported by Highland Park Mayor and Democratic candidate for Congress (10th Congressional District) Nancy Rotering (as evidenced later on in that McCarver piece)- don’t be surprised if an appeal is now launched by pro-gun rights forces- costs be damned.

As for Highland Park, which is making a strong bid for wrestling away the title of “Ground Zero for Gun ‘Control’” from Oak Park, Illinois, these days, I suspect they could be on the hook for some astronomical legal fees after all is said and done.

You can track the status of SB2130 on the Illinois General Assembly website here.

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (


McCarver, Deb. “Morrison: Illinois should let cities ban assault weapons.” Illinois Senate Democrats. 5 May 2015. ( 7 May 2015.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Highland Park, Illinois, ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Latest

Back on December 23, 2013, I blogged about the City of Highland Park on Chicago’s far North Shore passing an ordinance banning “assault weapons” within its city-limits at a June city council meeting.

Subsequently, the Illinois municipality was sued for its “assault weapons” ban.

Last week, a federal court rendered a decision on the lawsuit. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action on May 1:

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on Monday allowing a Chicago-area gun and magazine ban to stand. Such bans are justifiable, according to the court, merely on the basis that they “may increase the public’s sense of safety.”

The case, Friedman v. Highland Park, was filed in 2013, and sought to invalidate a city ordinance that banned “assault weapons or large capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).” Highland Park was one of several Chicago suburbs that hastily enacted municipal ordinances regulating or banning the possession of “assault weapons” before the state’s 2013 concealed carry law preempted home-rule authority to do so.

This week, in a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel upheld the ban. According to the majority opinion, “A ban on assault weapons won’t eliminate gun violence in Highland Park, but it may reduce overall dangerousness of crime that does occur ….” Remarkably, the majority went on to suggest that even if the ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority wrote, “Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events.”

The majority acknowledged that “assault weapons” can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter and more accurate than alternative options and can be wielded more effectively by householders. Yet they quickly threw their own logic aside to reassert the city’s interest in reducing perceived risk over the tangible benefits that that modern firearms provide to their owners. “If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the opinion argued.

Judge Daniel Anthony Manion dissented from the majority opinion. Manion forcefully and persuasively argued that the ruling opinion is “at odds with the central holdings in Heller and McDonald: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.”

He went on to press the point that only individuals “make the ultimate decision for what constitutes the most effective means of defending one’s home, family, and property.” In stark contrast to the majority, Judge Manion was willing to recognize the constitutional dimensions that individual choice makes in the Second Amendment realm, just as it does with other fundamental rights. “Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters,” he wrote.

Judge Manion’s reminder that when it comes to our fundamental rights, “The government recognizes these rights; it does not confer them,” cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, his colleagues refused to uphold their duty to recognize either the right at stake or Highland Park’s violation of it. Rest assured, however, that your NRA will continue the fight to see that injustice corrected.

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Robert McCoppin reported on the Chicago Tribune website on April 28:

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court…

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said he was confident the law could be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the National Rifle Association would have to decide whether to make a costly appeal.

“The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms,” Pearson said. “The government doesn’t get to pick the list.”

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Stay tuned…

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (

(Editor’s note: Permission to reproduce this piece granted by the NRA-ILA)


McCoppin, Robert. “Appeals court upholds Highland Park assault weapons ban.” Chicago Tribune. 28 Apr. 2015. ( 5 May 2015.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Latest On Proposed Ban Of Common AR-15 Rifle Ammunition

Back on February 16, I blogged about the push by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to ban common M855 ball ammunition (or SS109 as it’s sometimes referred to) for the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle incredibly-popular with America’s shooting community. The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) charged on February 13:

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress…

Earlier today, I tuned in to the Mrgunsngear Channel on, and noticed Mrgunsngear had uploaded a video this weekend in which he discussed the latest developments going on with the proposed ban of “the second-most common ammo sold for the AR-15”:

“Is M855/SS109 5.56 Banned Already?
**Edit—Update With Current Latest Info At End…”
YouTube Video

Personally, I suspect the proposed (current?) ban is simply more “backdoor” gun “control” coming out of the White House. Remember what I wrote back on May 31, 2011:

This report comes after a recent Washington Post piece that was published on April 11th by Jason Horowitz in which President Obama is alleged to have said his administration was working on gun control “under the radar.” Horowitz wrote:

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.

“He just laughed,” Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

“We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

That’s how this administration is going to roll, especially after those gun and ammunition magazine ban setbacks at the federal level post-Newtown.

That being said, gun “control” supporters will be ready to breach the “front door” with the next major mass shooting/casualty event. Readers may recall my February 18 post about the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (bans ammunition magazines accepting more than 10 rounds) already introduced in the U.S. House and Senate (H.R. 752 and S. 407, respectively).

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Project Prepper, Part 32: Security First

Back in Project Prepper, Part 9 (dated February 27, 2013), I talked about the 6 “innate survival needs” that my preparedness efforts for this series of posts would focus on. Jack Spirko of The Survival Podcast (the originator of this list of needs) had “Food” at the top. I wrote:

My gut feeling tells me right now I should be focusing on “Security” before other needs. Why’s that? Because this latest push for more gun “control” that’s going on in America right now could end up limiting my access to a number of tools and other accessories that I could use to construct an effective security setup.

The push for more gun “control” in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting was substantial. And certain firearms, ammunition, and accessories fast became scarce. That being said, federal legislation calling for ammunition magazine and gun bans did not become law. Even so, the availability of certain items (.22 LR ammo comes to mind here) is still affected here at the beginning of 2015.

Regrettably, I believe that another mass shooting on the level of Newtown will happen again here in America. After which, there will undoubtedly be another significant push for gun “control,” and shortages of certain guns and ammo will take place once again. Taking into consideration that I also suspect firearm availability/ownership will be seriously curtailed when the nation’s “financial reckoning day” arrives (along with major civil strife), readers might understand why I’ve made “Security” my top “innate survival need.”

Now, gun “control” is a phenomenon that I am all too familiar with. When I wrote Project Prepper, Part 9, I was living at “ground zero” for gun “control” in America at that time- Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

Regular readers know that I’ve since moved out of the city and to the suburbs.

However, I still reside in Cook County (for the time being, at least), and as such, am subject to its considerable firearm restrictions.

Despite the setbacks of 2013 and last year, anti-gun sentiment remains strong in the county and in this part of the state. While the relentless push for more gun “control” has been somewhat quiet after the November 2014 election and through the holidays, activity will no doubt pick up again soon. And the next time a major mass shooting takes place in America, I expect legislation banning particular semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines to be introduced in the Illinois General Assembly probably before the smoke has even cleared. Trust me- it’s ready. While such a state-level ban wouldn’t mean a whole lot to me (Cook County already has an “Assault Weapon” Ban and 10-round ammunition magazine restriction in place), who’s not to say the County goes even further in the wake of such a tragedy and attempts to ban the future acquisition/possession of semi-automatic firearms, for example? Maybe there won’t even be a grandfather clause, and all semi-autos would now be illegal?

Yep. “Security” remains numero uno on my list of “innate survival needs.”

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cook County Tells Rest Of Illinois: Enact More Gun Control

Last Thursday, I blogged about a gun “control” referendum that was to appear on Cook County (Illinois) voter ballots on November 4. It said:

Shall the Illinois General Assembly enact the Illinois Public Safety Act (Senate Bill 3659) which would require universal background checks for firearm transfers and prohibit the sale and transfer of assault weapons, assault weapon attachments and high capacity ammunition magazines?

As of an hour ago, with 3,690 of 3,742 precincts reporting, the results so far show:

“Yes”: 1,024,722 votes (86.6%)

“No”: 159,028 votes (13.4%)

So there you have it. Cook County voters have spoken, and they overwhelmingly want more gun “control” for the entire state.

Too bad the referendum is non-binding. And it’s not like the rest of the “Land of Lincoln” gives a crap what “Crook County” thinks.

Still, I suspect Governor Quinn might bring it into play the next time a mass shooting or terrorist attack on American soil with a significant number of casualties occurs.

Oh, that’s right.

He gone.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Illinois Governor Pushes Ban On ‘Assault Weapons,’ ‘High-Capacity’ Ammo Magazines

As Democratic lawmakers can’t figure out why shootings and murders have erupted with renewed vigor in Chicago this summer (hints: bare-bones Chicago Police Department, gun-related laws already on the books but not enforced, and shooters not going to jail or for too short a stint), they’ve resorted to pushing more gun “control” laws on law-abiding constituents who have had nothing to do with the outbreak in violence. From a press release on the Illinois Government News Network website Sunday:

Governor Quinn Fights for Stronger Gun Laws Across Illinois
Congresswoman Kelly Joins Governor to Urge General Assembly to Pass Illinois Public Safety Act and Take a Stand Against the Violence

CHICAGO – Governor Pat Quinn, joined by Congresswoman Robin Kelly, today visited the site a recent fatal shooting in Chicago’s Morgan Park neighborhood to urge legislators to stand with families and communities and take action against gun violence. The Governor pushed passage of the Illinois Public Safety Act, legislation that would ban the sale or delivery of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines in Illinois and require background checks for the transfer of guns. Today’s action is part of Governor Quinn’s agenda to make Illinois neighborhoods safer.

“The recent epidemic of violence in Chicago is unacceptable and we must join together to fight back,” Governor Quinn said. “Public safety is government’s foremost mission and Illinois should not wait any longer to act. There are too many victims of a war being waged on our streets, a war fueled in part by the availability of deadly, military-style assault weapons that have no purpose other than killing.

“We must work together to protect the lives of those we love and stop what’s happening in our communities. I urge the Illinois General Assembly to take a stand and pass this legislation that will save lives and protect communities.”

The Governor today was joined by Congresswoman Robin Kelly who recently released the Kelly Report on Gun Violence in America, the first-ever Congressional analysis of the nation’s gun violence epidemic that offers a blueprint for ending the crisis.

Senate Bill 3659 – the Illinois Public Safety Act – was introduced during the recent spring Legislative session by State Senator Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) and supported by Governor Quinn. It bans the possession, delivery, sale and purchase of assault weapons, large capacity ammunition feeding devices such as magazines or clips, and .50 caliber rifles and cartridges in Illinois. Valid Firearms Owners Identification Card (FOID) holders who possess any of these devices at the time the law is enacted would be allowed to keep them, but could not transfer or sell them except to a family member. The legislation also requires background checks for the transfer of firearms except to a family member or at a gun show…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Of course, the bad guys won’t obey what’s stipulated in the Illinois Public Safety Act if it becomes law. But here’s what’s really messed-up about the bans the Democrats are pushing.

According to Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics, so-called “assault weapons” and .50 caliber rifles are rarely used in crimes- particularly murders- around the state of Illinois.

From Table 20, “Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2012” on the FBI’s “Crime in the U.S. 2012” web page (last year I could find pertinent data available for):

Illinois (“limited supplemental homicide data were received”)
Total murders (“Total number of murders for which supplemental homicide data were received”): 509
Total firearms: 439
• Handguns: 429
• Rifles: 4
• Shotguns: 2
• Firearms (type unknown): 4

439 firearm-related murders in Illinois in 2012. With a rifle (type unknown) definitely used in only 4 of those homicides.

Ban “assault weapons” and .50 caliber rifles. Yeah, that will solve the rampant violence.

Something tells me these Democratic politicians are trying to dupe voters into thinking they can end the ongoing carnage in this election year with such legislation.

Not going to happen, as the so-called Illinois Public Safety Act doesn’t even come close to getting to the root of the problem.

See “hints” above.

You can read that entire press release on the IGNN website here. And that 2012 FBI report table here.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comprehensive Anti-Gun Legislation Introduced In Illinois

Last night, I received the following e-mail from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA):

Illinois: Anti-Gunner “Wish List” Legislation Introduced

This week, Senate Bill 3659, misnamed the “Illinois Public Safety Act,” was introduced by notorious anti-gun state Senator Dan Kotowski (D-28). SB 3659 seeks to ban the possession, delivery, sale and purchase of many semi-automatic firearms and accessories, as well as .50 caliber rifles and cartridges unless the items have been previously owned and registered within an arbitrary period of time. SB 3659 would also amend the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to require background checks for private transfers of firearms, except those between family members, and would restrict magazine limits to those with a capacity of 15 rounds and smaller.

SB 3659 embodies the anti-gunner “wish list” in Illinois. This legislation is a comprehensive anti-gun package which echoes the unconstitutional legislation passed in New York and Connecticut last year. The laws passed in those states are currently subject to lawsuits due to their significant infringement on Second Amendment rights.

With the 2014 legislative session winding down, this bill has not yet been assigned to a policy committee. However, your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated when more information is available on this legislation.

Stay tuned…

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oconomowoc Gun Ban Demonstrates Importance Of Knowing Gun Laws

Speaking of Wisconsin this morning, I’ve been following an interesting story in Oconomowoc (Waukesha County) which highlights the importance of keeping on top of applicable firearm laws.

(Editor’s note: According to the latest version of Gun Facts (6.2), there are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level)

AWR Hawkins reported on the Breitbart website yesterday:

Following complaints by an Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, mother that a father violated a gun ban by being armed while playing with his children at a public park, Oconomowoc Police Chief David R. Beguhn said he will not enforce the ban.

According to local NBC affliate TMJ4, the mother, Heather Karenz, reported the armed father. She said, “There’s a lot of debate. There are people saying that’s his right, and I agree, 100 percent. But when it’s illegal for it to be on city property, everybody needs to obey that.”

An Oconomowoc city ordinance “does not allow firearms on city property.”

However, Chief Beguhn reviewed the local ordinance after Karenz’s complaint and found that the ordinance is no longer valid

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Why’s that? State of Wisconsin preemption statute. Dean Weingarten wrote on The Truth About Guns website yesterday:

Outraged Second Amendment supporters flooded the station and the city with emails and tweets, citing state law. Yesterday afternoon the police chief finally took the time to read the relevant statutes… and admitted that under Wisconsin’s preemption statute, the local law was unenforceable. Nik Clark of WisconsinCarry sent an email that the Chief had called him, and is in the process of correcting the error:

I’m pleased to relay that I received a call from the Oconomowoc Police Chief today who let me know that he has reviewed their local ordinance banning open carry in parks and realized it no longer fell within state law. He said he will be asking the city council to remove the ordinance at the next meeting. In the meantime, it will not be enforced

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Weingarten added:

Perhaps other police officials around the nation will learn from his example, and take the time to check the relevant statutes when asked a simple question about the laws they’re charged with enforcing…

One might hope so.

Hat tip to Chief Beguhn and other City of Oconomowoc officials/staff for looking into and doing something about the matter when they realized the conflict with the state statute.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (


Hawkins, AWR. “Wisconsin Police Chief Will Not Enforce Concealed Carry Ban.” 8 May 2014. ( 9 May 2014.

Weingarten, Dean. “Second Amendment Supporters Win in Oconomowoc.” The Truth About Guns. 8 May 2014. ( 9 May 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republican Candidates For Illinois Governor Split On ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban?

This November, an election will be held for Governor of Illinois. The four Republican candidates for the office- State Senators Bill Brady, Kirk Dillard, State Treasurer Dan Rutherford, and businessman Bruce Rauner- were recently given campaign questionnaires by the Associated Press, in which gun rights was one of the topics.

According to the AP, two of the four candidates may support a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

From last Tuesday:

In a campaign questionnaire for The Associated Press, the four candidates — state Sens. Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard, state Treasurer Dan Rutherford and businessman Bruce Rauner — all said gun rights need to be protected but that some public safeguards should exist.

The four differed over assault-style guns — high-capacity weapons that have been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings. They currently aren’t illegal statewide, and a proposed statewide ban backed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn was pulled from consideration last year in Springfield…

Dillard, of Hinsdale, and Rauner, of Winnetka, both left open the possibility they would support a ban. Rutherford, of Chenoa, and Brady, of Bloomington, oppose such a ban

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

However, the Chicago Sun-Times website is reporting that only one of the four candidates may be open to an “assault weapons” ban. Natasha Korecki wrote last Thursday:

Three of the four Republicans competing in the gubernatorial primary say they believe all Illinois residents have the right to own assault weapons.

Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford of Chenoa, state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington and venture capitalist Bruce Rauner of Winnetka said Thursday night that they believe it’s a right…

Only Dillard sidestepped the question — saying he believed it was better left up to the federal government to decide…

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

So what about Rauner? The Associated Press did think his questionnaire answer was “more vague” than Dillard’s. Turning back to their piece:

Rauner gave a more vague answer, saying he supports background checks that keep guns away from criminals and people with mental illness.

“Going beyond that requires a very careful balance between promoting public safety and protecting constitutional rights,” Rauner wrote…

Unless Kirk Dillard and Bruce Rauner actually come out and say they are against a state AWB, I would chalk them up as possibly being in support of an “assault weapons” ban if the political winds were blowing in that direction.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (


“Governor candidates split on gun control measures.” Associated Press. 25 Feb. 2014. ( 1 Mar. 2014.

Korecki, Natasha. “Owning assault weapons a right, three GOP candidates say.” Chicago Sun-Times. 27 Feb. 2014. ( 1 Mar. 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chicago To Fight Gun Sale, Transfer Ban Ruling?

Supporters of gun rights scored a big victory in Chicago yesterday, continuing to undermine gun “control” efforts pushed by former Mayor Richard M. Daley and current Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The Associated Press reported this morning:

A federal judge on Monday overturned Chicago’s ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city’s ordinances aimed at reducing gun violence are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal…

So is Mayor Emanuel and the City of Chicago going to appeal the ruling of Judge Chang, an Obama appointee?

Dahleen Glanton and Jason Meisner reported on the Chicago Tribune website today:

Roderick Drew, a spokesman for the city’s Law Department, said in a written statement Monday that Mayor Rahm Emanuel “strongly disagrees” with the judge’s decision and has instructed city attorneys “to consider all options to better regulate the sale of firearms within the city’s borders.”

So here’s a question Chicagoans might want to ask City Hall before a potential appeal is filed:

Seeing that all this stems from a 2010 lawsuit filed by three Chicago residents and an association of Illinois firearm dealers, how much, if any, is the City already on the hook for when it comes to the victors’ legal bills?

I seem to remember a certain check for $399,950 being coughed up by the City of Chicago to pay the Second Amendment Foundation for their legal costs in fighting the city’s handgun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Followed shortly thereafter by a check for $663,294.10 to the National Rifle Association for their attorney fees related to the lawsuit.

Enquiring minds want to know…

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (


“Chicago gun sale ban unconstitutional, judge rules.” 7 Jan. 2014. ( 7 Jan. 2014.

Glanton, Dahleen and Meisner, Jason. “Judge scraps Chicago’s ban on retail gun shops.” Chicago Tribune. 7 Jan. 2014. (,0,7182171.story?page=1). 7 Jan. 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 Firearms, Government, Gun Rights, Legal, Self-Defense No Comments

Update On Illinois Legislation For Raising Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences And Imposing Truth In Sentencing For Gun Crimes

“Illinois law already mandates a minimum 15-year sentence when a person with a gun commits any felony offense, and a one-year minimum for unlicensed gun possession and licensed possession of a loaded gun.”

-Illinois State Senator and Illinois Senate Criminal Law Committee member Patricia Van Pelt (D-Chicago), in a Chicago Tribune commentary, October 23, 2013

Here’s the latest on legislation at the state level that’s been backed by the Emanuel administration and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez that would not only raise mandatory minimum prison sentences for gun crimes but would require offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences. From the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action earlier today:

The NRA-ILA has just learned that new changes to recent legislation aimed at imprisoning law-abiding Illinois citizens for a victimless crime will likely be proposed very soon. While no language is currently available for review, the NRA-ILA has obtained information that the proposed changes will eliminate any mandatory minimums from the legislation for first-time offenders of the Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW) or Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUW) statutes, with no aggravating factors such as previous felonies or gang membership.

However, current law provides that probation is not available as a sentencing option, so individuals would still be sentenced to jail time, for which they are required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. This policy change continues to create a scenario in which an unsuspecting citizen who has chosen to carry a firearm for self-defense, could serve significant jail time for a regulatory infraction.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

So, to update a scenario that critics of this legislation have been putting out there, if a man with a concealed-carry permit left his firearm in his car because he and his spouse are going some place where guns are banned, and she leaves without him while taking the car, and subsequently gets pulled over by police, the spouse would still get slapped with a jail sentence since probation is not an option. At least that’s what I take away from all this.

Why the apparent insistence on punishing the “unsuspecting citizen”?

A number of observers suspect this is a conscious effort being carried out by anti-gun politicians in the state, hoping to make poster-children out of these unfortunate individuals and scare away other Illinois residents from exercising their Second Amendment right.

Stay tuned…

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (


“Illinois: Proposed New Changes to Mandatory Minimum Bill.” NRA-ILA. 4 Nov. 2013. ( 4 Nov. 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

White House ‘Fact Sheet’ On New Gun ‘Control’ Initiatives

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

-Rahm Emanuel, then-chief of staff for then-President-elect Barack Obama, Wall Street Journal CEO Council, November 19, 2008

While many Americans are distracted by the possibility of American military intervention in Syria, U.S. President Barack Obama has announced new gun “control” initiatives. From the White House website today:

FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence

Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities. These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan and the President unveiled on January 16, 2013.

Even as Congress fails to act on common-sense proposals, like expanding criminal background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime, the President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence.

Building on the 23 Executive Actions the President and Vice President Unveiled Last January

• Last December, the President asked the Vice President to develop a series of recommendations to reduce gun violence. On January 16, 2013, they released these proposals, including 23 executive actions. With the first Senate confirmation of an ATF Director on July 31, 2013, the Administration has completed or made significant progress on 22 of the 23 executive actions. The new executive actions unveiled today build on this successful effort.

Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands

• Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.
• However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation. At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run. ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.
• Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole. The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually. By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets

• When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.
• Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (


“FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence.” The White House. 29 Aug. 2013. ( 29 Aug. 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chicago-Area Laws Concerning Self-Defense Tools

(UPDATE: Revised to reflect City of Chicago’s passage of Substitute Ordinance SO2013-6015 on September 11, 2013, regarding personal safety tools)

From my research, I’ve noticed that quite a few Chicago-area residents wanting to find out more about the legality of their personal safety tools in their communities, county, and the state of Illinois often have a difficult time locating that information on the Internet easily.

Which is a shame, considering the amount of changes that have been made recently to state and local laws concerning firearms and other self-defense tools. For example, not only is concealed-carry now on the books at the state-level, but the City of Chicago and Cook County have tightened their gun “control” measures and there are a number of new “assault weapon” bans in effect in several metro-area communities.

So, in my “local” post for the day I thought I’d share with Chicagoland readers some links on the Internet where a bunch of this info can be found.

In my opinion, I’d approach general queries from the state level down to the municipal level. No use trying to find out if something is legal in your community if the state bans it and they supersede local laws in a particular area.

State of Illinois

Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/24-1)- Firearms, Chemicals, Electric
Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/33A-1)- Knives
Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/33F-1)- Body Armor
Public Act 98-63, Firearm Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66)- CCW

Cook County

Cook County Ordinance No. 07-O-36, Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban- Firearms
No info found on knives, body armor

DuPage County

No info found

Kane County

No info found

Lake County

No info found

McHenry County

No info found

Will County

No info found

City of Chicago

Municipal Code of Chicago, Title 8, Chapter 20- Firearms, amended 9/11/13 by SO2013-6015
Municipal Code of Chicago, Title 4, Chapter 144- Ammunition, amended 9/11/13 by SO2013-6015
Municipal Code of Chicago, Title 8, Chapter 24- Knives, Chemicals, Electric, Amended 9/11/13 by SO2013-6015

Chicago Suburbs

Query the municipality in question in a search engine with the name of the town and state plus “ordinances” and proceed from there. If you can’t find any local ordinances on the town’s website, there’s a good chance the municipality outsources their codification and public display. In which case, check the Illinois municipal client catalogs of the following codifying companies below:

American Legal Publishing Corporation
Municipal Code Corporation
Sterling Codifiers

Hope this comes in handy!

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Only 7 Illinois Municipalities Pass ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans By State-Imposed Deadline

On July 1, I wrote the following concerning new “assault weapon” bans being considered by a number of Illinois municipalities:

As Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has only until July 9 to sign Illinois House Bill 183 (so-called “Firearm Concealed Carry Act”), discussion and implementation of “assault weapons” bans in Chicago-area municipalities has been ongoing. Back on June 21 I mentioned an e-mail I received from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action that pointed out:

HB 183 contains a provision that allows certain localities up to ten days from the date of enactment to make laws prohibiting so-called “assault weapons” before this legislation prohibits local governments from doing so at a later date.

Well, Illinois House Bill 183 is now law, and the deadline for enacting new “assault weapon” bans has passed. From the NRA-ILA yesterday:

Illinois: Many Local Governments Rush to Enact Last-Minute Gun Bans, But Few Succeed in Circumventing Statewide Regulation of Firearms

With enactment into state law of concealed carry legislation, House Bill 183, a new fight for gun rights in Illinois was started. A clause included in this new law allowed home rule local governments to enact their own so-called “assault weapon” bans within ten days of House Bill 183’s enactment. In the days preceding and immediately following enactment, a flurry of city council meetings were scheduled to discuss or pass a ban on popularly owned semi-automatic firearms.

Approximately sixty different local meetings were scheduled in total, and many Illinois NRA members and gun owners attended those meetings and contacted their local officials in opposition to these hastily crafted restrictions. Due to the efforts of those law-abiding citizens defending their Second Amendment rights, only seven new “assault weapon” bans were enacted throughout the state (listed below) before the deadline – Friday, July 19.

If you or anyone you know have been arrested or harassed under a local ban or ordinance, please contact the NRA Legislative Counsel’s office at (703) 267-1161.

Localities with new bans:

• Calumet Park – (No language available)
• Dolton – Assault Weapon Ban (No language available)
• Evanston – Assault Weapon Ban (Page 11)
• Highland Park – Assault Weapon Ban
• Melrose Park – Assault Weapon Ban (No language available)
• North Chicago – Assault Weapon Ban
• Skokie – Assault Weapon Ban (Page 50)

Other local governments passed ordinances pertaining to firearms storage and transportation. Those localities include:

• Country Club Hills
• Deerfield
• University Park
• Winnetka

Thank you to all members who attended local meetings and voiced their opposition to bans or unreasonable regulations on firearms commonly owned for self-defense. While Illinois now has concealed carry, continued vigilance is necessary to ensure protection of our rights. Your NRA-ILA will continue to fight unreasonable restrictions and will keep you updated.

Next up for these 7 municipalities concerning this issue?

Lawsuits, I suspect.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wisconsin Bill Would Bar Local, State Cops From Enforcing Unconstitutional Federal Gun ‘Control’ Measures

Besides still blogging about Chicago after my recent move to the suburbs, I’ll also be discussing personal and financial safety issues related to Wisconsin- where a family residence is located- from time to time.

And on the topic of personal safety, there’s this June 11 press release out of the office of Wisconsin State Representative Michael Schraa (R-Algoma):

Rep. Schraa releases Firearms Freedom Act

(Madison, WI) – State Representative Michael Schraa announced legislation today to protect Wisconsin from unconstitutional gun control measures being pushed on the federal level. The bill would bar local and state law enforcement officers from assisting in the enforcement of federal measures to ban certain firearms, firearm accessories, magazines, or types of bullets.

“This bill, the Firearms Freedom Act, sends a simple message to the federal government,” said Schraa (R – Oshkosh). “Wisconsin will not help you take away our second amendment rights.”

The bill’s provisions against enforcing certain federal gun control measures only apply to local and state law enforcement officers, and do not in any way affect federal law enforcement officers. This approach is similar in legal precedence to certain states’ stances on minor drug violations, that local and state law enforcement do not enforce certain federal laws, but do not interfere with federal law enforcement activities.

Also included in the legislation is protections for officers from demotion, termination, or other punishment for following this law. The language of the protections is taken directly from the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights that already exists in state statute.

The bill would also bar a physician, other than a psychiatrist, from requiring a patient to disclose if they own firearms. In January, President Barack Obama through executive action made it his administration’s official stance that no federal law is stopping doctors from asking patients about gun ownership.

“Owning a firearm, or not owning a firearm, is a personal decision that has nothing to do with your physical health,” said Schraa. “Patients should not feel intimidated or harassed by their physicians over the exercise of a constitutional right.”

Another provision of the bill declares that firearms manufactured in Wisconsin and including the stamp “Made in Wisconsin” is not subject to federal interstate commerce regulation as the firearm has not traveled between states.

According to The Council of State Governments, over 30 states are considering similar bills, and eight have already enacted similar measures.

Rep. Schraa lives in the Town of Algoma near Oshkosh. He serves the 53rd Assembly District, which is comprised of 17 villages and towns and three cities. The northern area covers the Town of Oshkosh and several wards in the City of Oshkosh, west from the Town of Algoma to Omro and south covering the City of Waupun and the Village of North Fond du Lac.

You can read Schraa’s proposed Firearms Freedom Act on the Wisconsin State Legislature web site here.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Survival And Prosperity
Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Est. 2010, Chicagoland, USA

Successor to
"The Most Hated Blog On Wall Street"
(Memorial Day Weekend 2007-2010)

Please Rate this Blog HERE

Limited Time Offers

Via Banner Ads Below (navigate to vendor home page if necessary); Updated 10/3/15:
>CHIEF 20% Off Top Apparel Brands Thru 10/5 (code needed); Waterproof Outwear, Safety Boots, Vests On Sale Thru 10/27; 25% Off Tru-Spec 24-7 Series Pants Thru 10/31; Free 3-Pack Coolmax Cushion Socks w/ All Footwear Thru 10/31
>BGASC 1 Oz. & 10 Oz. Silver Bar Sale For Limited Time; End Of Summer Sale
>BUDK Free Shipping (no min. order; code needed)
>Nitro-Pak Mountain House Freeze-Dried Food Sale; Katadyn Water Filters Up To 30% Off; All AlpineAire Food Up To 25% Off; All Backpacker's Pantry Food Up To 25% Off
>Food Insurance Warehouse Sale; Free Emergency Supplies With Long-Term Meal Plan; Save Up To 43% On Freeze-Dried Seasoned Ground Turkey Pieces
>Airsoft Megastore Multicam Sale Up To 30% Off; Free Shipping On All Orders (no code required)
>BulletSafe Bulletproof Baseball Cap $119 Pre-Order Price; Ballistic Plate Only $169
>Tractor Supply Co. Free UPS Ship To Store
NEW! Advertising Disclosure HERE
Buy Gold And Silver Coins BGASC Review Coming Soon
Free UPS ship to store on all Tractor Supply Company orders! Shop now! Tractor Supply Co. Review Coming Soon
Food Insurance Reviewed HERE
Nitro-Pak--The Emergency Preparedness Leader Nitro-Pak Reviewed HERE
BullionVault Reviewed HERE
CHIEF Supply Reviewed HERE
bullet proof vests BulletSafe Reviewed HERE
BUDK Reviewed HERE
Pyramyd Air is your one-stop shop for everything airgun related. Reviewed HERE
Airsoft Megastore Reviewed HERE
Survival Titles Save 20% Paladin Press Reviewed HERE



Prepper Website
  • Who Needs An Offshore Safe Deposit Box?

    It is my belief that offshore safe deposit boxes will be increasingly demonized in the coming years. If registering interest in one of these overseas asset protection tools to another party, be prepared to hear something along the lines of: “Why do you want an offshore safe deposit box? Are you doing something illegal?” While […] ...
  • War Declared On Gold As Part Of Capital Controls?

    I’ve read/heard a lot about the following lately: Wealth confiscation. The War on Cash. Capital controls. But after reading two articles by Doug Casey and Ted Bauman the other day, I’m wondering if a War on Gold related to capital controls has begun as well. From Doug Casey on his International Man website recently, concerning […] ...
  • Bank And Private Vaults Should Focus On Security Issues Post-Hatton Garden Heist, Pre-Financial Crises

    I’m still playing catch up on my offshore-related projects after that late summer break. So I just recently learned the fate of Hatton Garden Safe Deposit Ltd, the London private vault that was burglarized over Easter weekend to the tune of £10 million. Jamie Grierson reported on The Guardian (UK) website back on September 1: […] ...
  • Related Reading: Storing Precious Metals In Offshore, Non-Bank Facilities

    I was doing some reading Monday when I came across an article entitled “Your Gold Is Only as Good as Where You Store It” on Doug Casey’s International Man website. Jeff Thomas talked about how those looking to safeguard their wealth against insolvent governments have moved their cash into potentially harder-to-confiscate real estate and precious […] ...
  • Thoughts About Bloomberg Article On Swiss Private Vaults

    Anyone get the chance to read that article I mentioned Wednesday? Here are my thoughts about “Italy’s Tax Dodgers Hide in a Swiss Loophole,” penned by Hugo Miller and published on the Bloomberg website on September 17. Miller wrote: One floor above Ristorante Pasta e Ravioli is the office of safe-deposit-box company Gestisafe, whose […] ...