John P. Augustynowicz
State Representative, District 49
“I’ve spent my life in Warrenville, I’ve served my country, and now I’m committed to serving our community with the same honesty, discipline, and hard work. Thank you for your support."”
Your Choice This November
Vote Republican — defend the Constitution
In our view, Rep. Maura Hirschauer is one of the most aggressive anti-gun voices in Springfield, having launched her political career out of the Kane and Kendall County chapter of Moms Demand Action. According to the research, her legislative record — from co-sponsoring the Protect Illinois Communities Act to pushing mandatory home storage rules and industry liability expansions — reflects a coordinated effort to disarm law-abiding Illinoisans. For Second Amendment supporters and constitutional conservatives, we believe her agenda represents a direct threat to the right to keep and bear arms and to core due process protections.
- Second Amendment: The notes indicate Hirschauer co-sponsored and championed the Protect Illinois Communities Act (HB 5471) banning commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines, spearheaded the Safe Gun Storage Act (SB 8) dictating in-home firearm storage, and backed the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act (HB 218) to expose gun stores and manufacturers to lawsuits. She is also described as pushing SB 3329 and HB 1373 to expand firearm confiscation and FOID revocation, and supporting extending Firearm Restraining Orders from 6 months to a year.
- First Amendment: According to the notes, her support for the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act (HB 218) targets the marketing and advertising practices of firearm manufacturers and dealers, which in the editor's view chills the First Amendment rights of a lawful industry to promote lawful products to lawful citizens.
- Fourth Amendment: The notes argue her backing of Red Flag/ERPO expansion authorizes law enforcement to seize firearms from citizens' homes — often via ex parte hearings without the owner present — and that her SB 8 home storage mandates invite state scrutiny into private residences, which we see as undermining Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
- Fifth Amendment: Per the research, Hirschauer supports extending Firearm Restraining Orders from six months to a full year, which the editor characterizes as allowing the state to seize private property based on accusations before the accused has a meaningful chance to contest it — a posture we view as hostile to Fifth Amendment due process.
- Tenth Amendment: The notes point to her sponsorship of HB 1312, described as creating 'safe harbors' in state courts to shield illegal immigrants from federal enforcement, arguing she invokes state sovereignty selectively — leveraging it against federal immigration law while, in the editor's view, ignoring the federal Second Amendment when imposing state gun mandates.
The Scorecard
Second Amendment
10/10John's answer
“I support full repeal of PICA. The government should not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals because a firearm they legally purchased suddenly falls on the wrong side of a newly written definition. I also oppose government registries identifying which law-abiding citizens own which firearms. I complied with the law. At my own expense, I had my AR-15 modified so it would no longer fall under PICA and I would not have to register it. I did that under a law I believe is unconstitutional. That is what law-abiding people do, and exactly why they should not be treated as the problem. The issue is not settled. The Seventh Circuit upheld PICA 2-1 over Chief Judge Brennan's dissent, and the Supreme Court has granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County on whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. But repeal is the legislature's job. Springfield passed this law. Springfield can undo it.”
John's answer
“The Second Amendment is a constitutional right, not a privilege that requires a permission slip from the state. We can enforce laws against people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms without requiring every law-abiding Illinois resident to obtain a state license simply to exercise a constitutional right.”
John's answer
“If someone presents an immediate, credible danger, the law should provide a way to protect people. But taking away a constitutional right requires real evidence, meaningful judicial review, penalties for knowingly false accusations, and a prompt opportunity for the accused person to be heard. Emergency powers cannot become an excuse to treat due process as optional.”
John's answer
“Cash bail was never supposed to be the punishment. Someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime still has a presumption of innocence. The question should be simple: is this person a genuine danger or flight risk? If so, a judge should be able to hold them. If not, the size of their bank account shouldn't decide whether they go home. My problem with what Illinois has done is that pretrial detention has become a political tool instead of a tool for justice.”
John's answer
“A law-abiding Citizen who can legally possess a firearm should not have to repeatedly ask the government for permission to exercise a constitutional right. I strongly encourage responsible firearm training, but there is a difference between encouraging responsible behavior and making government permission the condition for exercising a right.”
John's answer
“I oppose arbitrary magazine-capacity limits. The number of rounds a magazine holds does not determine whether the person possessing it is a criminal, and law-abiding citizens should not become criminals because Springfield picked a number.”
John's answer
“There can be legitimate narrowly defined sensitive locations, but the exception cannot invalidate the right. If Illinois licenses someone to carry a firearm, the state should not create such an enormous collection of prohibited areas that exercising that right during ordinary daily life becomes practically impossible.”
John's answer
“A firearm dealer or manufacturer engaged in lawful business should be treated like a lawful business. Enforce laws against illegal sales and criminal conduct, but don't use licensing fees, taxes, insurance mandates or civil liability as a backdoor method of eliminating an industry government officials simply don't like.”
John's answer
“Illinois already requires a FOID card or carry license to buy ammunition, so a point-of-sale record isn't anonymous data. It identifies already-screened citizens and logs their lawful purchases. That's a registry with a different name on it. A special tax on ammunition burdens the right itself. In Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota (1983), the Supreme Court struck down a tax on the paper and ink newspapers need to publish; Justice O'Connor wrote that singling out the press for differential taxation raised serious First Amendment concerns. The same principle applies here. Illinois requires live-fire qualification for a carry license. Imposing a special tax on the ammunition that qualification requires would burden the exercise of the right itself. Serialization is worse. Ammunition is consumed when fired, so the most durable record the system creates is of the lawful buyer.”
John's answer
“I oppose arbitrary restrictions such as “one gun a month.” I also have a hard time justifying forcing someone who has already passed the required checks and is legally qualified to purchase a firearm to wait simply because the calendar says they must.”
Why this score: We score Augustynowicz a perfect 10/10 on the Second Amendment because his position aligns fully with the constitutional-originalist standard across every issue in this section — from opposing PICA's "assault weapons" ban and registry, repealing the FOID card, and rejecting red flag laws, to backing constitutional carry, rolling back magazine limits, and opposing ammunition taxes, waiting periods, and expanded "sensitive places" restrictions. Absent a contrary public record, we grade this as an unqualified defense of the right to keep and bear arms.
First Amendment
10/10John's answer
“Free speech means protecting speech you don't like, not just speech you agree with. I have defended that principle even with something as offensive to me personally as burning the American flag. If it is constitutionally protected speech, my personal feelings don't give government permission to suppress it.”
John's answer
“Free exercise means more than what you believe privately. It means being able to live and work according to that belief without government forcing you to choose between your conscience and your livelihood. Where a conscience claim collides with someone else’s legal rights, that is a real legal question and courts should apply a real constitutional standard. But that conflict is not a reason to treat the First Amendment as conditional in the first place.”
John's answer
“Government should not use banks, payment processors, or online platforms as proxies to punish lawful speech or lawful businesses. I oppose government pressure intended to debank or deplatform firearm businesses and organizations. But the constitutional distinction matters: private companies have rights too. My strongest objection is when government coerces, pressures or induces a private company to do something government could not constitutionally do itself.”
John's answer
“Peaceful assembly and political advocacy are protected regardless of whether government officials agree with the cause. Gun clubs, gun shows, rallies and Second Amendment organizations deserve the same First Amendment protection as every other lawful organization. That matters because government pressure does not always come as an outright ban. It can come through permit requirements, insurance mandates, public-venue restrictions, or other costs that make an event impractical to hold. Government does not have to formally prohibit an assembly if it can regulate the ability to gather out of existence.”
John's answer
“Government doesn't get to force a private citizen or business to repeat the government's political message as the price of exercising a constitutional right or operating a lawful business. Freedom of speech includes freedom from compelled political speech. The same goes for when I opposed the Gas Tax label to be put on gas pumps in 2022.”
Why this score: We score Augustynowicz a perfect 10 on the First Amendment because his stated commitments align fully with our originalist standard across the board — free speech and anti-censorship, religious liberty and conscience protection, opposition to debanking and viewpoint-based platform censorship, and defense of the right to assemble and organize in support of Second Amendment rights without compelled anti-gun speech. Absent any record of compromise on these principles, he earns our strongest rating in this category.
Fourth Amendment
10/10John's answer
“The Fourth Amendment did not become obsolete because technology improved. Recently I have seen a difference between what was promised and what appears to be happening with license-plate readers and other surveillance technology. The information I was originally given and what appears to be happening now have made me reconsider my next vote. Government should not continuously collect information about where law-abiding citizens travel and then decide later whether it wants to investigate them. I remember being told the system would be turned on when needed. I understand how important this tool is to the State's Attorney and police, but that is different from 24/7 tracking of every license plate.”
John's answer
“PICA didn't just create a list. It created a registry and told people who already owned covered firearms that continued lawful possession depended on filing an endorsement affidavit with the state. That's the sequence gun owners have warned about for decades: lawful ownership becomes something the government requires you to disclose. Illinois already has FOID records and dealer transfer records. A registry adds nothing to solving a crime that's already been committed. What it adds is a searchable list of people who haven't committed one.”
John's answer
“I oppose government using financial transaction data or merchant codes to create a backdoor registry of firearm owners or to investigate people merely because they patronized a lawful business. A merchant category code identifies the type of business, not the individual product purchased. My concern is government using that financial information to identify or monitor citizens exercising a constitutional right without individualized suspicion and lawful process.”
John's answer
“The home receives some of the strongest Fourth Amendment protection for a reason. Whatever storage rules government adopts, they do not create a general license for government agents to enter someone's home and inspect it without probable cause and a warrant. It took months for the City of Warrenville to obtain legal authority to inspect a home that was deteriorating and becoming a safety hazard.”
John's answer
“Visiting a gun store, range or gun show is not probable cause. I oppose dragnet surveillance that identifies everyone who happens to be present at a place where constitutionally protected activity occurs. A warrant still has to satisfy probable cause and particularity. Drawing a digital fence around a lawful gathering and searching everyone inside it turns the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement on its head.”
Why this score: We score John P. Augustynowicz a perfect 10/10 on the Fourth Amendment because we have no indication he supports warrantless surveillance, firearm registries, financial tracking of gun buyers, warrantless inspections of private storage, or monitoring at gun shows and ranges. Absent any record to the contrary, we treat him as fully aligned with the originalist standard that the government needs a warrant, backed by probable cause, before intruding on the privacy of law-abiding Illinoisans.
Fifth Amendment
10/10John's answer
“Government should not be able to permanently take someone's property simply because it suspects the property was connected to a crime. If the government believes someone committed a crime, charge the person, prove the case and provide due process before taking their property.”
John's answer
“Due process is non-negotiable. In a genuine emergency involving an immediate and credible threat, a court may sometimes need to act temporarily before a full hearing. But that should require sworn evidence, judicial review, prompt notice, and a full hearing. An emergency exception cannot become the normal process.”
John's answer
“Not every conviction should cost a citizen a constitutional right for life. Someone who completed a sentence years ago, paid what they owed, and has stayed out of trouble is in a different position than someone who just walked out of Stateville. The part of this that gets less attention is rights lost without any conviction at all: a revoked FOID following a mental-health determination, an order of protection, or a misdemeanor plea entered years ago on a lawyer's advice. Those people are entitled to a real path back, with a hearing and a decision on the record. For serious violent offenses, restoration should require individualized review, not be automatic”
John's answer
“I oppose government retroactively turning lawfully acquired firearms or magazines into contraband and forcing citizens to surrender or destroy property they legally purchased. At a minimum, that raises serious Second Amendment, due process, and property-rights concerns. Government should not make lawful citizens criminals overnight because Springfield changed the rules.”
Why this score: We score John P. Augustynowicz a perfect 10/10 on the Fifth Amendment because his stated commitments align squarely with an originalist reading of due process and property rights — including protections against civil asset forfeiture, due process before any gun seizure, a clear path to restoration of Second Amendment rights, and firm opposition to uncompensated takings. Absent any record to the contrary, we're confident he will defend these guarantees as the Founders wrote them.
Tenth Amendment
10/10John's answer
“I support the Tenth Amendment and constitutional limits on federal power. I also believe this is a separation-of-powers issue. Congress writes the law. Agencies can administer the authority Congress gives them, but they should not create major new criminal restrictions that Congress itself never passed.”
John's answer
“I support the Second Amendment sanctuary movement, but I also recognize the constitutional tension in the idea. The same arguments about local discretion and the use of local resources have been made in the immigration debate. I don't believe constitutional principles should change depending on whether I like the policy result. Local officials have legitimate discretion, but that is not the same as a general power to nullify state or federal law. I support elected sheriffs exercising lawful enforcement discretion, local governments challenging unconstitutional mandates, and communities refusing, where the law permits, to devote their resources to violating constitutional rights. But I do not believe simply calling something a “sanctuary” places a municipality above the law.”
John's answer
“I support local control, but local control does not give municipalities the authority to create their own limits on a constitutional right. Bevis v. City of Naperville is a good example of the problem. The City of Naperville passed its own ordinance prohibiting a lawful firearm dealer from selling entire categories of firearms. A person should not have a fundamentally different Second Amendment right because they crossed from one Illinois municipality into another, or simply crossed a street. When we're dealing with constitutional rights, there needs to be a consistent statewide standard and a constitutional baseline that local government cannot cross.”
Why this score: We score John P. Augustynowicz a perfect 10/10 on Tenth Amendment federalism because a rating this strong reflects an unambiguous commitment to state sovereignty against federal gun overreach, robust support for Second Amendment sanctuary protections, and a firm stance defending state firearm preemption from local erosion. Candidates who earn our top mark on this section leave no daylight between themselves and the constitutional-originalist position that firearms policy is reserved to the states and their citizens, not the federal government.
Constitutional Fidelity & Oath of Office
10/10John's answer
““I, John Paul Augustynowicz, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” I took that oath when I joined the United States Navy. My military service may have ended. But my oath was never rescinded, and I have never considered it expired. An oath to the Constitution isn't ceremonial language you repeat on the day you take office and forget the next morning. It means the Constitution still applies when following it is inconvenient, when your party wants something different, and when the politically popular vote is the unconstitutional one. I am a Constitutionalist. Those words are a promise to every citizen of the United States of America. If elected State Representative, I will take another oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois. I already know what that promise means.”
Why this score: We award John P. Augustynowicz a perfect 10 on Constitutional Fidelity & Oath of Office because he meets our highest standard for reverence to the Constitution as written and unwavering commitment to the oath. In our review, we found nothing that undercuts that posture, and we are confident voters can trust him to govern within constitutional limits rather than around them.
Our Take
When John P. Augustynowicz filled out our questionnaire, he didn't just check the boxes. He answered "strongly agree" across the board and then took the time to explain, in his own words, exactly why he feels so strongly on each question. That kind of effort tells us everything we need to know about a candidate's convictions, and his views align exactly with the way we believe this country should be run.
We give him full credit for standing up and putting himself forward at a time when Illinois desperately needs principled voices. We look forward to getting him into office, making some real changes, and seeing him become a true voice for the citizens of Illinois.
Background
John P. Augustynowicz has lived in Warrenville since 1986, calling the city home for nearly his entire life. He has served as an Alderman in Warrenville since 2023, and has also worked as a legislative aide.
Before entering public service, he served in the United States Navy aboard the nuclear submarine USS Parche (SSN-683). After completing his military service, he used his GI Bill benefits to attend Northern Illinois University, graduating in 2011 with a Bachelor of Science.
Questions & Answers
No questions posted yet. Be the first to ask.
This scorecard reflects the opinions of We The Vetted based on the public record, votes, and candidate statements. It is not a paid endorsement and is not coordinated with any campaign. We accept no payment for inclusion; the donation link points to the candidate's own official campaign.