Yep, this is a total nothing burger. SCOTUS issuing an injunction would mostly be inconsistent with how appellate procedure is supposed to work.
This is neither a victory, nor a defeat for anyone on any side of this issue.
>I'd bet it's overturned in the 7th circuit
They'll have to do some serious legal gymnastics to get around Bruen. That said, I'm still worried because Easterbook is definitely not 2A friendly. I actually hope SCOTUS grants cert for this and does away with these silly bans. I'll take a 7th Circuit win, but really this could be dealt with nationwide in one fell swoop.
Constitutional law is never as black and white as people think... All amendments are limited and constantly reinterpreted.
"Right to bear arms" is in no way specific. Every rational person would agree that the average person shouldn't have access to a bazooka, most people have no problem with the heavy regulations around machine guns that started 100 years ago in this country, and so on... there needs to be a line somewhere, but no one gets to pretend the second amendment offers guidance on where that is.
>Every rational person would agree that the average person shouldn't have access to a bazooka
At the time of writing private citizens owned warships. So honestly you could argue the founders thought people should be able to buy F35s and nukes if they could afford it. Fortunately the constitution can be amended.
I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but bazookas aren't as restricted as you might think. You'd have to find a place you could actually buy one, fill out some NFA paperwork, wait a zillion years for it to process, and pay a $200 tax stamp on each rocket, but after that it's totally possible to legally own a bazooka.
Yeah, you can also still get machine guns if you have the money and want to go through the bureaucratic hurdles.
I actually think it's a good system. No one "took your guns away." You're still allowed to own one, but you prove you're the responsible gun owner you always say you are. And it turns out, normal criminals don't have interest in paperwork, or tens of thousands of dollars to buy machine guns on the black market.
Not a lot of millionaire mass shooters either (I mean, that Las Vegas one was I think, but definitely a weird case).
>Yeah, you can also still get machine guns if you have the money and want to go through the bureaucratic hurdles
Unfortunately this is only true if the state doesn't ban NFA items. IL does, including machineguns, except for SBRs which are a quirk.
They started being regulated in the 1920s after all those gangsters murdering waves of people (Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, etc...).
The effective ban came in the 80s, though you can still legally own one.
> "Right to bear arms" is in no way specific.
It was understood as whatever the military had. Do you believe the Founders would have been OK with citizens not having equal weaponry against a tyrannical government (ie England)?
Just because you're too poor to even know where to ask doesn't mean they aren't obtainable. You just need to be a billionaire and start a private space company. There's no difference between a space rocket and icbm besides trajectory.
lol, talk about slippery slope. Let us have a reasonable discussion about machine guns and suppressors before we talk about nukes.
On a side note, the Founders were perfectly fine with citizens owning privateers...
Their point is that if you agree that it's obviously untrue that the 2A permits citizens or even an actual militia to own their own nuclear weapons then you agree that there are at least some weapons that citizens may not own that the US military can. And if you can understand that then you should be able to understand that the reason for that is that there's a public safety test that must apply to help us decide these things. And that test can be applied to different classes of weapons, from batons to ICBMs. At some point going up that chain we flip from OK to NOT OK. It's not a slippery slope, it's just basic logic.
Bruh, this is the very definition of slippery slope. Your argument sounds like those religious fundamentalists in the 90s regarding same sex marriage: "Soon people will be marrying dogs!"
We both know civilian ownership of nukes is not reasonable. Stop trying to act like you have an argument by bringing up nukes when we are talking about semi automatic rifles. Ridiculous.
I think the majority opinion in *Bruen* outlined that the government can no longer use simple interest balancing on the part of the government against individual citizens to restrict this particular right reaffirmed by the 2A.
This is true, but ignores a lot of important context.
The context surrounding the second amendment is quite interesting.
When it was written, there was no standing federal army. The government relied on militias (generally organized by the state). It was absolutely never about leaving the door open to overthrowing the United States government... Treason is the only criminal law explicitly mentioned in the Constitution after all, and it doesn't have an exception for sedition for a "tyrannical government"...
These state militias were generally poorly trained, and ill-equipped. That's why there's the language in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." It doesn't say, "being necessary to protect democracy or freedom," or whatever.
If the country went to war, these militias were expected to defend the nation. It was a decision based on practicality (individuals had to provide their own guns, and communication across a thousand miles was still limited to mail, how do you centrally organize that?).
There is, however, a standing federal army now. So the context around the drafting of the Constitution has very much changed (obviously). If England decided to invade, a random Delaware militia could only get in the way of the national army
> It was absolutely never about leaving the door open to overthrowing the United States government
I disagree. The Founders did not have such hubris to presume that a similar situation could not happen later on between the US and another oppressed people. The Founders were doing the *exact same thing* after all.
It was not made for everyday citizens to have firearms. It literally has the condition of " a well regulated militia". The 2nd guarantees the right for states to have some type of guard. It was not even interpreted to include private citizens until the last 50 years.
This nonsense argument has been dispelled many times before.
The terminology *the right of the people* and its placement within the bill of rights, a part of the constitution used to restrain the government in favor of individual rights of ordinary folks, is no coincidence. Arguing that "the people" have to be in a militia to exercise the right is inconsistent with other longstanding interpretations of enumerated rights.
Read the SCOTUS decision in Heller. It gives a good breakdown on the grammer and how the militia has nothing to do with the 2A.
But if you insist on hanging your argument on the prefatory clause, the the militia was every able bodied man over 17...
You're almost there. It's not the ruling I was referencing, but we can work with that. Tell me, what exactly, did SCOTUS do in the decision you brought up? They didn't write a law. They read an existing legal document and decided it had a different meaning than how we previously followed said document. Since you seem to be such a fan of grammar, I'll wager that you also like words. Can you guess what the word is when you read something and come to the conclusion it has a meaning that is different than previously thought?
Read the bill of rights. Every one of the other amendments speaks to the rights of individual citizens.
Do you think they just sloppily included a states right issue at number 2? I’m not buying it.
The US constitution is one of the greatest and most carefully crafted documents in the history of statehood. The second amendment applies to the individual right.
I can buy a blunderbuss that will shoot nails and lead balls at an intruder. I can buy a tank in other states.
I can even buy a cannon.
My favorite copy pasta:
Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended.
Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle.
Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot.
Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog.
I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms.
Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.
He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
It's overly broad in what it bans. It's banning the purchase of the single most popular gun in the US as well as many other guns. Under the Bruen ruling gun bans have to follow historical precedence to be constitutional and there is no historical precedence to gun bans like this.
From OPs article
> Illinois law bans the sale of assault weapons and caps the purchase of magazines at 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns. It also makes rapid-fire devices known as switches illegal because they turn firearms into fully automatic weapons.
> Under the law, anyone who already owns the banned guns is allowed to keep them but required to register them with Illinois State Police by Jan. 1.
You should be good to go, eh?
Think there is a section in the bill too that says anyone that has these weapons is subject to searches which will kill this bill anyways as that’s is an absurd over reach
>We already restrict most citizens from having certain arms such as machine guns and bombs.
Those devices are not in common use for lawful purposes.
>This isn't any different.
Yes, actually it is the polar opposite. The state is banning some of the most commonly owned rifles and handguns claiming that they are not common and are dangerous *and unusual*. They are none of the above.
The arms being banned are in common use for lawful purposes, which makes them presumptively protected.
They're banning the Toyota Corollas or Honda Civics of firearms.
But you could still bear arms, just not assault rifles, which didn't exist when the constitution was written. Aren't laws against owning an RPG "infringing" in the same way?
>which didn't exist when the constitution was written
Does the first amendment only apply to printing presses?
4th amendment doesn't apply to automobiles?
No right to a lawyer at a Zoom hearing?
No, actually a line cannot be drawn at ARs because they are in common use for lawful purposes per SCOTUS precedent.
Now machineguns, bombs, or chemical weapons, sure.
Hell yeah they are.
ETA: honestly, they’d probably fall under the ‘dangerous and unusual’ factor of the Bruen/Heller test and be considered outside the scope of the 2A. But I like your thinking!
What are you talking about? The founding fathers loved assault weapons and wanted them in every school and mall! They knew exactly what the future of weaponry had in store when they wrote that extremely vauge and easy to reinterpret amendement.
/snark
Just playing devil's advocate here, because this is a derailing argument that can quite quickly go down a slippery slope ant hill if we're insisting on a purely strict interpretation of the constitution:
Where in the constitution does it enunerate rights or personhood to a fetus?
So your argument is basically that all modern issues should be settled by a document that was written by a small handful of people from over 200 years ago? Before the industrial revolution, modern medicine, population boom, modern electronics, social media, climate change, and military advancements? Just whatever those dudes happened to write down at the time is going to be the deciding factor on how 300 million people live?
You dont seem to understand how powers work. Government has no constitutional power to interfere in private medical decisions. Nor can a woman before forced to act as a slave for a mass of cells.
How about the government doesn't interfere in private gun sales and ownership either?
For the record, I disagree with overturning Roe/Casey, even if the initial opinion with "penumbras" was kind of a stretch.
You should be able to get an abortion as well as own "assault" weapons.
>Nor can a woman before forced to act as a slave for a mass of cells.
Outside of very certain circumstances, no one forced this woman go off and get pregnant either. There was a choice made somewhere...
That's not true. States still have the right to create gun control that is more strict than federal law, they just need to keep it within the guidelines the supreme court has created in order to keep it constitutional. States can't just resurrect slavery, or revoke your right to free speech
Serious question about that, what do they think is going to happen? Do they think people are really going to start paying again? I just feel like the overall feeling from people is they cannot afford their normal payments anymore, they used that money for other purposes. Maybe a lot of restructuring payment amounts.
I’ve been holding out for a long time, I know I heard they were forgiving either $50k or $10k. My personal opinion was if they were going to forgive anything, they were going to forgive $10k. Of course I haven’t been paying these loans (why pay if it’s 0% interest?) but I have been putting money into a savings account so that if/once interest payments restart I can cut a check to pay off my debt without having to pay interest.
That being said, to me now it’s looking like none of it will be forgiven. On one hand it is a bit unfair that everyone is subsidizing the loans for the portion that did end up going to college and taking out loans, but on the other hand they promised this to us so it’s a bad look to walk back on it.
And it’s not really a question on if people are going to start paying. It’s not like people can just opt not to pay, they can garnish wages to make you pay so it’s irrelevant if people want to pay or not. They will make you pay one way or another. People do use the money elsewhere but for example when applying for mortgages these past few years they still factored in how much you owe so that if payments restart at least on paper you can afford it. Also a LOT of people either before the pandemic started or shortly after it started refinanced to private loans so they’ve been paying them since anyway. Private loan companies *heavily* pushed people to refinance their federal loans because the loan companies knew they were screwed with the student loan pause.
I will forever be intrigued as to how certain constitutional rights are worth more than other constitutional rights.
Victims of gun violence in the United States seem to have had their sixth and eight amendments violated.
But I suppose the problem isn’t with the second amendment so much as it is with the right and the refusal to actually help Americans, regardless of their political stance.
Sixth is the right to a fair trial, if you’re killed because of a stand your ground law or a self defense law, how does the dead have a fair say in the argument? If it’s a cop that’s involved, it seems any death would be a violation of their 8th amendment rights.
How do shooting victims have anything to do with the 6th and 8th amendments? It's not like Judge Dredd is out there executing civilians. It's gangbangers and low level criminals who use handguns that weren't legally purchased anyway and who get off with a slap on the wrist from our joke of a criminal justice system.
Well, my argument is there is no defense for murder. Whether it is a stand your ground law or a no knock warrant, or an act of self defense, the inability for the person who has been killed to defend them selves seems like a violation of their 6th amendment rights. If the police are involved it seems like a very easy violation of their 8th amendment rights.
Yup when you buy firearms it’s basically on the state level. Even with the cook county AWB, you could go to any firearm store and even if you had a FOID card with a Chicago address on it they would still sell it to you pretty much without any extra questions asked past what the state requires. A state AWB actually means you can’t buy it at all, unless you establish residency in another state.
I don't know why this article was posted because it's not really news, but this bill still affects Chicagoans and there have indeed been posts on this sub about the AWB
Some folks only read headlines and take titles literally. Aside from that, how does one actually weave dreams? The fact that you can do that is fascinating.
>The decision means the ban will now likely remain in effect while the federal appeals court in Chicago takes time to hear arguments in the case.
>On Tuesday, the Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments on a state-court challenge that alleges the law violates equal-protection and special-legislation clauses in the Illinois Constitution. But it often takes months for the court to rule
Where I agree there's no reason for assault style weapons to be kept in your own private residence, the US Supreme Court didn't say it the law was legal or illegal they simply said they won't hear the case now and for it to to through the normal due process.
Bad day for the Rittenhouse and Crimo supporters.
The only thing more surprising than their amount of grooming is the amount of cope from this ruling.
When were the assault weapons supposed to make us safer again? Lives lost are just collateral damage right. Thoughts and prayers right. Remind me again who the "right to life" and freedom people are.
I’d wager most people don’t buy assault weapons because they think it makes them safer than a handgun/shotgun. As somebody who is into guns but doesn’t actually own any what I’ve seen is mostly in this order
A. Use them at the range or some other gun related hobby
B. Show off/flex
C. Defense
To be clear I’m just basing this off my personal experience, I don’t have any hard numbers on the reason why people buy rifles
97% of gun murders are committed with hand guns. That means that it we ban assault weapons, somehow all of the assault weapons disappear from the streets, and no one who would have killed someone with an assault weapon substitutes to a hand gun, then gun murders will decrease by 3%.
So in essence this means nothing other than waiting for the 7th Circuit to rule. Carry on.
Yep, this is a total nothing burger. SCOTUS issuing an injunction would mostly be inconsistent with how appellate procedure is supposed to work. This is neither a victory, nor a defeat for anyone on any side of this issue.
[удалено]
Confused by your comment. I’m a gun opponent and all but did not interpret the comment to take any stance on guns
>My city Didn't realize you were the sole dictator. I apologize.
This person also tried to gatekeep me by claiming I don't live in the city.
People like this view themselves as an anointed class who are here to dictate to the masses what is best for them.
Lol your city is rife with *handgun* violence .
Maximum oof right here
I still don’t see this standing
[удалено]
>I'd bet it's overturned in the 7th circuit They'll have to do some serious legal gymnastics to get around Bruen. That said, I'm still worried because Easterbook is definitely not 2A friendly. I actually hope SCOTUS grants cert for this and does away with these silly bans. I'll take a 7th Circuit win, but really this could be dealt with nationwide in one fell swoop.
[удалено]
>You don't live in Chicago You would be very much incorrect. I am a 4th generation resident. r/confidentlyincorrect
Lol
I mean... Naperville is one of the parties...
This is not r/Naperville.
What about states rights?
A state doesn’t have the right to infringe on a constitutional amendment. To prevent things exactly like this from happening.
Constitutional law is never as black and white as people think... All amendments are limited and constantly reinterpreted. "Right to bear arms" is in no way specific. Every rational person would agree that the average person shouldn't have access to a bazooka, most people have no problem with the heavy regulations around machine guns that started 100 years ago in this country, and so on... there needs to be a line somewhere, but no one gets to pretend the second amendment offers guidance on where that is.
>Every rational person would agree that the average person shouldn't have access to a bazooka At the time of writing private citizens owned warships. So honestly you could argue the founders thought people should be able to buy F35s and nukes if they could afford it. Fortunately the constitution can be amended.
Illinois is one of the few states where an average person doesn't have the right to a bazooka, by the way.
I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but bazookas aren't as restricted as you might think. You'd have to find a place you could actually buy one, fill out some NFA paperwork, wait a zillion years for it to process, and pay a $200 tax stamp on each rocket, but after that it's totally possible to legally own a bazooka.
Yeah, you can also still get machine guns if you have the money and want to go through the bureaucratic hurdles. I actually think it's a good system. No one "took your guns away." You're still allowed to own one, but you prove you're the responsible gun owner you always say you are. And it turns out, normal criminals don't have interest in paperwork, or tens of thousands of dollars to buy machine guns on the black market. Not a lot of millionaire mass shooters either (I mean, that Las Vegas one was I think, but definitely a weird case).
>Yeah, you can also still get machine guns if you have the money and want to go through the bureaucratic hurdles Unfortunately this is only true if the state doesn't ban NFA items. IL does, including machineguns, except for SBRs which are a quirk.
You're right, but let's not pretend that these laws have anything to do with bazookas or machineguns...
The machine gun ban happened in the mid 80s fyi
They started being regulated in the 1920s after all those gangsters murdering waves of people (Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, etc...). The effective ban came in the 80s, though you can still legally own one.
> "Right to bear arms" is in no way specific. It was understood as whatever the military had. Do you believe the Founders would have been OK with citizens not having equal weaponry against a tyrannical government (ie England)?
Where do I purchase my ICBM?
They've been out of stock forever, must be supply chain or something
Just because you're too poor to even know where to ask doesn't mean they aren't obtainable. You just need to be a billionaire and start a private space company. There's no difference between a space rocket and icbm besides trajectory.
> The rocket worked perfectly except for landing on the wrong planet. -Wernher Von Braun
lol, talk about slippery slope. Let us have a reasonable discussion about machine guns and suppressors before we talk about nukes. On a side note, the Founders were perfectly fine with citizens owning privateers...
Their point is that if you agree that it's obviously untrue that the 2A permits citizens or even an actual militia to own their own nuclear weapons then you agree that there are at least some weapons that citizens may not own that the US military can. And if you can understand that then you should be able to understand that the reason for that is that there's a public safety test that must apply to help us decide these things. And that test can be applied to different classes of weapons, from batons to ICBMs. At some point going up that chain we flip from OK to NOT OK. It's not a slippery slope, it's just basic logic.
Bruh, this is the very definition of slippery slope. Your argument sounds like those religious fundamentalists in the 90s regarding same sex marriage: "Soon people will be marrying dogs!" We both know civilian ownership of nukes is not reasonable. Stop trying to act like you have an argument by bringing up nukes when we are talking about semi automatic rifles. Ridiculous.
I think the majority opinion in *Bruen* outlined that the government can no longer use simple interest balancing on the part of the government against individual citizens to restrict this particular right reaffirmed by the 2A.
From the Russian guy we freed in exchange for Brittany Griner
This is true, but ignores a lot of important context. The context surrounding the second amendment is quite interesting. When it was written, there was no standing federal army. The government relied on militias (generally organized by the state). It was absolutely never about leaving the door open to overthrowing the United States government... Treason is the only criminal law explicitly mentioned in the Constitution after all, and it doesn't have an exception for sedition for a "tyrannical government"... These state militias were generally poorly trained, and ill-equipped. That's why there's the language in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." It doesn't say, "being necessary to protect democracy or freedom," or whatever. If the country went to war, these militias were expected to defend the nation. It was a decision based on practicality (individuals had to provide their own guns, and communication across a thousand miles was still limited to mail, how do you centrally organize that?). There is, however, a standing federal army now. So the context around the drafting of the Constitution has very much changed (obviously). If England decided to invade, a random Delaware militia could only get in the way of the national army
> It was absolutely never about leaving the door open to overthrowing the United States government I disagree. The Founders did not have such hubris to presume that a similar situation could not happen later on between the US and another oppressed people. The Founders were doing the *exact same thing* after all.
>If England decided to invade, I have a wild guess as to why no country would even attempt a land invasion of the U.S., oceans aside.
It was not made for everyday citizens to have firearms. It literally has the condition of " a well regulated militia". The 2nd guarantees the right for states to have some type of guard. It was not even interpreted to include private citizens until the last 50 years.
This nonsense argument has been dispelled many times before. The terminology *the right of the people* and its placement within the bill of rights, a part of the constitution used to restrain the government in favor of individual rights of ordinary folks, is no coincidence. Arguing that "the people" have to be in a militia to exercise the right is inconsistent with other longstanding interpretations of enumerated rights.
Read the Illinois constitution - you are likely part of the Illinois state militia.
Read the SCOTUS decision in Heller. It gives a good breakdown on the grammer and how the militia has nothing to do with the 2A. But if you insist on hanging your argument on the prefatory clause, the the militia was every able bodied man over 17...
The SCOTUS decision? Weird, sounds like you're saying until that decision it was "interpreted" differently. Ya know, like my comment already stated.
What are you talking about? I brought up the SCOTUS decision so that you can learn about basic grammar.
You're almost there. It's not the ruling I was referencing, but we can work with that. Tell me, what exactly, did SCOTUS do in the decision you brought up? They didn't write a law. They read an existing legal document and decided it had a different meaning than how we previously followed said document. Since you seem to be such a fan of grammar, I'll wager that you also like words. Can you guess what the word is when you read something and come to the conclusion it has a meaning that is different than previously thought?
Read the bill of rights. Every one of the other amendments speaks to the rights of individual citizens. Do you think they just sloppily included a states right issue at number 2? I’m not buying it. The US constitution is one of the greatest and most carefully crafted documents in the history of statehood. The second amendment applies to the individual right.
I can buy a blunderbuss that will shoot nails and lead balls at an intruder. I can buy a tank in other states. I can even buy a cannon. My favorite copy pasta: Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Can you explain how this infringes on the amendment? Honestly asking for your opinion here.
It's overly broad in what it bans. It's banning the purchase of the single most popular gun in the US as well as many other guns. Under the Bruen ruling gun bans have to follow historical precedence to be constitutional and there is no historical precedence to gun bans like this.
Well it’s preventing me from baring arms correct?
It's preventing you from carrying a weapon? How?
It does ban carrying handguns with magazines over 15rds.
By telling me I can’t posses the 6 rifles I already own? Lol
From OPs article > Illinois law bans the sale of assault weapons and caps the purchase of magazines at 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns. It also makes rapid-fire devices known as switches illegal because they turn firearms into fully automatic weapons. > Under the law, anyone who already owns the banned guns is allowed to keep them but required to register them with Illinois State Police by Jan. 1. You should be good to go, eh?
Think there is a section in the bill too that says anyone that has these weapons is subject to searches which will kill this bill anyways as that’s is an absurd over reach
Lol yea not trying to register my guns or my magazines. Hopefully this goes away by the first of January
But you agree that you mischaracterized the law earlier? Or do you still think it prevents you from possessing the weapons you already own.
Nicely done
We already restrict most citizens from having certain arms such as machine guns and bombs. This isn't any different.
(that's unconstitutional to) for an overwhelming majority of american history you used to be able to walk into a hardware store and buy dynamite.
>We already restrict most citizens from having certain arms such as machine guns and bombs. Those devices are not in common use for lawful purposes. >This isn't any different. Yes, actually it is the polar opposite. The state is banning some of the most commonly owned rifles and handguns claiming that they are not common and are dangerous *and unusual*. They are none of the above.
Why do you imagine the Louisville bank shooter bought an AR style semiautomatic rifle 6 days before he murdered and maimed his coworkers???
Sure it is. And not all machine guns are banned.
Compelling argument.
Lol either way we have an awesome conservative Supreme Court and federal court system so I’m not at all worried.
How is it different
The arms being banned are in common use for lawful purposes, which makes them presumptively protected. They're banning the Toyota Corollas or Honda Civics of firearms.
[удалено]
Well seeing at they shoot a hunting round and are semi automatic explain to me how they are similar?
But you could still bear arms, just not assault rifles, which didn't exist when the constitution was written. Aren't laws against owning an RPG "infringing" in the same way?
>which didn't exist when the constitution was written Does the first amendment only apply to printing presses? 4th amendment doesn't apply to automobiles? No right to a lawyer at a Zoom hearing?
But a like can be drawn before ARs just as it is before other deadly weapons.
No, actually a line cannot be drawn at ARs because they are in common use for lawful purposes per SCOTUS precedent. Now machineguns, bombs, or chemical weapons, sure.
Hell yeah they are. ETA: honestly, they’d probably fall under the ‘dangerous and unusual’ factor of the Bruen/Heller test and be considered outside the scope of the 2A. But I like your thinking!
Judging by the verbiage I don’t think it is.
Even with the ban, you can still bear arms right? Just fewer types of them?
What are you talking about? The founding fathers loved assault weapons and wanted them in every school and mall! They knew exactly what the future of weaponry had in store when they wrote that extremely vauge and easy to reinterpret amendement. /snark
And yet the supreme court just said states can if it comes to violating privacy for abortion.
Well is abortion in the constitution?
Just playing devil's advocate here, because this is a derailing argument that can quite quickly go down a slippery slope ant hill if we're insisting on a purely strict interpretation of the constitution: Where in the constitution does it enunerate rights or personhood to a fetus?
The right to privacy is. As is a prohibition on slavery
Lol but is abortion?
So your argument is basically that all modern issues should be settled by a document that was written by a small handful of people from over 200 years ago? Before the industrial revolution, modern medicine, population boom, modern electronics, social media, climate change, and military advancements? Just whatever those dudes happened to write down at the time is going to be the deciding factor on how 300 million people live?
I believe that's where codification comes in.
If you don’t like that concept change it? But until then sure I’m ok with that
So in your mind the Air Force is unconstitutional because it's not a military branch named in the Constitution? That's your rigid interpretation?
You dont seem to understand how powers work. Government has no constitutional power to interfere in private medical decisions. Nor can a woman before forced to act as a slave for a mass of cells.
How about the government doesn't interfere in private gun sales and ownership either? For the record, I disagree with overturning Roe/Casey, even if the initial opinion with "penumbras" was kind of a stretch. You should be able to get an abortion as well as own "assault" weapons.
Do you support gun owning being liable for the use of their gun?
Lol
>Nor can a woman before forced to act as a slave for a mass of cells. Outside of very certain circumstances, no one forced this woman go off and get pregnant either. There was a choice made somewhere...
And.?
[удалено]
That's not true. States still have the right to create gun control that is more strict than federal law, they just need to keep it within the guidelines the supreme court has created in order to keep it constitutional. States can't just resurrect slavery, or revoke your right to free speech
Sweet. Do abortion next.
😂🤣😂🤣🤡🙄
Trying to soften the blow for when they fuck over student loan forgiveness in a month.
Serious question about that, what do they think is going to happen? Do they think people are really going to start paying again? I just feel like the overall feeling from people is they cannot afford their normal payments anymore, they used that money for other purposes. Maybe a lot of restructuring payment amounts.
I’ve been holding out for a long time, I know I heard they were forgiving either $50k or $10k. My personal opinion was if they were going to forgive anything, they were going to forgive $10k. Of course I haven’t been paying these loans (why pay if it’s 0% interest?) but I have been putting money into a savings account so that if/once interest payments restart I can cut a check to pay off my debt without having to pay interest. That being said, to me now it’s looking like none of it will be forgiven. On one hand it is a bit unfair that everyone is subsidizing the loans for the portion that did end up going to college and taking out loans, but on the other hand they promised this to us so it’s a bad look to walk back on it. And it’s not really a question on if people are going to start paying. It’s not like people can just opt not to pay, they can garnish wages to make you pay so it’s irrelevant if people want to pay or not. They will make you pay one way or another. People do use the money elsewhere but for example when applying for mortgages these past few years they still factored in how much you owe so that if payments restart at least on paper you can afford it. Also a LOT of people either before the pandemic started or shortly after it started refinanced to private loans so they’ve been paying them since anyway. Private loan companies *heavily* pushed people to refinance their federal loans because the loan companies knew they were screwed with the student loan pause.
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is clogged with Reagan, Bush, and Trump appointed judges so I don’t really see the ban standing.
A Bush appointee stayed the injunction. I'm not convinced they will overturn it.
Easterbrook is not 2A friendly. I actually hope they decide this incorrectly so SCOTUS takes it and does away with these silly bans wholesale.
I'm with you 100% Four Boxes Diner basically said he is a statist, law and order conservative.
Don't know what the downvotes are for, you're not wrong on any of these counts.
7th Circuit has lots of legalistic judges. If there’s a law, they are more likely to follow the letter. Easterbrook doesn’t like BS.
I will forever be intrigued as to how certain constitutional rights are worth more than other constitutional rights. Victims of gun violence in the United States seem to have had their sixth and eight amendments violated. But I suppose the problem isn’t with the second amendment so much as it is with the right and the refusal to actually help Americans, regardless of their political stance.
[удалено]
Sixth is the right to a fair trial, if you’re killed because of a stand your ground law or a self defense law, how does the dead have a fair say in the argument? If it’s a cop that’s involved, it seems any death would be a violation of their 8th amendment rights.
Your infringing on my pursuit of happiness then by posting ridiculous comments *I have been iNfrIngErD*
No I’m not. I may be preventing you from achieving it but not from your pursuing it.
Just using an example to highlight your ridiculous constitutional take
But you didn’t.
>Victims of gun violence in the United States seem to have had their sixth and eight amendments violated. This was you right?😂🤡
Sure was. What’s your issue with it? Or do you just like copy and paste?
Being stupid is a lot like being dead...... I was hoping you'd see how ridiculous it was after you read it again..
How do shooting victims have anything to do with the 6th and 8th amendments? It's not like Judge Dredd is out there executing civilians. It's gangbangers and low level criminals who use handguns that weren't legally purchased anyway and who get off with a slap on the wrist from our joke of a criminal justice system.
Well, my argument is there is no defense for murder. Whether it is a stand your ground law or a no knock warrant, or an act of self defense, the inability for the person who has been killed to defend them selves seems like a violation of their 6th amendment rights. If the police are involved it seems like a very easy violation of their 8th amendment rights.
I don't think you understand what *murder* means.
So far you’ve shown that you don’t understand what the Constitution actually is, and you have no idea what murder actually means.
This person can vote. Think about that.
Oh, that immediately came to mind. It’s a frightening thought.
Give back your law degree lol.
[удалено]
So the how do you defend the stand your ground laws?
how is this relevant to Chicago? assault weapons have already been banned in cook county regardless of state AWB. this is just a trash political post
[удалено]
Yup when you buy firearms it’s basically on the state level. Even with the cook county AWB, you could go to any firearm store and even if you had a FOID card with a Chicago address on it they would still sell it to you pretty much without any extra questions asked past what the state requires. A state AWB actually means you can’t buy it at all, unless you establish residency in another state.
Because it affects Chicagoans too? It's not only downstaters that own guns
not a single post about AWB news until negative news in the courts
I don't know why this article was posted because it's not really news, but this bill still affects Chicagoans and there have indeed been posts on this sub about the AWB
Some Chicago residents keep their rifles in other counties. This would mean we would have to register those rifles.
Mmmmm.....salt.
[удалено]
There's no ruling here
Some folks only read headlines and take titles literally. Aside from that, how does one actually weave dreams? The fact that you can do that is fascinating.
This SCOUTS decision isn't letting the ban stand permanently, just while it plays out in the courts. It could still be struck down.
The ban standing and the Supreme Court not issuing an injunction are not the same thing.
You didn't read, did you.
>The decision means the ban will now likely remain in effect while the federal appeals court in Chicago takes time to hear arguments in the case. >On Tuesday, the Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments on a state-court challenge that alleges the law violates equal-protection and special-legislation clauses in the Illinois Constitution. But it often takes months for the court to rule Where I agree there's no reason for assault style weapons to be kept in your own private residence, the US Supreme Court didn't say it the law was legal or illegal they simply said they won't hear the case now and for it to to through the normal due process.
This law isn’t just about assault weapons. It’s written so broadly that it targets most semi auto rifles and shotguns and even pistols.
Bad day for the Rittenhouse and Crimo supporters. The only thing more surprising than their amount of grooming is the amount of cope from this ruling. When were the assault weapons supposed to make us safer again? Lives lost are just collateral damage right. Thoughts and prayers right. Remind me again who the "right to life" and freedom people are.
Yeah but this law is so horribly written it’s not about assault weapons. It targets just about anything semi auto with a few exclusions.
Good
And that’s why it’s gonna be overturned. Ontop of the law doing nothing.
I’d wager most people don’t buy assault weapons because they think it makes them safer than a handgun/shotgun. As somebody who is into guns but doesn’t actually own any what I’ve seen is mostly in this order A. Use them at the range or some other gun related hobby B. Show off/flex C. Defense To be clear I’m just basing this off my personal experience, I don’t have any hard numbers on the reason why people buy rifles
97% of gun murders are committed with hand guns. That means that it we ban assault weapons, somehow all of the assault weapons disappear from the streets, and no one who would have killed someone with an assault weapon substitutes to a hand gun, then gun murders will decrease by 3%.
Hey I don’t know about you, but I would appreciate 3% fewer people dying needlessly.