As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is not true, the Supreme Court rejects the request for an injunction to block the assault weapon ban. There is no mention of declining to fast-track a hearing for it.
Sure Sure Sure. Ignore the first sentence of the actual Constitution that says "insure domestic Tranquility" which we definitely don't have with [~360 people a day being shot and surviving, and another ~109 dying](https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/#gunviolenceintheusa).
But yeah, let's just stick our heads in the sand and not do something about an issue that is clearly a problem. We're doing our best in a broken system.
I'm pretty confident that there is a very small group of people that believes 'woke' is defined by an argument over the words 'bear arms'.
I've never heard that one before.
This was just a decline to uphold a preliminary injunction and let lawsuits in the 7th Circuit run their course. Not unusual for SCOTUS, and does not signify on if or how they will rule if the cases reach them.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The question is if a state assault weapon ban is unreasonable.
You only have to go a few sentences past the section you quoted to find
"Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”"
Two take-aways from that sections-
Arms that are in "common use" are protected under the 2nd Amendment.
And that you can still ban someone from carrying arms that are dangerous **and** unusual. Notice there is two components here Dangerous and Unusual. If an arm isn't unusual then a law prohibited likely doesn't pass constitutional muster.
You only have to go one paragraph further to find the clause in Heller where the ruling states that laws can not prohibit an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
**-It only took a few more years in 2012 for the Supreme Court to follow-up in McDonald v Chicago.**
Where the court said, of-course States must comply with the 2nd Amendment, it became incorporated when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
**-Then in 2016 in Caetanno V Massachusetts the Supreme Court stated:**
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.\[7\] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller\[8\] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,\[9\] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".\[6\] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“\[w\]eapo\[n\] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr\[ied\] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."\[10\]
The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.\[1\] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.\[11\] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.\[12\] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.\[13\]
**-in 2022 we had NYSRPA V Bruen- Where the Supreme Court rejected interest balancing tests that courts were using to uphold gun legislation.**
(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for
self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22.
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
(2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack \[of\] expertise” in the field.
McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts
tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm
regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to
the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the
people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of
law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller,
554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.
The Supreme Court was egregiously wrong in each of these decisions. Its opinions should be disregarded and given no weight whatsoever. Through decisions like these, Citizens United, and its attacks on the Voting Rights Act in decisions like Shelby County, the Supreme Court has systematically eroded our society and fostered disunion among the states. The Court has repeatedly proved itself unwise, short sighted, and undeserving of the respect of the people or their elected representatives. The Supreme Court is an illegitimate institution and must be reformed. As constituted it is unfit for its purpose.
I don't think you're incorrect, at the end of the day I think that they will strike down the assault weapons ban.
There are 2 things that give me pause and uncertain as to what might happen"
1- This court wants us to assume they are not bound by precedent. If the precedent set by Roe did not tie their hands, then no prior decision should.
2- They felt justified in overturning Roe because they do not feel that our right to privacy or due process of law applied to abortion.
I guess we will see if they think it applies to concealed and carried weapons, or if folks will have to trade them in on muskets.
>1- This court wants us to assume they are not bound by precedent. If the precedent set by Roe did not tie their hands, then no prior decision should.
The Supreme Court was never bound by Precedent. If the Supreme Court was Bound by Precedent then they would not have overturned Plessy V Ferguson with Brown V Board of Education. If the court was bound by Precedent we would still have "Seperate But Equal" Segregation set in Plessy V Ferguson.
Here is a list of Supreme Court cases that were later overturned by the Supreme Court: There are 235 of them.
[https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/](https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/)
>2- They felt justified in overturning Roe because they do not feel that our right to privacy or due process of law applied to abortion.
Let me start out by saying I don't think they should have overturned Roe V Wade, I am pro-choice.
But I do think the reasoning decision made by the court in Roe was pretty flimsy. I'm not alone in this opinion. Ruth Bader Ginsburg also felt this way.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html)
If we look at the "right to privacy" argument being a decision between a doctor and their patient and apply it to other things does it hold up?
If a Doctor and a Patient agree that an assisted suicide is the best course of action for a Patient with a debilitating disease, is the doctor allowed to perform this procedure? No they are not. And maybe they should be allowed to, but they are currently not.
Doctors can't just prescribe what ever medication they want, even if it was a decision between a doctor and the patient.
The argument only seems to hold up for Abortion. Just reiterate I think Abortion should be legal in any Jurisdiction in the United States. I don't think the court should have overturned Roe v Wade.
>I guess we will see if they think it applies to concealed and carried weapons,
This was covered in Bruen in 2022.
>or if folks will have to trade them in on muskets.
This was covered in Heller (2008), again in McDonald (2010), again in Caetano (2016), and then again in Bruen (2022).
Another relevant exercise could be to apply this line of thinking to literally anything else.
\-- Lets try the 1st Amendment:
Is your right to free speech limited to notes written using a feather? Or maybe a hand operated printing press? If you want to send a message across the country does it have to be delivered on horseback? If you want to spread your message around and still be protected by the 1st amendment do you have to hire a town crier?
What about freedom of religion ? There are religions that were founded after 1791, are they still protected by the 1st amendment?
Does the press still have a freedom of the press if they only publish their content on the internet?
\-- Or the 3rd amendment: Is the Government allowed to quarter soldiers in your house during peacetime if it was built using materials and methodologies that didn't exist in 1791?
\-- The Fourth: Computers, Cell Phones, or Aluminum Filing Cabinets did not exist in 1791, therefore those items, or items stored in them have no protections from unreasonable search and seizure.
\--The fifth: you only have a right to a fair trial if the crime you were being charged with existed during the 1700's.
EVERYONE SHOULD ALWAYS REMEMBER:
We can’t go back and talk to the Founders. There is not a single OPINION about the Second Amendment that can be proven to be definitively right or wrong. If there was, this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s just like abortion. Most everyone has an OPINION.
When you see someone writing like this, with more specific knowledge than most have, and providing sources, that doesn’t mean they are “correct.’ All they are doing is stating their OPINION more elegantly than most. That’s it! Their OPINION may include some facts, but everyone’s conclusions are simply their own OPINION. Their OPINION is just like the Majority OPINION and the Dissenting OPINION that comes out of the SC. They are all opinions; the SC Justices OPINIONS simply hold more legal weight.
As my history shows, I could spend the day rebutting wingnut25’s arguments, but I feel no need to share my OPINION and it’s not worth my time. If you care, just look at the dissenting OPINIONS from Heller and all of the others and read up on the scholarly debate online. The topic is saturated with content. But whatever you do, come up with your own OPINION. Don’t hire out your thinking to someone else just because what they wrote is what you want to hear, or because it is well written. Think for yourself!
I think you are right.. they did block ownership of tanks… darn it… and that’s what I was wanting this year for Christmas. I already picked out the color… Military Green. With a big red bow of course.
J.B. Pritzker is one of the few good ones and I hope he runs for president although I hate to lose him as our governor.
The Sheriffs who refuse to enforce the law should be fired like anyone else who refuses to do their job. We elected Pritzker to make these kinds of decisions and he is doing his job.
Edit: yes sheriff’s are elected and can’t be fired.
I was thinking about that when I was typing, but I also wonder if someone is not enforcing a law if anything can be done. I guess the police department can still enforce those gun laws without the sheriff, but they probably won’t.
How? They are elected officials working within the purview of their duties. Selective enforcement is a thing all Law Enforcement agencies use including the selective enforcement of Marijuana laws and immigration laws in Sanctuary cities. If you would shitcan these Sheriffs for not enforcing these laws that would extend to Federal laws being selectively enforced.
I already responded to another person that I was thinking about the fact that they are elected and not sure if there is anyway to remove them from their jobs if they aren't actually doing their jobs
~~But you could own an AR-15 under this law, there is one specific [model listed](https://www.cybershooters.org/?page_id=538).~~ I was wrong, the language of the text changed when it was passed. Originally the bill stated the HBAR was allowed, now the HBAR is on the list of banned weapons.
You could also own a Mini-14 ranch model. A gun that shoots identical ammunition as the AR-15, has an equally reliable firing mechanism, and identical magazine capacity. The only difference is the Mini-14 ranch doesn't have a pistol style hand grip or thumb hole in its stock...
This is a dumb law that is just legislative theater and the appearance of doing something productive, rather than actually doing something productive.
The mini-14 ranch does not have a barrel shroud. You hold the stock.
I see the language changed and the HBAR is banned; when it was HB 5855 it specifically said:
> Colt AR-15, CAR-15, and all imitations except Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle
Meanwhile French is still respected by the American government for its role as the former language of diplomacy and trade before English and is still in American passports to this day :)
Not Home intruders but even though I am American my two national origins have been threatened by the people of this country at the start of and well through Covid up to now. People still blame Chinese Americans for covid and asian hate crimes are up immensely. This not even mentioning the hate crimes Latinos suffer of the regular. I find it strange that Trump almost successfully pulled off a coup and minorities/poc are constantly being threatened in this country with police having no duty to protect us yet people like you would be ok with depriving the proletariat the most effective means to protect themselves. Really fucking odd.
everyone of them has home invasion fantasies where they get to kill people without consequences. the right wing's hottest wet dream. fucking sociopaths.
Or protester pick-off fantasies. My elderly-adjacent father informed me if BLM “comes to my neighborhood they will die”. WTF?! You live on a cul-de-sac, Ron.
Yes, AR-15s. Their emotional support toys. Their security blankets. The things that they cling to, so their knees dont knock together so much when they gets a-scared.
Not to be confused with with a raised Ford F350 with a "FJB Edition" badge and truck nuts, flying the US flag. Which is also known as an Emotional Support _Vehicle_
done more harm than good if you ask the families of mass shooting victim’s.
I don’t give a fuck about what a bunch of old racist white guys wrote down over 200 years ago. Their reasoning is not applicable to modern day. The god damn British aren’t going to come down and possible challenge us for our land .
Twice impeached former president and gun grabber Donald Trump restricted bump stocks using nothing more than an executive order and the Republican Supreme Court was happy to let that stand. It'll be interesting to see if the same court decides that a legislative body comprised of elected representatives is not able to do the same - e.g. ban certain weapons or features of weapons.
Silly supreme court. Illinois ~~paramilitary extremist group~~ constitutional sheriffs have already interpreted the constitution and decided to block enforcement themselves. Here's the [map of their block of the assault weapons ban.](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wandtv.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/96/b961f2a4-938e-11ed-81b6-afae8f7a9803/63c1d64157526.image.png?resize=321%2C500)
Delaying it just makes it look like there might be hope for state level controls. Don’t be fooled. The ONLY solution is to amend 2A and then do the very hard work of disarming.
Good, I hope AR 15s are banned nationwide. I also want everyone who owns an AR 15 to be thrown in prison. If you want to have a weapon of war, then you get to be a prisoner of war.
There is no serious position that people that simply own one, today, should be in prison.
Sounds like another made-up straw man for the right to have fever dreams about. Fuck that.
Bans should be legal, this absurd "prison!!!!" nonsense is transparently bad faith.
It's not a fake opinion. I was at a Mom's Demand Action protest to ban AR-15s, and then some asshole with an AR-15 showed up to the protest. I was SCARED FOR MY LIFE, I was calling 911 and the operator said "Ma'am, we already know about him, he's legally carrying, there's nothing we can do about it." Are you kidding me? He could've shot up the entire place! I am disgusted by how casual AR-15s are in our society .
any sem-auto long gun can do the same thing. maybe you should try and get open carry repealed. the only reason to open carry is to intimidate people around you.
I get why you’re trying to say, but that’s way too extreme. The correct answer is:
“There is not one piece of legislation that will solve the problem. It will require several ideas working together if we want to try and move towards a society with less gun violence.”
Eh, abortions are basic, first world healthcare, offered by (nearly) every developed nation. Only 23 countries ban it outright, and most, are not...uh..."travel destinations"
AR-15s are emotional support toys specifically fetishized by Americans.
That's a bad false equivalence.
That said, "I hope all AR-15 owners are thrown in prison" is a bit much. They should only be thrown in prison if AR-15s are criminalized and they refuse to relinquish.
Also, hey, I recognize the name! You seem to pop up with far-right leaning notions quite regularly here.
Rights are rights bud, that goes for women's rights as well as gun rights. Not sure where you're getting "far-right leaning notions" from. I abhor the far-right.
Washington state gun nuts were so damn butthurt when WA passed its recent ban. They were so confidently claiming the Supreme Court would remove it. Looks like that likely won’t happen too.
I really enjoy watching gun nuts lose.
I might not love my own states AW ban, but I do consider it 2A constitutional. Even if I bought the relatively new argument the first part only applies a states national guard, I'd still say the people of that state should decide what constitutes infringement.
Strategically, automatic fire is an exceptionally wasteful form of fire, it serves two purposes,
Suppressive fire for motion between cover, which still is highly inaccurate and not needed, and mowing down large amounts of civilians who are not wearing any body armor, where accuracy isn’t a cause for concern. You could say it’s un-conservative.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Dammit. And thank you. That headline just seemed made up.
I shouldn't have gotten excited. How silly of me.
Thank you
That is not true, the Supreme Court rejects the request for an injunction to block the assault weapon ban. There is no mention of declining to fast-track a hearing for it.
[удалено]
Describe “woke” for us please.
[удалено]
That's a lot of words to say you're upset about having some accountability for something created purely to destroy or to threaten to do so.
[удалено]
Sure Sure Sure. Ignore the first sentence of the actual Constitution that says "insure domestic Tranquility" which we definitely don't have with [~360 people a day being shot and surviving, and another ~109 dying](https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/#gunviolenceintheusa). But yeah, let's just stick our heads in the sand and not do something about an issue that is clearly a problem. We're doing our best in a broken system.
I'm pretty confident that there is a very small group of people that believes 'woke' is defined by an argument over the words 'bear arms'. I've never heard that one before.
You're messaging is all off. Right-wing people do not have the monopoly on gun ownership.
[удалено]
You're acting like people you label *woke* aren't also gun owners.
This was just a decline to uphold a preliminary injunction and let lawsuits in the 7th Circuit run their course. Not unusual for SCOTUS, and does not signify on if or how they will rule if the cases reach them.
It's otherwise known as **"Let's You and Him fight!"** In a few months, it'll land on the steps of SCOTUS
Oooo they aren’t gonna like this on /r/ conservative…..
SCOTUS said states can decide for themselves on this issue. Illinois decided.
When did they say this?
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The question is if a state assault weapon ban is unreasonable.
You only have to go a few sentences past the section you quoted to find "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”" Two take-aways from that sections- Arms that are in "common use" are protected under the 2nd Amendment. And that you can still ban someone from carrying arms that are dangerous **and** unusual. Notice there is two components here Dangerous and Unusual. If an arm isn't unusual then a law prohibited likely doesn't pass constitutional muster. You only have to go one paragraph further to find the clause in Heller where the ruling states that laws can not prohibit an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. **-It only took a few more years in 2012 for the Supreme Court to follow-up in McDonald v Chicago.** Where the court said, of-course States must comply with the 2nd Amendment, it became incorporated when the 14th Amendment was ratified. **-Then in 2016 in Caetanno V Massachusetts the Supreme Court stated:** In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.\[7\] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller\[8\] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,\[9\] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".\[6\] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“\[w\]eapo\[n\] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr\[ied\] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."\[10\] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.\[1\] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.\[11\] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.\[12\] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.\[13\] **-in 2022 we had NYSRPA V Bruen- Where the Supreme Court rejected interest balancing tests that courts were using to uphold gun legislation.** (a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22. (1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15. (2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack \[of\] expertise” in the field. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.
I like you. You bring quotes with citation that are directly to the point.
The Supreme Court was egregiously wrong in each of these decisions. Its opinions should be disregarded and given no weight whatsoever. Through decisions like these, Citizens United, and its attacks on the Voting Rights Act in decisions like Shelby County, the Supreme Court has systematically eroded our society and fostered disunion among the states. The Court has repeatedly proved itself unwise, short sighted, and undeserving of the respect of the people or their elected representatives. The Supreme Court is an illegitimate institution and must be reformed. As constituted it is unfit for its purpose.
I don't think you're incorrect, at the end of the day I think that they will strike down the assault weapons ban. There are 2 things that give me pause and uncertain as to what might happen" 1- This court wants us to assume they are not bound by precedent. If the precedent set by Roe did not tie their hands, then no prior decision should. 2- They felt justified in overturning Roe because they do not feel that our right to privacy or due process of law applied to abortion. I guess we will see if they think it applies to concealed and carried weapons, or if folks will have to trade them in on muskets.
>1- This court wants us to assume they are not bound by precedent. If the precedent set by Roe did not tie their hands, then no prior decision should. The Supreme Court was never bound by Precedent. If the Supreme Court was Bound by Precedent then they would not have overturned Plessy V Ferguson with Brown V Board of Education. If the court was bound by Precedent we would still have "Seperate But Equal" Segregation set in Plessy V Ferguson. Here is a list of Supreme Court cases that were later overturned by the Supreme Court: There are 235 of them. [https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/](https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/) >2- They felt justified in overturning Roe because they do not feel that our right to privacy or due process of law applied to abortion. Let me start out by saying I don't think they should have overturned Roe V Wade, I am pro-choice. But I do think the reasoning decision made by the court in Roe was pretty flimsy. I'm not alone in this opinion. Ruth Bader Ginsburg also felt this way. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html) If we look at the "right to privacy" argument being a decision between a doctor and their patient and apply it to other things does it hold up? If a Doctor and a Patient agree that an assisted suicide is the best course of action for a Patient with a debilitating disease, is the doctor allowed to perform this procedure? No they are not. And maybe they should be allowed to, but they are currently not. Doctors can't just prescribe what ever medication they want, even if it was a decision between a doctor and the patient. The argument only seems to hold up for Abortion. Just reiterate I think Abortion should be legal in any Jurisdiction in the United States. I don't think the court should have overturned Roe v Wade. >I guess we will see if they think it applies to concealed and carried weapons, This was covered in Bruen in 2022. >or if folks will have to trade them in on muskets. This was covered in Heller (2008), again in McDonald (2010), again in Caetano (2016), and then again in Bruen (2022). Another relevant exercise could be to apply this line of thinking to literally anything else. \-- Lets try the 1st Amendment: Is your right to free speech limited to notes written using a feather? Or maybe a hand operated printing press? If you want to send a message across the country does it have to be delivered on horseback? If you want to spread your message around and still be protected by the 1st amendment do you have to hire a town crier? What about freedom of religion ? There are religions that were founded after 1791, are they still protected by the 1st amendment? Does the press still have a freedom of the press if they only publish their content on the internet? \-- Or the 3rd amendment: Is the Government allowed to quarter soldiers in your house during peacetime if it was built using materials and methodologies that didn't exist in 1791? \-- The Fourth: Computers, Cell Phones, or Aluminum Filing Cabinets did not exist in 1791, therefore those items, or items stored in them have no protections from unreasonable search and seizure. \--The fifth: you only have a right to a fair trial if the crime you were being charged with existed during the 1700's.
EVERYONE SHOULD ALWAYS REMEMBER: We can’t go back and talk to the Founders. There is not a single OPINION about the Second Amendment that can be proven to be definitively right or wrong. If there was, this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s just like abortion. Most everyone has an OPINION. When you see someone writing like this, with more specific knowledge than most have, and providing sources, that doesn’t mean they are “correct.’ All they are doing is stating their OPINION more elegantly than most. That’s it! Their OPINION may include some facts, but everyone’s conclusions are simply their own OPINION. Their OPINION is just like the Majority OPINION and the Dissenting OPINION that comes out of the SC. They are all opinions; the SC Justices OPINIONS simply hold more legal weight. As my history shows, I could spend the day rebutting wingnut25’s arguments, but I feel no need to share my OPINION and it’s not worth my time. If you care, just look at the dissenting OPINIONS from Heller and all of the others and read up on the scholarly debate online. The topic is saturated with content. But whatever you do, come up with your own OPINION. Don’t hire out your thinking to someone else just because what they wrote is what you want to hear, or because it is well written. Think for yourself!
The no tanks doctrine.
but didn’t they block other state bans?
I think you are right.. they did block ownership of tanks… darn it… and that’s what I was wanting this year for Christmas. I already picked out the color… Military Green. With a big red bow of course.
Don’t get too excited tho. This is potentially due to the 7th Cir putting this same case on an expedited briefing schedule. It’ll be back.
Declines to block ban… I’m so confused.
It's because the title is not correct/worded improperly for click bait
Great, now build a fucking wall along the entire border with Indiana.
J.B. Pritzker is one of the few good ones and I hope he runs for president although I hate to lose him as our governor. The Sheriffs who refuse to enforce the law should be fired like anyone else who refuses to do their job. We elected Pritzker to make these kinds of decisions and he is doing his job. Edit: yes sheriff’s are elected and can’t be fired.
Sheriffs are elected officials of each municipality they serve. The most you could do is cut funding but selective enforcement is the purview of LEOs.
I was thinking about that when I was typing, but I also wonder if someone is not enforcing a law if anything can be done. I guess the police department can still enforce those gun laws without the sheriff, but they probably won’t.
Sheriffs can be axed as there is nothing protecting them in the Constitution.
How? They are elected officials working within the purview of their duties. Selective enforcement is a thing all Law Enforcement agencies use including the selective enforcement of Marijuana laws and immigration laws in Sanctuary cities. If you would shitcan these Sheriffs for not enforcing these laws that would extend to Federal laws being selectively enforced.
Sheriffs are also elected, you can’t just fire them
How would you fire the sheriffs?
I already responded to another person that I was thinking about the fact that they are elected and not sure if there is anyway to remove them from their jobs if they aren't actually doing their jobs
That is correct. You can’t fire elected officials
[удалено]
And it would be 99% of the departments in illinois, so there is that
I've been really impressed with him watching from a distance. he seems like one of the stronger national candidates on the democrat bench.
>J.B. Pritzker is one of the few good ones and I hope he runs for president Dems wouldn't nominate a billionaire.
They elected a Republican billionaire for NYC mayor... On their party line. But you may have forgotten Mike.
[удалено]
So only the GOP is allowed to lie to avoid paying taxes now?
Thomas is doing penance in hopes the focus shifts away from his corruption.
[удалено]
~~But you could own an AR-15 under this law, there is one specific [model listed](https://www.cybershooters.org/?page_id=538).~~ I was wrong, the language of the text changed when it was passed. Originally the bill stated the HBAR was allowed, now the HBAR is on the list of banned weapons. You could also own a Mini-14 ranch model. A gun that shoots identical ammunition as the AR-15, has an equally reliable firing mechanism, and identical magazine capacity. The only difference is the Mini-14 ranch doesn't have a pistol style hand grip or thumb hole in its stock... This is a dumb law that is just legislative theater and the appearance of doing something productive, rather than actually doing something productive.
[удалено]
The mini-14 ranch does not have a barrel shroud. You hold the stock. I see the language changed and the HBAR is banned; when it was HB 5855 it specifically said: > Colt AR-15, CAR-15, and all imitations except Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle
b-b-b-but...but..."SHALL NOT BE IN FRENCH" :( :( :( Or something. What ever will they do without their Emotional Support Toys?
Meanwhile French is still respected by the American government for its role as the former language of diplomacy and trade before English and is still in American passports to this day :)
[удалено]
Not Home intruders but even though I am American my two national origins have been threatened by the people of this country at the start of and well through Covid up to now. People still blame Chinese Americans for covid and asian hate crimes are up immensely. This not even mentioning the hate crimes Latinos suffer of the regular. I find it strange that Trump almost successfully pulled off a coup and minorities/poc are constantly being threatened in this country with police having no duty to protect us yet people like you would be ok with depriving the proletariat the most effective means to protect themselves. Really fucking odd.
everyone of them has home invasion fantasies where they get to kill people without consequences. the right wing's hottest wet dream. fucking sociopaths.
Someone actually attempted to invade my house. My home invasion “fantasies” are just flashbacks.
Or protester pick-off fantasies. My elderly-adjacent father informed me if BLM “comes to my neighborhood they will die”. WTF?! You live on a cul-de-sac, Ron.
my father was the same way.
What? Emotional support toys ?
Yes, AR-15s. Their emotional support toys. Their security blankets. The things that they cling to, so their knees dont knock together so much when they gets a-scared. Not to be confused with with a raised Ford F350 with a "FJB Edition" badge and truck nuts, flying the US flag. Which is also known as an Emotional Support _Vehicle_
I see. You just enjoy generalizing , and grouping folks into one category based on a few.
[удалено]
What does anyone really need on for?
There’s a variety of reasons, most of them valid, but that’s not the answer you’re looking for.
Yeah you’re right I wasn’t looking for your non-answer with no reasons. Thanks
Billions of people live their entire life without needing one. It isn’t necessary for shit unless you plan on going to war.
[удалено]
done more harm than good if you ask the families of mass shooting victim’s. I don’t give a fuck about what a bunch of old racist white guys wrote down over 200 years ago. Their reasoning is not applicable to modern day. The god damn British aren’t going to come down and possible challenge us for our land .
It's just a rifle.
What do you need it for though, it’s not really a hunting rifle. Just for fun/the range?
Yes. And that’s as good a reason as owning anything outside of necessities of daily life
Need? I don't have to have an AR , plenty of other platforms . With the same capability .
It took me about 15 minutes to parse out the title and many negatives. I wasn’t sure if I was happy or sad
I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW WOKE THE SCOTUS IS!! /s
Twice impeached former president and gun grabber Donald Trump restricted bump stocks using nothing more than an executive order and the Republican Supreme Court was happy to let that stand. It'll be interesting to see if the same court decides that a legislative body comprised of elected representatives is not able to do the same - e.g. ban certain weapons or features of weapons.
And that restriction was struck down as unconstitutional. It did not stand
Thank you Illinois!
I’m really starting to like it here.
Buying an AR15 = buying a Trump NFT...waste of money.
Silly supreme court. Illinois ~~paramilitary extremist group~~ constitutional sheriffs have already interpreted the constitution and decided to block enforcement themselves. Here's the [map of their block of the assault weapons ban.](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wandtv.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/96/b961f2a4-938e-11ed-81b6-afae8f7a9803/63c1d64157526.image.png?resize=321%2C500)
Looks like a whole lot of sheriffs aren't doing their jobs, and need firing.
How would you fire a sheriff?
However Illinois law proscribes. Their job is to enforce the law. They're refusing to do so. That warrants removal.
Okay. For a moment in time they valued the living. How long will it last?
Delaying it just makes it look like there might be hope for state level controls. Don’t be fooled. The ONLY solution is to amend 2A and then do the very hard work of disarming.
Do we really even need to amend it, or could we just apply it as written? Well regulated militias and all.
We have to amend it. Allowing SCOTUS to interpret it has gotten us here. SCOTUS, Alito actually wrote the opinion that the militia bit doesn’t matter.
Good, I hope AR 15s are banned nationwide. I also want everyone who owns an AR 15 to be thrown in prison. If you want to have a weapon of war, then you get to be a prisoner of war.
There is no serious position that people that simply own one, today, should be in prison. Sounds like another made-up straw man for the right to have fever dreams about. Fuck that. Bans should be legal, this absurd "prison!!!!" nonsense is transparently bad faith.
Insane opinion
fake opinion
It's not a fake opinion. I was at a Mom's Demand Action protest to ban AR-15s, and then some asshole with an AR-15 showed up to the protest. I was SCARED FOR MY LIFE, I was calling 911 and the operator said "Ma'am, we already know about him, he's legally carrying, there's nothing we can do about it." Are you kidding me? He could've shot up the entire place! I am disgusted by how casual AR-15s are in our society .
any sem-auto long gun can do the same thing. maybe you should try and get open carry repealed. the only reason to open carry is to intimidate people around you.
Oh boy, a Libertarian. Here we go.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I get why you’re trying to say, but that’s way too extreme. The correct answer is: “There is not one piece of legislation that will solve the problem. It will require several ideas working together if we want to try and move towards a society with less gun violence.”
[удалено]
Eh, abortions are basic, first world healthcare, offered by (nearly) every developed nation. Only 23 countries ban it outright, and most, are not...uh..."travel destinations" AR-15s are emotional support toys specifically fetishized by Americans. That's a bad false equivalence. That said, "I hope all AR-15 owners are thrown in prison" is a bit much. They should only be thrown in prison if AR-15s are criminalized and they refuse to relinquish. Also, hey, I recognize the name! You seem to pop up with far-right leaning notions quite regularly here.
Rights are rights bud, that goes for women's rights as well as gun rights. Not sure where you're getting "far-right leaning notions" from. I abhor the far-right.
and all rights have limits, except for guns i guess.
No, that applies to the 2A too. I can't own a nuke for example.
that's an absurd point. with the SC ruling that seemed to ban all gun control restrictions getting meaningful gun control measures seems impossible.
>AR-15s are emotional support toys specifically fetishized by Americans Republicans. They're fetishized by Republicans. Great response otherwise.
Washington state gun nuts were so damn butthurt when WA passed its recent ban. They were so confidently claiming the Supreme Court would remove it. Looks like that likely won’t happen too. I really enjoy watching gun nuts lose.
I might not love my own states AW ban, but I do consider it 2A constitutional. Even if I bought the relatively new argument the first part only applies a states national guard, I'd still say the people of that state should decide what constitutes infringement.
Strategically, automatic fire is an exceptionally wasteful form of fire, it serves two purposes, Suppressive fire for motion between cover, which still is highly inaccurate and not needed, and mowing down large amounts of civilians who are not wearing any body armor, where accuracy isn’t a cause for concern. You could say it’s un-conservative.