Talk:Gun laws in Illinois

State preemption

I believe that the recently passed Firearm Concealed Carry Act gives Illinois state preemption for only two things: (1) concealed carry, and (2) laws regulating "assault weapons" except for those grandfathered in by being passed before July 20, 2013. If anyone can show how there is preemption for anything else, please do so here. Feel free to refer either to the law itself or to secondary sources. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I had originally misread Sec. 13.1. , which I thought was more blanket pre-emption (missed the all important "not") , I stand corrected. However, I do think that the preemption is more broad than just CC, and covers all aspects of handguns.

Section 90. Preemption. The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the word "not" strikes again! But, looking at that section of the concealed carry act, you're right, there is more to it than just concealed carry and assault weapons. So, I just updated the article accordingly. Thanks for your help. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Chicago gun registration

With regard to Chicago, I believe this article is out of date. See http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-09/news/ct-met-chicago-gun-registry-0608-20130609_1_gun-registry-gun-rights-advocates-gun-control http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39986 Seems like we need a lawyer to update this page. --Rehevkor5 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

You need to clarify. Are you saying the table or other content disucussing Chicago registration is wrong, because chicago no longer requires registration? The illinoicarry link is not reliable, and the trib article says it may go away. Any reliable sources that say it is actually gone? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a more reliable source for this would be a good thing. Looking at the the text of the law, section 90 says, "The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State." That makes it sound like Chicago can no longer require the registration of handguns. But what about rifles and shotguns? I thought Chicago required the registration of all firearms, and the new law doesn't seem to affect rifles or shotguns. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. 430 ILCS 65/13.1b is pretty clear about denial of local handgun regulations, but as far as I know, the city can still require registration of long guns. Whether they'll bother, who knows. I did notice that Chicago Police used to have some docs on their site about gun regulations but those seem to have disappeared. Either way, the article needs an update. Drummerdg (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that the new concealed carry law's preemption section means that Chicago will no longer require the registration of handguns, or of firearms in general. But, we still don't have any reliable references for this. I hope we will soon, either way, but in my opinion the article should not be changed until then. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The city still has the handgun laws on the books, it's just that they're unenforcable now. I don't think there have been any official statements made about it, but legally that appears to be the state of affairs. Drummerdg (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe this addresses the questions here : http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-chicago-aldermen-recommend-repealing-city-gun-registry-20130909,0,4577221.story Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not pushing to rush. Just mentioning what I think I heard on public radio after work today. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that addresses the question all right. That is, there's a proposal to officially repeal Chicago's gun registry, and the city council might vote on that on Wednesday. I suggest that we wait until then and see what happens. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I heard that it passed today, basically to bring Chicago in compliance with the law. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Tribune article linked above, the repeal of the gun registry was passed by the Public Safety Committee, and is scheduled to be voted on by the full city council on Wednesday. That's when it'll be official, if it passes. Here's more coverage, from the Chicago Sun-Times. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not pushing to rush. Just mentioning what I think I heard on public radio after work today. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The City Council repealed the registry and the Chicago Firearms Permit requirement today, along with a few other adjustments: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/22502980-418/chicago-aldermen-approve-contradictory-gun-laws.html Drummerdg (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep! I've updated the article to reflect this. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

man, the changes are coming like clockwork

"The principal issue in this case is whether section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) of the Illinois aggravated unlawful use of weapons (AUUW) statute (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West 2008)) violates the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S.Const., amend. II). We hold that it does."

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/illinois-supreme-court-right-keep-bear-arms-extends-outside-home/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I'm not sure the ruling will have any practical effect, now that Illinois has changed its laws and will issue permits for concealed carry. At any rate, there's more coverage of that case, and another gun law case decided today by the Illinois Supreme Court, at http://madisonrecord.com/news/259107-supreme-court-issues-two-gun-related-rulings. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another article about this, from the Chicago Tribune. "The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state prosecutors must follow a ruling from a federal appeals court last year that ended Illinois' status as the last state without a concealed carry law." The article goes on to say that the practical effect of the ruling is likely to be pretty limited. "Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of State Gun Law " — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The case, People v. Aguilar has an article about it, if someone wants to incorporate the decision into this article. There has already been one case dismissed based on the decision. GregJackP Boomer! 05:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for pointing that out. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

Recently the lead section was substantially shortened, as shown here. I'm going to revert those edits, because I think the old version of the lead, while not particularly short, was a really good overview of the gun laws of Illinois. After the lead sentence, which still introduces the topic, there was a paragraph about concealed carry. That has a bit of "recentism" that can be edited out, but I think it would be best to leave it the way it is until a reliable source reports that some concealed carry permits have actually been issued. That hasn't happened yet so I think it's appropriate for that paragraph to retain those dates for now. Also, I think it's very appropriate for the lead to briefly explain about the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board thing, which is pretty much unique to Illinois, and which means that qualified applicants (no felony convictions etc.) will not be granted a permit in every case. So, I think that level of detail about concealed (and open) carry is warranted in the lead. Next there was a paragraph that gave a quick overview of some of the other laws. Certainly the FOID should be mentioned in the lead, that's a big deal for Illinois gun laws, and that was left in, but it's also very important to not get the FOID card (for possession of firearms or ammunition) mixed up with the concealed carry permit, which the new version seemed to do. In summary: I think it would be reasonable to make some edits to the paragraph about concealed carry, but it might be better to wait until any permits are actually issued. For the rest of the lead, I think it's not out of line at all, in terms of summarizing in a few paragraphs the high points of the state's gun laws. As always other editors are encouraged to contribute to this discussion as well as to the article itself. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, "(1) The state police have begun issuing concealed carry licenses. Updated the article to reflect this, and moved now-historical material to its own subsection. (2) Modest improvements to the lead, to better summarize the article. (3) Added more See Alsos." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

shall/may issue

Mudwater Your objection to Shall-Issue is WP:OR. The law is described by many reliable sources as shall issue. There are no strict definitions as to what type of objections are acceptable to be shall issue, and you defining Illinois process as not meeting an undefined criteria is clear WP:OR. If you do not believe it is shall-issue, find WP:RS to the contrary, and then we can source that there is a conflict of opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this was covered (and you participated in) a discussion on this topic Talk:Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Illinois:_.22shall_issue.22_or_.22may_issue.22.3F where you yourself provided more sources backing shall-issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for the other article, I provided sources saying that Illinois is shall-issue. But this is very much a case of "verifiability, not truth". That is, several reliable news sources have said that Illinois's law is shall-issue, but, that's not true. I was hoping that this article could avoid perpetuating this misinformation by not specifying either shall-issue or may-issue. To paraphrase what I said on the other talk page, shall-issue means that the issuing authorities *must* issue a concealed carry license to any applicant who meets the requirements, whatever those are -- they don't have any discretion in the matter. May-issue means that the issuing authorities have some degree of discretion. Some may-issue states almost always issue permits -- like Connecticut, Delaware, and now Illinois. In others they usually don't -- Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland. In still others it depends on the county sheriff, and therefore on where you live -- California, New York. May-issue doesn't mean you have to show "good reason". It means they have some kind of discretion in whether to issue a concealed carry license to someone who's not a prohibited person. That's obviously the case in Illinois. As the article says, and quoting the law itself, any law enforcement agency can object to an individual being granted a permit "based upon a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety". Objections are considered by a Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, which decides whether or not the permit will be issued, based on "a preponderance of the evidence". So, even though most eligible applicants are being granted permits, some are not, based on the discretion of the objecting police departments and the judgment call of the review board. Nor does the Illinois law ever say that the authorities "shall issue" a permit. So, it's one of countless cases where several large news sources got the story wrong. It's a may-issue law, arguably most similar to those of Connecticut and Delaware. Again, I'm fine with the article not saying that Illinois is may-issue, but I strongly prefer that it not say shall-issue, since we owe it to our readers not to propagate incorrect information. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR. You quoted a policy that specifically and explicitly says you are wrong. We can verify that the sources have called the law shall issue. We can also verify that the law uses the words "shall issue". Your "truth" is irrelevant - particularly since your truth is based on a definition of shall issue that you are personally making up. You said above "Nor does the Illinois law ever say that the authorities "shall issue" a permit" you are incorrect.

Section 10. Issuance of licenses to carry a concealed firearm. (a) The Department shall issue" (b) The Department shall issue a renewal

, no later than 90 days after receipt of a completed application, the Department shall issue or deny the applicant a license

Section 25. Qualifications for a license. The Department shall issue a license to an applicant completing an application in accordance with Section 30 of this Act if the person:

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the law does use the phrase "shall issue", so I was wrong about that. But it's still not a shall-issue law. Can you provide an example of a shall-issue law from another state that has elaborate provisions for denying a license to an applicant who meets all the requirements, based on the discretion of the issuing authorities? I don't think so. Another way of looking at it would be to say that the Illinois law is a hybrid of shall-issue and may-issue. But if the authorities are not required to issue a license to a qualified applicant, then by definition it ain't shall-issue. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What reliable source are you using for that definition? Are you aware of ANY reliable source making the argument you are (specifically, that the illinois law is not a shall issue law)? Even the gun rights groups in Illinois describe the law as shall issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be easy to find reliable sources for the general definitions of shall-issue and may-issue, that would be along the lines that I've described. As far as reliable sources saying that Illinois is not shall-issue, those do seem strangely hard to come by. And here's one, from the (pro-gun-control) Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, that even lists Illinois among a number of "limited discretion 'shall issue' states". I'll try to figure out what they're talking about when I get a chance. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to study this further. But for now, I changed the summary table, here, to say "shall-issue with limited discretion", and referenced the LCPGV page. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole shall-issue and may-issue thing seems like more of a gray area than most people realize. Here's a quote from the referenced LCPGV page: Among states with shall issue laws, 17 states provide the issuing authority no discretion to deny a permit if the person meets these requirements. In contrast, 20 states have “shall issue” statutes, but still give issuing authorities some degree of discretion to deny a permit if, for example, there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the applicant is a danger to self or others. These “limited discretion” states fall into a separate category that lies between pure “shall issue” and pure “may issue” states. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mudwater Personally, I agree that there is not just a binary true/false for may/shall, but I do note that contrary to your rhetorical question above about "Can you provide an example of a shall-issue law from another state that has elaborate provisions for denying a license to an applicant who meets all the requirements, based on the discretion of the issuing authorities?" the smartgunlaws page puts 20 states into the "limited shall issue" bucket and more specifically says 4 of the "shall issue" states can consider the character of the licensee, and says 16 of them "allow a CCW application to be denied to a person who is not categorically ineligible if law enforcement can show a documented reason to believe the person is dangerous". Since we are not making that distinction across the board, it seems unwise/unfair to do so here (and changing up wikis entire scheme of may/shall categorization probably needs better sourcing than a single gun control advocacy group, and a much larger consensus than the two of us). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Yes, the LCPGV / smartgunlaws page does support the view that some states that are generally considered shall-issue have different types of limited discretion in denying concealed carry permits to applicants who meet the requirements. What do you think about the summary table saying, as it does now, "shall-issue with limited discretion"? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think its an acceptable compromise, but as I said I have concerns that we are not treating the other 20 limited shall issue states this way, and it seems inappropriate to call illinois out as if it is unique and the other 20 aren't in the same boat. This is something we could bring up in the firearms project page, but I would prefer if there was additional sources other than just smartgunlaws that were doing this type of sub-categorization. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's important that this article not give readers the impression that in Illinois the authorities must issue a permit to anyone who meets the statutory requirements, since that clearly is not the case. I think that saying "shall-issue with limited discretion" is a good way to briefly summarize that, and I've provided a reference. But I'm open to other ways of not misleading our readers, and not using the terms shall-issue or may-issue would be another good approach. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 06:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect. The reasons for any denial ARE statuary with the probative burden on the state to prove those *statuary* prohibitions exist for that applicant. The applicant doesn't prve they don't exist, the state proves they do. Such laws exist in lots of US jurisdictions, we don't say they are not shall issue as a result. Nor do we claim that statute based prohibitions are not based on statutes.Explainador (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Follow up break

Mudwater per your concerns above, I came across the following story. If this develops into a pattern, I'm sure it will be commented on by reliable sourcse that would allow us to further elaborate Illinois policy, but at this point I think its just a single data point. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/robert-farago/ttag-reader-denied-illinois-concealed-carry-license/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:Here's one, from CBS news, on March 4th. "State police and local law enforcement officials can object to giving someone a permit based on the criminal history of the applicant. Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has filed hundreds of objections, citing arrests for domestic violence, burglary, theft, gang activity and crimes involving drugs and guns. The seven-member Concealed Carry Licensing Board has 30 days from the date an objection is raised to review an application and make a decision. So far, the board has sustained about 100 objections, and overruled about 100 others." So as of about four weeks ago, there had already been about 100 people who were eligible to get a permit under the statutory requirements, but had been denied a permit (i.e. the review board sustained the objections of either the Cook County sheriff's department or another police agency). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's two more stories about this, both more recent. From Northern Public Radio, on March 26th: "Numbers provided by state police officials show that of the tens of thousands of applications submitted so far, nearly 270 have been ultimately denied because of concerns raised by local police." From the State Journal-Register, on March 30th: "The board, tasked with either sustaining or overturning the objections, has sustained a total of 282 objections as of Friday, according to Illinois State Police spokeswoman Monique Bond. She said a total of 1,331 objections have been made so far." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think including these statistics and issues in the article is appropriate, perhaps including the highest level summary statistics in the summary box. (Of XXk apps, 1k objections, 282 sustained etc) But, while this is information that certainly may lead to qualitative descriptions of Illinois' law changing in the future, we would need reliable sources making that description for us - doing it ourselves would be WP:OR, so we can't change the description of "shall with some limitations" past what already was done last month imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:Just to make sure I understand what you're saying: Right now the summary table in the article says "Shall-issue with limited discretion." Are you okay with leaving it like that for now? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave it that way then, at least for now. As far as adding a numerical summary of how many licenses have been applied for, objected to, and actually denied (i.e. objection sustained), in my opinion that's too detailed for the summary table, but would be appropriate in the body of the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's an update on the numbers. According to a May 29th article in the Illinois Times, "The state has issued nearly 50,000 licenses to carry concealed firearms since the state began processing permits in February, according to Monique Bond, spokeswoman for Illinois State Police. Nearly 600 applications have been rejected, she said." I'm posting this as a point of interest. The article says that the law uses the phrase "shall issue", and I'm not suggesting changing that at this point. It's just that "shall issue" is more of a gray area than a lot of people realize. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the latest, from the Chicago Tribune, with a lot more information about how the Concealed Carry Review Board works -- "Flood of Lawsuits over Concealed Carry Denials": "The lawsuits, including two backed by the National Rifle Association, claim that applicants were denied due process because they weren't given a reason for the board's decision and have no recourse for challenging its findings. Lawyers involved in the cases say the issue is not whether applicants are qualified for the licenses, but whether the licensing process is too secretive and arbitrary.... So far, the state police have received 79,207 applications and issued 62,258 licenses, according to data provided by the department. The state automatically denied more than 1,620 applicants for failing to follow application rules or meet basic requirements. There have also been more than 2,400 objections lodged by local law enforcement officials and 809 applicants who were denied because objections were sustained by the review board." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are the latest figures on the number of license applications denied by the review board, from the Chicago Tribune. "In Illinois, Concealed Carry of Guns Has Quiet First Year; Expansion Sought" The article says that, after one year, about 92,000 concealed carry licenses have been issued. It says, "The most active battleground over gun rights is in the courts, where about 300 lawsuits have been filed against the state by people denied licenses. Some applications submitted by those who have sued have been sent back to the state for review and been awarded, while others are pending.... The board has considered about 3,100 police objections and denied licenses to about 2,400 of them." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

so Illinois is denying carry to people with violent arrest histories, that does not make it non "shall issue." that is common in explicitly 'simple "shall issue" states like Illinois. it does not make Illinois some kind of hybrid of shall issue and another scheme. Your citation does not support the contention that non statuary issues came up, illinios does this by a statute like most other jurisdictions. You even can be denied gun ownership even for arrests for which you were found *not guilty* in many places. in Illinois and elsewhere if you have something like ten arrests for gun crimes in the past five years, even if you were found not guilty in ALL, this can be used to deny carry or even in many cases simple ownership of a firearm. These tend to be people with *lots* of arrests, but no convictions and for violent crimes.Explainador (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Magazine capacity

The Firearm Concealed Carry Act created state preemption for "the regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns". It also enacted state preemption for "the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons", except for laws passed "before, or within 10 days after the effective date" of the act. (You can see the text of the act in .pdf format here or in .html format here.) So local laws about those matters are no longer in effect, except for assault weapon restrictions that are grandfathered in. But the act never mentions magazine capacity, or anything about magazines. We must therefore assume that local laws restricting magazine capacity are still in effect. Furthermore, I have never heard anything to suggest otherwise, until the recent changes to the article by an anonymous editor, which I'm about to revert. If anyone can provide reliable sources that say that local laws restricting magazine capacity are now preempted at the state level, I would be extremely interested in seeing them. Otherwise, saying that local restrictions on magazine capacity are no longer in effect would be original research. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your original research assertion is backwards. You are offering a legal opinion. Could you please cite a single case, since the preemption statue was passed, where Chicago or oak park has successfully prosecuted for magazines in a legally possessed or legally carried handgun above their local limits, but at or below the state limits Before the state preemption law, there were successful prosecutions.Explainador (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding fingerprints

From 430 ILCS 66, Sec. 30:

(b) The application shall contain the following:

...

(8) a full set of fingerprints submitted to the Department in electronic format, provided the Department may accept an application submitted without a set of fingerprints in which case the Department shall be granted 30 days in addition to the 90 days provided under subsection (e) of Section 10 of this Act to issue or deny a license;

That comes directly from the law (http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3497&ChapterID=39), which is already cited as a source for this article. Drummerdg (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drummerdg: Okay. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Magazine capacity and handguns

The article has recently been edited to say that state preemption for laws about handguns and handgun ammunition, enacted as part of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act in 2013, invalidates local magazine capacity restrictions for handguns (leaving intact magazine capacity restrictions for long guns). That seems reasonable to me, and it might even be correct, but I think it needs one or more reliable references, otherwise it would have to be considered original research. The law says, "The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State." It goes on from there, but the word "magazine" does not appear in the text of the law. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Magazines were not specifically called out in the law, but as they're an integral part of the handgun they are covered under "handgun". I see what you're thinking, but consider that it may be overthinking the law. I don't think a reference would necessarily hurt, but I think it would be unnecessary. Consider that a similar ordinance attempting to regulate something like the length or weight of a slide would be covered as well (a magazine is just a part of a standard handgun that can be replaced or removed, like a slide, a trigger assembly, etc.) Simply reading the law as it's written and accepting common fact indicates that the magazine requires no specific mention. I'm happy to hear what others have to say on this. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kindzmarauli: I too would be interested in other editors' opinions. It would be easy to argue that the magazine is less integral a part of a handgun than the slide or trigger assembly, but that discussion would fall under original research. For now, can you find a reliable secondary reference for this? That would be quite helpful. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the reference is necessary. I believe that separating the magazine from the gun is actually based on an original research interpretation of the law. But let's see what others have to say. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kindzmarauli: I see what you're saying, but I would still request that you try to find an appropriate reference. Magazine capacity is a widely-discussed topic of firearms law, and it's interesting that the law doesn't mention it. Pretty much everything in this article has a reference. If we can find one for this, we make the article better. If we can't find one, we should seriously consider taking it back out. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, a reference is not necessary because a magazine is an integral part of a handgun. Because mag capacity is widely discussed doesn't imply that a handgun magazine isn't included in the Illinois handgun preemption. I see this as a novel interpretation. Let's see what others have to say. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is something that's been debated back and forth quite a bit within firearm owner circles. Nobody is really sure how it will be interpreted, and the prevailing thought is that we won't know until somebody runs afoul of it. At that point, it would probably take a lawsuit to flesh it out. So we should refrain from making any claims here until the ordinance has been tested in court. Drummerdg (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drummerdg: Thanks. But, to be clear, when you say we should refrain from making any claims, do you mean we should refrain from saying that the restrictions are preempted for handgun magazines? So those parts of the article should be put back the way they were, as I have suggested? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: Everything @Kindzmarauli: added regarding handun ammo is correct since that is specifically pre-empted. It's just the bit about magazines that I would say should be reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_laws_in_Illinois&oldid=686031032. Maybe add some reference to the fact that a debate is ongoing about it. Drummerdg (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The debate (such as it is) can't be referenced because it consists entirely of speculation on internet message forums by people who aren't lawyers. When the law was passed, the legislative intent was that magazines are included (I can't recall which senator said this), but nothing whatsoever has been said about it that is in any way citeable. It still makes no sense to me to separate parts of a handgun out for individual scrutiny when the law says handguns are covered. The law covers every part of a standard handgun. Some people don't like that magazines are included in that, but as the law was written as a preemptive, all-encompassing measure, if the intent was to continue to allow municipal regulation of individual parts of a handgun then that would have been spelled out in the law. We're overthinking this and getting it wrong, otherwise. EDIT: The law has been on the books for a while now. Has anyone in Chicago or Cook County been charged with carrying a handgun with a magazine of greater capacity than that spelled out in the municipal ordinances? I'd say that if people aren't being charged with it (and people are arrested for carrying handguns illegally there pretty frequently) then it's clearly preempted. Maybe that's the way to go with this. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kindzmarauli: Unfortunately, whatever legislative intent there have been did not actually make it into the law. Yes, a magazine is an integral part of a handgun, but some local governments are still trying to regulate them (e.g. Cook County, Chicago, Highland Park). In fact, in Highland Park, there was someone charged under their ordinance with having a "large-capacity" magazine: http://dailynorthshore.com/2015/01/12/police-discover-assault-weapon-magazines-in-residents-vehicle/. So clearly it is not completely settled yet, and I think we'd be doing readers a disservice by saying it is. I personally agree with your interpretation, but like you said, we're not lawyers, and what ought to be is not the same as what is. Drummerdg (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually the article noted above refers to magazines of an "assault weapon". The magazines were for a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, not a handgun, as Highland Park's assault weapons ban covers semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s, AK-47 and so on (there is a pending case before the Supreme Court regarding HP's assault weapons ban). I am actually in agreement with Kindz here, that by failing to note that handgun magazines are preempted, we're implying they aren't. That's incorrect. The magazine restriction applies to rifles and shotguns because those are not preempted and that's why those ordinances are still on the books. Saying that magazines for a handgun aren't preempted under the state law is original research and doesn't agree with the law as written. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the magazines the guy in Highland Park was charged with were handgun mags (I can go find a source if necessary, but I distinctly remember reading that). Like I said, I agree they probably should be preempted, but the law doesn't specifically say anything about handgun parts or magazines, so towns like Highland Park have been trying to take advantage of that to enforce their bans. It would be original research to say handgun mags are definitively preempted, when no source says they are, and laws still exist and are being enforced related to them. Drummerdg (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see confirmation in the form of an article that the "high capacity" magazine charge was related to magazines for a handgun. I see in the comment below the Daily North Shore article someone mentions handgun magazines but that's just a forum comment and not at all reliable. If the charge was for handgun magazines then I will agree that that portion of my edit can be rolled back. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The highland park case mentioned was for rifle, not handgun. There has not been one successful prosecution on legally possessed or carried handgun with above local ordinance limits, but at or below state limits since preemption.17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explainador (talk • contribs)

I've been thinking this over and I still have the same opinion as before. We have some laws that restrict magazine capacity, and we can provide references for that. We have other laws that say that Illinois has state preemption for regulating handguns, and we can provide references for that. What we don't have at this point is any references for the idea that the second type of law trumps the first type of law. It's reasonable to suppose that it does, but, this being the law, that might not be the case, especially since magazine capacity might be considered a separate legal subject. So we shouldn't say it in the article, which should be changed back to the way it was before, with no distinction between magazines for handguns and rifles. Let the readers draw their own conclusions. Some day we may be able to document that there are no longer restrictions on magazine capacity for handguns, but we're not there now. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

no. Handguns are specifically mentioned in the preemption so to say there is no difference between handguns and other firearms in the preemption is false There has been plenty of time and not a single successful prosecution on lawfully possessed or carried handguns over the local limits since preemption was passed.17:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explainador (talk • contribs)

Cook County ammunition tax

Cook County has imposed a new ammo tax, the application of which to handgun ammo appears to be in direct violation of the amended FOID Act, which preempts local regulations of handguns and handgun ammo. Should this be addressed in the article?

On a related note, what about the Cook County / Chicago requirements of reporting private sales? That also appears to violate preemption, as far as handguns are concerned. Drummerdg (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cook County has a tax on the sale of firearms, in addition to the new tax on ammunition. I've added that information to the article, here. As far as whether or not that, or the requirement to report private sales, violates state preemption on the regulation of handguns and ammunition, we can add that to the article if and when there's a judicial decision. Adding it now would be a matter of opinion, and therefore original research. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article on gun laws in Illinois say that some local governments restrict magazine capacity for firearms, or should it say that they restrict magazine capacity for rifles and shotguns? This is a content dispute having to do with what might or might not be original research. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to the #Magazine capacity and handguns section above for a previous discussion on this question. Some local governments have passed laws banning the possession of magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition. Subsequently Illinois passed a law creating state preemption for "the regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of handguns and ammunition for a handgun" -- that is, local laws on these matters are invalid. The state preemption law does not explicitly mention magazines. As editors we may reasonably have the opinion that state preemption applies to magazine capacity restrictions for handguns. It would also be possible for someone to argue that magazines aren't handguns, even though they're needed for handguns to operate, and that therefore preemption does not apply. But either of those views would be editorial opinion, and therefore original research. So, in my opinion the article should say that some local governments restrict magazine capacity for firearms, not just rifles and shotguns (and of course it should also cover state preemption, as it already does). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

To say the same thing in a different way: We know that (for example) Cook County has a law banning magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, and we have a reliable reference for that. We also know that the state has a newer law saying that local governments can't regulate handguns or handgun ammunition -- though this law does not explicitly mention magazines -- and we have a reliable reference for that. But we don't have a reliable reference for whether or not the second law overrides the first law, i.e. whether local magazine capacity restrictions now only apply to firearms that are not handguns. We can discuss that and make reasonable suppositions all we want, but we can't substantiate it, yea or nay, with a reliable reference from a secondary source. So for now we should put the article back the way it was before, and not say that the magazine capacity restrictions only apply to rifles and shotguns. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen this reference? McEvoy, Caitlyn G. (December 2013). "Second Amendment: The New Illinois Concealed Carry Law". Illinois Bar Journal. 101 (12): 620. It doesn't completely address your question, but I'd say it's about as good a secondary source discussing local law preemption in the wake of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act as you're going to find. The law reviews seem to have largely ignored the issue of local law preemption. That said, there's a pretty strong indication to my understanding that the Illinois law does not preempt local magazine capacity restrictions, insofar as Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 577 U.S. ___ (2015), dealt exclusively with whether a local magazine capacity restriction violated the Second Amendment. From what I saw in the appendix to the petition for cert., the initial suit was in state court (filed Dec. 2013), and dealt exclusively with Second Amendment grounds. The City removed the suit to federal court, and that was it. I can't really find much else, but based on my (very basic) understanding, it feels like suit on state law grounds was either impossible (perhaps it wasn't in force at that point, or wouldn't have applied to that situation?), were viewed as a non-starter by all attorneys involved (i.e., not just implausible, but ridiculous), or had been decided upon in a different case (which seems unlikely to be true with respect to this specific Act given the date of suit and year the Act was passed, but there might be some other aspect of Illinois preemption jurisprudence of which I'm not aware). Basically, my gut instinct is that there is not preemption with respect to magazine capacity. I can't give a source, and can't recommend you say there is or is not preemption, but I think these points should condition how you approach the issue of how the Act interacts with local ordinances, if at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, as an aside and more directly responsive to the RfC question: It's still possible for local ordinances to restrict handgun magazine capacity even if the state law prohibits them from doing so. It would just be unlawful for the local government to enforce that ordinance. Anyway, I think the better approach, more in line with what's in the sources, and what makes sense, is to say something along the lines of: "Some local governments have ordinances restricting some firearms in terms of, for example, magazine capacity." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

One last point, having read some of the discussion above... one of the questions has to do with how local and state law interacts. This is very much a complicated issue, and is not as cut-and-dried as federal preemption (which, honestly, isn't cut-and-dried at all). See this article on how home rule works in Illinois: Lasker, Adam W. (June 2013). "LawPulse: Home Rule Rules, Says the Illinois Supreme Court". Illinois Bar Journal. 101 (6): 278. So... while we can say that there is a preemption clause in the Act, there's probably some question left open as to the applicability to magazine capacity. Or maybe it just hasn't reached the courts yet. In other words, the law isn't clearly settled. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Thanks for posting your thoughts on this question. The current dispute is over edits like this one, which changed the wording "Some local governments have magazine capacity limits for both pistols and long guns", to say "magazine capacity limits for long guns", and also this edit, which took "Chicago has banned... magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition," and changed it to say "long gun magazines". As I said, I don't think we have a reliable second-party reference for that, so in my opinion those edits should be undone. But it's agreed that the state law definitely did preempt some local laws -- most famously, Chicago's requirements that residents register all firearms , including handguns, with the city, and that they obtain a city-issued permit. Here's an article about that, from the New York Times: "Chicago City Council Reluctantly Ends Gun Registry". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, my take is that "Some local governments have magazine capacity limits for both pistols and long guns" should probably read "Some local governments maintain magazine capacity limits" as both in line with what the local governments have actually done in terms of ordinances, and with what state law honestly appears to say, which is handguns are a state law matter. As a statement it endorses neither viewpoint, though I'm sure the counter-argument will come up that by providing incomplete information we're implicitly endorsing the "both" viewpoint. I'll agree that linguistically, you can read it as capacity limits across the board, but I think that it's as good a compromise as you're going to get, and perfectly in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not Wikipedia's place to clear up the ambiguity in the primary sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: That sounds good to me. Just say "magazine capacity limits", without specifying the types of firearms, to reflect what the current laws say. I would go for that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Any chance we can see a few sources that we propose to use to cite this factoid? NickCT (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: Hello. Thanks for joining the conversation. But I'm not clear on exactly which factoid you're referring to. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mudwater: - Ummmmm..... The factoid this RfC was setup to question (i.e. "some local governments restrict magazine capacity for firearms" or "they restrict magazine capacity for rifles and shotguns"). NickCT (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we could use this source for "Some local governments may enact restrictions on some firearms": McEvoy, Caitlyn G. (December 2013). "Second Amendment: The New Illinois Concealed Carry Law". Illinois Bar Journal. 101 (12): 620. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mudwater: - More specific please. I see nothing about clip capacity in that article. Where exactly are you looking? NickCT (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: The "Local laws" section of the article already has references for the magazine capacity restriction laws for Chicago[1] and Cook County.[2][3] The same section also has a reference for the state preemption of laws regulating handguns and handgun ammunition.[4] (Three out of four of those are primary sources, but they're quite clear.) What we don't have is a reference saying that the state preemption applies to magazine capacity. So as I said I think the article should just say what we have references for -- that some local governments limit magazine capacity, and that the state has preemption for handguns and handgun ammunition. We shouldn't say that the laws limit magazine capacity only for non-handguns (rifles and shotguns), because there's not a reference for that. "P.S." The previous post was from Mendaliv, not me. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added the Illinois Bar Journal reference suggested by Mendaliv, here. That's a good secondary source for the state preemption -- see the "Preempting local regulation" section. (Again, nothing is said either way about magazine capacity.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In other words, I think the article should be changed like this -- so I've just made that change -- because that's what we have references for. "P.S." I'm pinging Kindzmarauli because she is the editor who previously advocated for changing the article to say "magazines for long guns". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, one correction: Friedman v. City of Highland Park was actually a challenge to Highland Park's assault weapons ban (Dr. Friedman owned an AR-15 and wanted to keep it in his home for personal defense), so that doesn't really address the magazine restriction question. Unfortunately, the question of whether magazines are included in state preemption for handguns seems to be unclear, either by oversight or design. I haven't found any sources that discuss the topic, and it would probably require an arrest and subsequent lawsuit to get clarification from the courts. Mudwater's edit seems fine given the lack of sources. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude Entirely - Ok. After a quick glance at the sources Mudwater was kind enough to provide, I'm not seeing any good sources for this info. The only good sources appears to be from the Chicago Sun Times which offers information on capacity in a single county (quote: "The [Cook] county ordinance outlaws the sale or possession of “any assault weapon or large-capacity magazine."). If we can't find more sources on this subject, maybe it simply isn't notable? If that's the case, why not exclude it entirely instead of argue about wording? NickCT (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@38.75.134.0: About these edits [5] [6] [7]: In the article we have reliable references saying that some local governments have laws restricting magazine capacity, and we have reliable references saying that the state now has preemption for laws regulating handguns and ammunition for handguns. But we don't have any reliable references about whether or not preemption invalidates the magazine capacity laws. So, several editors agreed, in the discussion above, that the article should just say what we have references for. It's inappropriate for us to add our legal opinions to the article, no matter how sensible they may seem to us. In your edit summaries you said, "Update based on the text of the laws of the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, and Cook County", and "The magazine capacity law was deleted by the City Council. It is no longer on the books." Do you have any reliable sources that can be used to verify that? The best thing would be a relatively neutral secondary source, like a newspaper story. But we could also accept other secondary sources, or primary sources such as the text of the laws themselves. If you can provide anything like that, I and other editors would appreciate it. We want the article to say what the laws really are, but it has to be verifiable, not just what you or I think is "common sense". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Another possible approach to this question is changing the article to remove anything talking about local restrictions on magazine capacity. As a sort of experiment I just did that, here. As always other editors are encouraged to contribute to the discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gun laws in Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116063153/http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/ to http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722134750/http://www.isp.state.il.us/firearms/ccw/ccw-faq.cfm to http://www.isp.state.il.us/firearms/ccw/ccw-faq.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's shall issue

I see a lot of weasel word use on shall issue. Illinois is explicitly "shall issue" by law and shall issue by common language usage as well. The fact that -- with a probative burden on the state -- non conviction arrest records can be used for mental health can be used does not mean it is anything but shall issue since, that is not uncommon in all the states we explicitly call "shall issue" throughout Wikipedia. DC is shall issue but police can bar your ability to carry based on arrests even if you were found *not guilty* in every single arrest. In fact beyond carry, for simple purchase permission or registration, there are plenty of jurisdictions that consider character issues like non-conviction arrest records, we don't invent some kind of new category for them.Explainador (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

HB1465 and Legal definition of "assault weapons"

This Wikipedia page currently states that Illinois does not have any state-wide law regarding an assault weapons ban. I believe that this information is no longer correct because of the recently passed(14 March, 2018) House Bill 1465 which "makes it unlawful for any person under 21 years of age to knowingly possess an assault weapon" (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1465&GAID=14&GA=100&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=101955&SessionID=91). Could somebody please verify this and update the page? Also, I could not find the definition Illinois legislature uses for the term "assault weapon". Does anybody know? Cheers 2601:647:4500:EE3E:8CF:B24:ADB6:CEC0 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. Here is a three-part answer: (1) HB 1465 has not been enacted. It was passed by the House, then a modified version was passed by the Senate. So now it goes back to the House, for further consideration. (State Journal-Register article saying this here.) If and when the bill is passed by both the House and the Senate, it goes to the governor, who can sign it or veto it. And if he vetoes it, his veto might be overridden. In short, we should not update the article unless and until the bill actually becomes a law. (2) The proposed definition of "assault weapon" can be seen in the full text of the original bill, here. (3) HB 1485 has been passed by the House and Senate and gone to the governor. (So, still not enacted, so far.) That would extend the waiting period for taking possession after buying an assault weapon from 24 hours to 72 hours. That also has a definition of assault weapon. Not sure if it's the same one as in HB 1465 or not, but it's here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

2017 study, and any other opinions

@Terrorist96: Hello. I'm going to go ahead and revert your recent addition here. I appreciate the effort, but, I really think it's better if all the "Gun laws in X" articles just talk about what the laws are, and omit any analysis or opinions about whether the laws are good or bad, or effective or ineffective. In my view, that's the best way to keep these articles as neutral as humanly possible, and avoid time-consuming arguments about them. The "Gun laws in X" articles currently stick to the facts, pretty much, and I think it's a lot better to keep it that way. This material might fit in on some other gun-related articles, like Concealed carry in the United States or Gun politics in the United States. I know you've put in a lot of work on these articles, and I hope what I'm saying makes sense.  — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for explaining. Terrorist96 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Air guns as firearms

The way the law is worded can be a bit confusing. It says that an air gun is *not* regulated as a firearm if it fires a projectile that's not greater than .18 inches *or* if it has a muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second. To make this easier to understand, the article says the same thing without all the negatives. That is, an air gun *is* regulated as a firearm if it fires a projectile that is greater than .18 inches *and* it has a muzzle velocity that's greater than 700 feet per second. So, I'm going to un-do this recent change. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Minimum age to purchase

Illinois does not have a minimum age to purchase a long gun. The state requires the buyer to have a FOID card, and a person under age 21 can get one of those if they have the written consent of a parent or legal guardian who is also legally able to possess firearms. One source for this information is Giffords: Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Illinois. (Federal law prohibits persons under 18 from purchasing long guns.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example from a recent news story. Highland Park suspected shooter’s father is charged with felony reckless conduct. The alleged shooter legally bought several rifles before he was 21, using a FOID card that he got with the consent of his father. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Mudwater, you are probably way ahead of me on this but isn't there something in the new challenged law related to / that affects that? North8000 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: You're talking about the new law banning the sale of firearms defined as assault weapons, and restricting magazine capacities. An earlier draft of the law included no longer issuing FOID cards to people under age 21, but that was taken out of the bill before it passed. That's mentioned in this ABC News article: Illinois House passes assault weapons ban, advances to Senate. "The tweaked bill removed the raising the age to get a FOID card from 18 to 21," it says. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)