The Warren County Board met at the Courthouse on Wednesday morning to discuss a variety of topics such as a potential solar company project, a transportation grant for a new Smart 14-Passenger vehicle for public transportation and to review the annual 2022 annual report for the Warren County Health Department. During the meeting, citizens are able to make presentations or comments to the County Board for their consideration. One of those citizens included Steve Buban, who represents the Warren County Democrats as the Committee Chair. Buban wanted to take the opportunity to let the Board know their organization supports the proposed Illinois ban on assault weapons. This presentation was in response to the Warren County Board’s resolution in their February regularly scheduled meeting.
Message/Presentation to County Board – April 12, 2023, 9:30AM
“My name is Steve Buban. I represent the Warren County Democratic Central Committee, of which I am currently Chair. We wish to respond to the Board’s recent resolution (Feb. 15 meeting) unanimously opposing HB5471, referred to as the “Assault Weapon” or “High-Capacity Magazine” Ban. We are here to let you know that we support the new law and to briefly explain why. And also to let you know that we believe that a large (though, unknown) number of citizens of this county feel the same way we do, which, if true, would suggest that you do not well represent the diversity of opinion in the county. In your ten-point resolution, you remind us that there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We take no issue with that here. And, you state that you believe the new law to be unconstitutional. We disagree and hope the courts will deem the law to be constitutional. You note that the new law would harm some economic interests. Yes, gun dealers in particular could be affected. You also say that the ban is unlikely to have any effect on gun crime locally.
This may be true, but we believe the benefits of the ban nevertheless offer a safer environment for our local residents.
You say that the new law, which allows current owners to keep their weapons as long as they are registered, will turn law-abiding citizens into felons. It is important to point out that they will only be charged with a crime if they refuse to obey the law. You believe that the ban “unreasonably” impairs citizens’ rights. We disagree and believe that, just as it is reasonable to ban fully automatic weapons, the current law of the land, it is reasonable to ban semi-automatic high-powered rifles and high-capacity magazines.
Our main concern – and thus our main reason for supporting the ban – is with the horrible phenomenon of mass killings. We believe, sadly, that it is naïve to think “it can’t happen here.” That is no doubt that most residents of Nashville, Highland Park, Uvalde, Sandy Hook, etc. believed the same thing. We believe that the right of our residents, and our school children in particular, to be safe from a disturbed person with a semi-automatic, high-powered rifle overrides the right of persons to purchase such weapons such weapons were banned. Studies of the effects of the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons, in place between 1994 and 2004, are somewhat ambiguous on whether the number of mass shootings declined. It is very clear, though, that the numbers killed in mass shootings were much lower during the Federal ban than before and after it. This is not surprising, as these weapons are designed to kill large numbers of persons in a short span of time.
As the father of a child killed at Sandy Hook Elementary stated: “The shooter who murdered my sweet little Daniel took ten 30-round gun magazines with him…It only took him approximately four minutes to shoot 154 bullets, killing 20 children and six educators in the blink of an eye.” We would also suggest that law enforcement officers would be safer if they did not have to go up against military-style weapons. It recently was reported that the officers who infamously failed to rush the shooter in Uvalde were certain they would be killed the moment they opened the classroom door.
Critics of gun regulations tend to say the problem is the shooters, their mental problems in particular, and not the guns. Clearly the problem is the shooters, but just as clearly the problem is their relatively easy access (often legal) to the types of weapons banned by the new legislation. Regarding the complex problem of mental illness, it’s worth noting that other countries have similar problems with mental distress but vastly lower incidences of mass killings. Our country’s efforts to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands – such as enhanced background checks and longer waiting periods – have been repeatedly stymied in legislatures. One thing we can do is try to limit the availability of these kinds of weapons.
Therefore, we strongly support the new law and we hope that it will be approved by the court. One of the last things you say in your resolution is that the County Board will support the County Sheriff and State’s Attorney to uphold their oaths of office and Constitutional duties. We concur with this sentiment and appreciate the work they do for our residents. If this law is deemed constitutional by the courts, we hope and expect our elected officials will enforce it to the best of their abilities. Thank you for giving us this time to speak.
Below, find the Illinois Radio Network Latest on the Illinois ban on assault weapons
Greg Bishop 4-12-23
Illinois’ ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines is set for a hearing in an East St. Louis federal court Wednesday afternoon. Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act on Jan. 10. The measure bans all sales of more than 170 semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, and bans the sale of magazines over 10 rounds for rifles and 15 rounds for handguns. All grandfathered firearms legally purchased before the ban are required to register with Illinois State Police by the beginning of next year. Illinois has about 2.4 million Firearm Owner ID card holders, a requirement to buy and own firearms in Illinois. Active and retired police officer and others in the law enforcement and security sectors are exempt from the weapons ban. Last week, Gov. J.B. Pritzker said there are limits to the Second Amendment. Monday, speaking at Harvard University, Pritzker praised the law he enacted. “We ought to be doing all that nationally,” Pritzker said. “But, we just did that in January, and by the way it’s all tied up in courts right now. We’ll see, it could end up at the [U.S. Supreme Court], but eight other states have passed automatic weapons bans.”
Attorney Thomas Maag was the first to file suit a week after the law was enacted in January. That was filed in Crawford County state court but was then transferred to federal court. Maag’s case challenges the law on Second Amendment grounds, but also on the grounds that requiring registration violates Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination. “In order to speed this particular motion hearing [for a preliminary injunction] through, we agreed to delay our Fifth Amendment argument and another argument at a later date if it becomes necessary to argue those as well,” Maag told The Center Square.
Maag’s case will be argued Wednesday in East St. Louis alongside three other lawsuits brought by plaintiffs groups.
Part of a separate plaintiffs group, Illinois State Rifle Association’s Richard Pearson predicts a statewide injunction blocking the law from being enforced with appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said last summer the supreme court changed the standard courts are to use in Second Amendment cases. “That said, you have to have stricter scrutiny and you have to make sure that the firearms that they are trying to ban are not in common use and there’s hardly any firearms more in common use than semi-automatic rifles and handguns,” Pearson said.
In one argument, the state contends modern firearms were not in common use when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1788, and the state’s law looks to address “dramatic technological changes” that created weapons beyond self defense.
“Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing assault weapons and large capacity magazines are ‘arms’ protected by the text of the Second Amendment,” the state said last month. “Large capacity magazines are accessories, not ‘arms,’ and they are neither independently capable of nor necessary for self defense. They augment the lethality of firearms by reducing the frequency of re-loading in battle – or during the episodic massacres that now punctuate modern American life.”
Todd Vandermyde is consulting another plaintiffs group in the Southern District case with the Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois. He summoned past court precedent that said per the Second Amendment, laws can’t restrict commonly owned firearms.
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolously, only those arms in existence in the 18th Century are to be protected and we do not view constitutional rights that way,” Vandermyde told The Center Square.
Judge Stephen McGlynn Wednesday could take under advisement the motion for a preliminary injunction halting the law statewide. He’s already acknowledged however the case goes, it’s expected to go up on appeal to the Seventh District Court of Appeals.
In state-level challenges, the case out of Macon County doesn’t have a hearing until mid-May in front of the Illinois Supreme Court. A temporary restraining order keeping only named plaintiffs safe from enforcement was issued in that case. Temporary restraining orders also impact thousands of other named plaintiffs in three other cases continuing in Effingham County led by attorney Thomas DeVore.
On Monday, a provision of the law kicked in that levels criminal penalties against those who are found in violation. By Oct. 1, Illinois State Police are expected to open up the registration portal with a deadline to register impacted firearms by Jan. 1, 2024, or criminal penalties could apply.
