Illinois Gun Lockup Law Fails Immediately as Chicago Child Shot

A new Illinois law requiring guns to be locked up failed only hours into 2026 in northwest Chicago.

Less than 24 hours after a new Illinois law mandating that firearms be locked up to prevent access by children or otherwise unauthorized persons, a 7-year-old Chicago child was reportedly shot in a home in the Windy City’s northwest side.

Perhaps no mishap could better illustrate the futility of adopting such legislation with the expectation it will live up to its advertising.

ADVERTISEMENT

When the Daily Herald reported on the new law, the headline, which led with the words “Lock ‘em up,” may have misled some to believe the city was going to jail armed criminals. In reality, the new statute, signed by anti-gun gov, J.B. Pritzker six months ago in Springfield, actually seems more designed to penalize gun owners by hitting violators with fines which may go as high as $10,000.

Nobody was immediately taken into custody following the New Year’s Day shooting, which left the victim wounded but expected to be okay. As noted by the Daily Herald report, “Failure to comply isn’t a crime.”

WLS News in Chicago noted in its report, “But it is still not clear how the 8-year-old was so easily able to access a gun moments before he allegedly pulled the trigger.”

What is clear is that the new Illinois statute—essentially like any other restrictive gun control law—failed almost immediately. The law, Senate Bill 8, dubbed the Safe Gun Storage Act, carefully notes in its synopsis, “Provides that if the firearm is carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user, then the firearm is deemed lawfully stored or kept.”

This may or may not satisfy the Supreme Court’s language about locking up guns in the text of District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 Second Amendment case, which reminded the nation that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individual citizens, not just militia members, and that handguns are protected by the amendment.

The Heller ruling, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, notes, “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

It has long been a matter of common knowledge that government cannot legislate against stupidity, and when it adopts restrictions on the fundamental right enshrined in the Second Amendment, criminals routinely ignore them.

A look at the popular website Heyjackass.com, which tracks homicides in Chicago, tells the tale. In 2025, the website says, the city racked up 433 homicides, of which 362 involved firearms. Heyjackass.com acknowledges last year’s totals are down from 2024 by better than 30 percent. Even the number of people shot and wounded, a total of 1,592, was down 35 percent from the previous year.

Other provisions of the new law, explained in the synopsis, include:

  • Provides that the court may order a person who is found in violation of the Act to perform community service or pay restitution in lieu of the civil penalties imposed under this Section if good cause is shown.

  • Provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to preclude civil liabilities for violations of the Act.

  • Provides that a violation of the Act is prima facie evidence of negligence per se in any civil proceeding if a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains a firearm and causes personal injury to the death of oneself or another or uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.

Illinois isn’t the only state with a new storage mandate. California also requires guns to be stored in a locked safe (SB 53). And that’s not all. Starting April 1, the Golden State restricts gun purchases to three per month after a court ruling struck down the one-per-month limit as unconstitutional. Other restrictions will kick in at mid-year.

With state legislatures opening for business within the next few weeks in many states, watch for Democrats to push even more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, while tending to go softer on criminals. Sponsors of such legislation will remain deliberately oblivious to the New Year’s Day event in Chicago.


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

5 Likes

The law didn’t fail.

It will still give the authorities the ability to confiscate every weapon that the homeowner owns, charge them with multiple felonies, put them in prison for a time, remove their right to ever own a firearm again, and basically make an example out of them.

In other words, it will achieve it’s actual purpose perfectly!

12 Likes

Locking firearms is just a smart idea. Because we don’t see every firearm owner being smart, sometimes Law needs to take over.

It definitely won’t prevent deaths, but hopefully more people will think twice before leaving firearms unattended.

3 Likes

100%. It may look like a failure on the surface, but these laws are rarely written in the manner that most interpret. The many laws in place aren’t to prevent crime, what they do is systematically disarm everyday Americans by means of financial disruption. If you can’t take guns out of our hands, make us financially destitute or allow for their version of “legal confiscation”.

10 Likes

Laws don’t prevent stupidity. They can only punish after the fact, and most firearm laws like these are specifically designed to punish legal firearm owners when no real crime has been committed.

5 Likes

@Karacal Seems to me it will be just as successful as the law that prohibits any guns within the Chicago area :rofl: . NOT. Just another cheap shot at legal gun owning Americans. Yet another reason people are moving out of Illinois in droves.

3 Likes

First… I never mentioned that Law prevents stupidity… nothing is gonna help with it.
In this case we talk about enforcing something that each of us should already know.

If you keep your firearm locked… nothing to be worry about. If your firearm is stolen because you didn’t think it should be locked.. you have to take full responsibility for it.
Is it really something what bothers you? If you don’t want to buy a safe, just keep your firearm on you, don’t leave it unattended.

1 Like

HHHmmmm, let’s see. There are, on average, 53 people shot a week in Chicago. Using 2024 statistics. What reason are we talking about just this one? Now assuming it is related to the death of a child, well then I applaud these actions, and more light should be shined on these problems. If it is about the law and how they are followed, like posted traffic speeds in Chicago, well, that’s nothing new. The law has done little to curb gun violence; this is a systemic problem. Either way, in this situation we are not talking about a responsible gun owner, much like those shooting people there repeatedly every week. So I don’t see the laws having any effect on the individuals perpetrating these actions. I am uncertain if you guys are just not aware of this, but all laws are not meant for the responsible people in society. That most of the time has the biggest effect on.

4 Likes

Illinois create laws just so they can tell their people that they are hardliners on ‘gun violence’ without actually going after the criminals. It’s a shell game.

The decade I lived there it felt as though the Mayor(Daley) and governor were handing out truckloads of gun in the south side.

6 Likes

That is why I preach being a responsibly armed American. The more responsibly armed Americans the less people getting shot.

4 Likes

Like in one’s home, for example? Safes are not “safe”, just like door locks, they only keep out the honest. I will not take responsibility for a criminal’s action, no matter how you cast the sh-t toward me. I do have a safe for firearms not on my person, but I do not have any belief that it will stop a thief. We are told, and you believe, that is the “responsible” thing to do.

3 Likes

A safe is safer than no safe. All we can do is try.

2 Likes

That was my point, we are told that is what we “should” do, not that it will prevent a theft nor a crime. Leave the responsibility part at the feet of the person committing the crime, not the victim of the theft.

5 Likes

Good point. I thought we were trying to prevent our guns from being stolen.

2 Likes

OK. Have you read the “Safe Gun Storage Act”.. or you just assume to know what you are talking about?

It is exactly about “keep out the honest” and you will not take any responsibility for a criminal’s action if the stolen firearm was locked. You do not need to believe in anything other than you keep your firearm hard to be accessible for others, which is exactly what every responsible person would do.

2 Likes

So as you see.. you just do not understand the meaning of “Public Act 104-0031”

2 Likes

This is a tough topic indeed. However, regardless of how “responsible” I am as a armed citizen, I should not be held liable for the actions of another individual that decided to be “irresponsible”.

“Shall not be infringed” and it is infringement when you put requirements around those rights. Gun storage laws are nothing more than an infringement of my right as are any gun laws. It comes down to do you believe the 2nd Amendment is a right or a privilege. If the later, then well 20000 laws later… here we are.

5 Likes

It is an infringement that I see makes society better. I do it because I want to be responsible not only to my self but to others also. What good is a right if it doesn’t make life better for society. I don’t know what makes you think you would be held responsible for another person‘s irresponsibility. You are only held responsible for what you do with you gun. Ieaving it where someone can steal it is not responsible in my book. I might have misunderstood you, please correct me if I am wrong.

Keyword, Infringement.

It is no longer a right if it is infringed upon.

GFZ’s are a prime example, ‘we will ‘allow’ you to carry your gun(after we suck your wallet dry from taxes and fees) but only where we will allow you to do so and if you are at YOUR home, then it has to be locked up.

So, your RIGHT in YOUR own home has been Infringed upon.

You die during a home invasion because of infringement, but it’s ok because it’s for the greater good. :+1:t2:

4 Likes

There are thousands of things on this World that should be done the way any responsible person would do. But hundreds of them must be enforced by Laws because people like to do unreasonable things whenever they can, thinking this is their right to do so….

Why do you drive your car on the designated route? Why don’t you just drive wherever you want? Your neighbor’s backyard? Pedestrian walkway? Perhaps you like driving on the beach during during sunrise?

You cannot do these things, even it’s obvious you shouldn’t behave like that, because you obey the Law.

The similar situation is with “Public Act 104-0031”. Everything what seems to be obvious has been written as the Law, so people who don’t know what is reasonable habit, will know what the consequences are.

I see that some of Community Members wrongly interpret the responsibility of handgun’s owner when his firearm was used during criminal act.
It clearly says that you must control your firearm and make sure is not accessible to anyone who shouldn’t have access to it.
If it’s stolen from your safe and used in criminal act, you are not accountable. The other story is, when it was stolen because you left it unattended on your desk…. which is obvious that no responsible person would do this.

1 Like