Illinois ban on .50 bmg ammo and guns advancing!


Illinois Senate committee approved a bill that will ban possession of ANY .50 BMG ammo in Illinois (and ALL .50 cal rifles made after 1898, not just .50 BMG, but ALL .50 cal!). Full senate can consider this at any time.
This from a .50 caliber Institute alert today. Details should be up on their site at later today.
If they can ban .50 BMG caliber ammo, why not .458 or .45 or .38 or .30 or .22?
The attack on .50 caliber target rifles is just one small element of an attack on all aspects of ammo collecting or shooting.


Illinois is not a good place to be living right now if you’re a shooter, collector, or gun owner. They are also attempting to BAN all semi auto rifles and shotguns, with no compensation as I understand it.



This is not just a ban in Illinois, this is spreading all over America and around the world. Its part of the UN’s world wide plan to ban all small arms from private citizens and most probably has something to do with this i suspect.
Once they get away with it, then other types of firearms will follow like a domino effect. They will most probably work their way at minority interest groups of shooters ie .50 cal BMG shooter then BAFT licenced machine gun owners then semi auto owners etc etc. What they are hoping for is conflict within the shooting community ie wildfowl or Game shooters hoping to show no support because they see no sense in owning a .50 cal BMG. Watch out they are crafty. Most people on this forum who may not shoot will most probably think this world wide plague will not affect them but when there are no guns left then they will start on you and there will be no one to support you in your fight. Just imagine for one moment your lovely collection of ammo you spent years and money on, destroyed because of some faceless bureaucrat who would rather focus their attention on you,rather than the criminals, because its easy for them to take credit for doing something, which amounts to nothing. WE ALL MUST STICK TOGETHER REGARLESS OF OTHERS INTERESTS whether they shoot .50 CAL BMG or something you don’t like.
We found this out in the UK when they banned semi auto rifles and pistols later on. We had no support from field shooting groups or target shooters. Some of them even agreed to such bans. Its amazing how divided the shooting community is. BE WARNED.
I have every sympathy for you all in America. I wish you all the best of luck in your fight. If there is anything, we, here, in the UK can do to help, let us know, but learn from our past mistakes if you can. That goes for any other country.



Great post. I hope everyone on the Forum takes the time to read it.

As a shooter, gun owner, and cartridge collector I feel like I’m being turned every which way but loose. There’s not a lot that one old guy like me can do anymore but I do pass the word when I can. I also support the NRA, financially, as much as I can. I pay dues to as many shooting organizations as I can afford. And IAA, of course. Two years ago I joined the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association (FCSA) even though I don’t own one of the big fifties and probably never will. But maybe, just maybe, my $40 per year will do some little good for those great gals and guys who are now in the anti-gunners sights.



I can see the day when they ban all privately held firearms here in the UK and I feel there is nothing I can do. The UK and USA are rapidly becoming police states. Hopefully that un-constitutional piece of bureaucratic lunacy doesn’t go through in Illinois.


a. Keep informed.
b. Know who your state and federal representatives and senators are, and how to contact them. (NRA-ILA has a nifty look up tool you can use to find out).
c. Sign up for alerts from the NRA-ILA, and state gun rights groups.
d. When asked by above, contact the politicians. Phone is best, fax is good, email is least effective, but if they get enough they pay attention. Snail mail is too slow, so forget about doing that.
e. Volunteer to help your local/state gun rights group. The “powerful gun lobby” depends on the hard work of many volunteers who each contribute in some small way: – Man a table selling NRA memberships at guns shows, county fairs, etc. --Help gather email addresses and enter them in a database so gun rights alerts can reach more people.
f. Write letters to the editor- figure about 150 words max, give your address and phone so they can verify who wrote it. Make a brief single point, and avoid saying "protected by the 2nd Amendment."
g. Volunteer and work for the campaigns of pro-gun politicians running for office. Give money, stuff envelopes, assemble/deliver yard signs, show up for rallies, drop off literature at homes in your neighborhood.
h. Invite people to go shooting with you, or encourage them to go to a concealed carry class. These neutralize much of the emotional hostility towards guns that some people have from ignorance.


While I agree with John S. about avoiding the “2nd Amendment Issue” in correspondence, isn’t it a shame that referring to the U.S. Constitution has become a minus point in this country. Of course, there are those that actually believe politicians and courts really care about the Constitution and that the 2nd Amendment has any meaning anymore. Silly, aren’t they. The Constitution has been basically ignored by self-serving politicians and judges in this country for decades.


It’s my understanding that a District of Columbia Circuit Court just ruled that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect an INDIVIDUAL’S right to keep and bear arms. If this is true it will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Anybody heard about this? It was supposed to be withing the last day or two?


PS I just saw this on the Drudge Report. No details, but there must be something to it.

DC Gun Ban struck down by Federal Appeals Court…[PDF] Developing…



John S. - Did you notice my location, I cannot do any of the things you suggested in the UK. We hardly have any gun rights groups or anything.


BREAKING NEWS – Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights: You can access today’s lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.
According to the majority opinion, “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

Judge Henderson’s dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority’s assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment’s protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.

Update: “InstaPundit” notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has posts titled “Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election” and “D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment,” while Orin Kerr has a post titled “DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment.” And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “D.C. Circuit Strikes Down D.C. Gun Control Laws.”

My coverage of the D.C. Circuit’s oral argument appeared here on the afternoon of December 7, 2006.
Posted at 10:08 AM by Howard Bashman

Full decision (all 75 pages of it) here: … -7041a.pdf