SPRINGFIELD - There's not enough support in the Illinois Senate to impose tough new restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

In a setback for gun control advocates in the wake of the murder of school children in Connecticut, the Illinois Senate was poised to adjourn Thursday without voting on two pieces of legislation aimed at limiting access to certain kinds of weapons and bullets.

Although the two proposals could emerge again when the legislature reconvenes next week, the lack of action shows the General Assembly remains divided on how to balance Second Amendment issues.

A spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, offered no timetable for when the gun safety proposals might surface again.

"We will take some time to work on these important issues to advance them in the near future," Rikeesha Phelon noted in a message to reporters.

One proposal would restrict the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic weapons, including handguns and rifles.

The National Rifle Association lobbied against the measure, saying the ban would take as many as 50 percent of long guns off the market in Illinois. Gun manufacturers also said the proposal could force them to lay off workers.

The legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Antonio Munoz, D-Chicago, would allow people who currently own such weapons to keep them as long as they register the firearms with the Illinois State Police.

State Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, sponsored the proposal that would limit ammunition magazines to 10 or fewer rounds.

Gov. Pat Quinn has pushed for a ban on assault-style weapons, but a spokeswoman recently suggested action could come later this spring.

kurt.erickson@lee.net | or 217-782-4043)


(5) comments


You don't suppose the fact they violated the constitution had something to do with it. The Chicago Commiecrats act like the Constitution doesn't exist


What some of the politicians don't want people to realize is exactly what the 2nd Amendment means. Yes, people have been dumbed down on purpose. Suprise, huh?
No where in the Constitution does it say what weapon or what magazine capicty can any weapon be. The 2nd Amendment was written for the taxpayers interest, not the elected politicians.
It was to protect the citizens from the politicians/govt. Plain and simple on that part. It also gives you the right to openly carry a weapon in plain sight on your body. All the laws passed to stop that from happening would not hold up in the Supreme Court.
And Jjjs, it's not just the Chicago Commiecrats, you also have RegressiveFacists from the other party. Wake up, before it's too late. Some of the states have woken up, but then, Illinois has always been a little behind times.


This story is an example of the (perhaps) unconscious bias of many in the press.

"A spokeswoman ... offered no timetable for when the gun safety proposals might surface again."

This is not a gun SAFETY bill, it is a gun restriction and registration bill. Calling it gun SAFETY makes anyone who opposes it seem like they are not in favor of common sense safety... but the bill is not about safety, it is about additional government control over the private lives and property of law-abiding citizens.

Call it an "anti-freedom" proposal, or perhaps a "property confiscation" proposal and see if it gets a different reaction.

Virgil Caine

Yeah, better check under your beds for commies :)


I am pro-gun, and think that these laws will do little to actually curb gun violence...BUT..Do understand that the 2nd amendment "right to bear arms" is not as black-and-white as it would seem. The nature of the amendment was to protect the ability of the citizenry to form militias to protect themselves from invasion and from tyranny of government. It is not necessarily individual specific.

Also, the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the latest case that finally opened Illinois to concealed carry (a lower court made this ruling. While it is binding, it can still be overturned by the supreme court, which would be doubtful)...I would bet that the high court will be hearing this case soon and will finally put a large nail in the 2nd amendment debate.

Name-calling is immature and childish and does absolutely nothing to further your interests.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.