Illinois Supreme Court finds assault weapons ban constitutional

abcnews.go.com Illinois Supreme Court finds assault weapons ban constitutional

The Illinois Supreme Court found the state's assault weapons ban constitutional. It was passed after the Highland Park shooting last year.

The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.

News @kbin.social

Illinois Supreme Court finds assault weapons ban constitutional

abcnews.go.com /US/illinois-supreme-court-finds-assault-weapons-ban-constitutional/story

22 36

politics @lemmy.world

Illinois Supreme Court finds assault weapons ban constitutional

abcnews.go.com /US/illinois-supreme-court-finds-assault-weapons-ban-constitutional/story

211 32

You're viewing a single thread.

148 comments

Sucks.. everyone should be permitted to be armed. Why would you want to walk around not protecting yourself ? It's a dog eat dog world, like it or not..
- @djflusso @MicroWave
  Coming from a nation with exactly zero right-to-carry I disagree.
  I have visited the US before but honestly won't again. I'm just not comfortable walking around with people who have become immune to the violence they perpetuate by carrying guns just about everywhere.
  It makes no sense to me to live in that kind of constant fear. Like seriously, I don't know how all you aren't dead because your amygdala and hypothalamus are exploding from the stress.
  
  "How to tell an American from an Eurpoean: An American can tell a gunshot from a firework by sound alone."
  As a pro-gun girl from liberal Massachusetts, I largely agree with you but have a few caveats:
  These kinds of laws always bother me due to the nebulous nature of the definition of an "assault weapon" in this country. A quick search will tell you that there is no single definition for an assault weapon from a legal standpoint, but that it generally refers to "semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features." This definition includes almost every pistol ever created, as the defining attributes of a pistol that differentiate it from a revolver are that they're semi-automatic and almost always use a detachable magazine, except for some early designs like the Luger which use an internal magazine. Notably, the Colt AR-15 (the one all over the news for mass shootings) is not an assault weapon, and neither are rifles like the FN FAL, which was the French army's rifle for awhile during the Cold War. I have also seen stuff like AK-47 variants that are legally considered pistols here in the US, and even pump-action AR-15s, which would be completely legal under these kinds of bans despite being able to fire rounds almost as quickly as a standard AR-15.
  It's even legal to anonymously buy the majority of parts for a gun online here, except for the lower receiver, which is a part that has a unique serial code on it that must be registered. Which brings me to my main issue with these kinds of laws: they always feel like stopgap measures which don't do anything about the actual issues but allow politicians to pat themselves on the back and claim they've solved the problem forever.
  It's completely possible to have a country where you can own guns without having the issues we do, but everybody is too wrapped up in this 2nd Amendment spat. Countries like Australia have shown that it's possible. Australia used to have a gun culture identical to the US until they had a school shooting in the 70s. At that point, everybody in the country agreed to never let something like that happen again, tightened their gun laws and had a mass turn in of guns, and they haven't had a school shooting since. There's even a country in northern Europe (I wanna say Sweden?) where everybody has to do like 3 years in the army, and they can keep their service rifle after that time, and yet, they have no issues with mass shootings like we do here.
  The belief that everybody in this country has a right to own a gun, whether they can be trusted to be a responsible gun owner or not, is probably the biggest problem we have towards actually solving this issue, and no one state can do something about it. These kinds of bans are always fairly easy to circumvent just by going to the closest state with relaxed gun laws, and they punish responsible gun owners who are going to freak out for suddenly being criminals for owning something that they bought legally. So we end up with these bans that treat a symptom and not the root causes while also pushing gun owners to vote for politicians who want to get rid of any regulation at all on guns.
  
  Australia didn't ban guns because of a school shooting in the 70s. They banned guns after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996.
  
  You're probably thinking of Switzerland and they can't own personal ammunition.
  As for the rest of your point, the second amendment is the hot button because those who want to take away the fundamental right to own arms are basically saying that rights are affordable. That's not how they work. As someone in this thread said, the bill of rights do not grant you these rights, they already existed and the bill is acknowledging them. IE, under no circumstances does the government have any capability or authority to deny or revoke it under any guise. The very concept of the people for the people would be erased otherwise.
  If the culture of America legitimately swung overwhelmingly in favor of handing in their arms (never going to happen) cosmopolitanism tells us that is fine and good. If the government decides for you that everyone is in agreement, that is a spit in the face of liberty and a complete fabrication of their ability to revoke rights (which as stated they don't have).
  
  Which brings me to my main issue with these kinds of laws: they always feel like stopgap measures
  The reason for that is laws themselves. You and I may have different definitions of what an "assault rifle" is but could probably come to some agreement. Perhaps some combination of the caliber, rate of fire, magazine capacity, etc. Finding that form of consensus across the electorate would be impossible. The people who write the laws have to write specific wording which will be immediately and voraciously attached by the well-financed pro-gun lobby. It will also be attacked by ingenious (and I mean that sincerely) hobbyists who will do their best to circumvent the laws. I'm sure there are a few hardcore 2A enthusiasts who hate Trump for banning bump stocks, which serve no purpose other than to make a slow-firing weapon into a fast one... and just happened to be used in a mass killing.
  
  Your perspective on the daily lives of Americans is skewed by media which profits of tragedy and strays from reality.
  
  It's just a different mindset. People carrying don't have to be fearful or stressed out like you assume. They just want to have the ability to defend themselves or loved ones. Police simply cannot protect everyone all the time and violence is a thing that can happen sometimes. Violence certainly doesn't happen all the time but many people prefer to carry and not need it then need it and not have it.
  The people who are actually a danger are still going to be dangerous regardless of how unarmed others choose to be.
  Maybe you feel like you can depend on your police or your local criminals are less violent.
  
  @borkcorkedforks @MicroWave
  Cops are as bad here as they are in America, as are criminals and crime -- with the notable exception of gun-related crime and deaths.
  The only difference between your nation and mine, in this context, is open-carry is NOT allowed.
  
  You do realize that open carry doesn't mean you can just walk around with a gun in your hand, right? The gun has to be on a sling or in a holster. Holding it in your hand in any way that looks like you immediately intend to use it is brandishing and results in a charge.
  
  You haven't said your country but I'm willing to wager that there's more difference between your country and ours than you're led to believe.
  
  @FireTower
  Unfortunately there isn't because we share a very long undefended border with you.
  
  Criminals don't care about carry laws as breaking laws is kinda their whole deal.
  Normal people carrying isn't a problem unless you assume normal people get murderous the second they have the opportunity.
  
  It's not fear, lmao, it's prevention. Do you wear a seatbelt because you fear dying in a car crash every day you enter it? Or is it preventing the possibility of that hypothetical serious injury?
  No licensed CCW owner here is walking around armed like a schizo looking over their shoulder and afraid of every person they meet ready to fire. They simply understand there are humans in this world that would take advantage of you if they could, and if that situation occurs, why handicap yourself.
  Government data itself from the DOJ shows you're less likely to be a victim of injury in crime by having a gun compared to simply not doing anything, hell having a personal knife could be more likely to get you killed. The point made is it's not the government's right to decide for us if we want to arm ourselves. The individual is enough to make that decision.
  
  No licensed CCW owner here is walking around armed like a schizo looking over their shoulder and afraid of every person they meet ready to fire.
  That sounds exactly like a lot of Republicans, so are you sure about that?
  I mean, do I have to start listing people getting shot because they pulled into the wrong driveway or delivered a package while being black?
  
  That sounds exactly like a lot of Republicans, so are you sure about that?
  "Believe me guys, I know most Republicans! Swear!"
  
  Did I say most? I'm pretty sure the thing you quoted didn't use the word most. Again- I can start listing people being shot for pulling into the wrong driveway or existing as a black person if you like...
  
  No need. I think it's clear we're not going to change eachothers minds. I will ask though about people who shoot recreationally. Do they not deserve to own your standard run of the mill ar15?
  
  No. "I enjoy this" does not equal "I deserve this."
  I can also list all kinds of things some people enjoy which they don't deserve. Like sex with women who don't consent. I could go on...
  
  @Torvum
  Prevention is acting out of fear.
  
  That's contradictory. Prevention is preparedness. As in pre-emptive. As in it's not an action to be ready for something before it happens, as the action only comes when needed. I keep a first aid kit not for fear, but use. Do I fear coming along to someone with a deep wound that needs suturing because I own it? Obviously not. You must have never heard the phrase, better to have it and not need it than be without.
  
  When a risk is so small, there's no reason to be prepared. That's fear acting.
  If you truly believe situations needing a gun are as common as needing a first aid kid or being in a car crash, then I would quickly move somewhere else.
  Besides that, being prepared is not always the solution.
  When hiking, you can stuff your backpack for every little risk you might take, but your hike won't last long, as you'll quickly realise you won't get far with the weight you've carried. You've even increased the risk of injury.
  This is what gun carriers are to me. By unnecessarily preparing, they actually increase the risk of falling victim to what they prepared for.
  You might not carry out of fear, but you'll learn to fear soon, because you're contributing yourself to the problem.
- not in civilised countries it's not mate. sounds like a shithole if you need an AK47 to go to the shops
- What exact situation do you expect to get into where a shotgun, handgun, and/or hunting rifle is insufficient for the task? This isn't a movie.
  
  Intermediate .22 caliber semiautomatic rifles excel in home defense applications.
  They are softer to fire shotguns or bolt action rifles and can be fired more accurately with less training than pistols as you have a stock to stabilize them.
  And their cartridges are designed for high velocity low weight projectiles which have a lesser capacity to penetrate walls and injury those beyond them than it's alternatives.
  It's not a matter of which options could be sufficient. It's a matter of which options are best.
  
  It's just step one, they want to disarm us. This isn't a romance novel
  
  Who is they
  
  Illinois supreme Court , in this instance
  
  Who ruled on the constitutionality of a law passed by elected members of government. It’s not like they made it up. Is “they” the people who elected the politicians who voted for the law? Seems like a lot of “theys.” Are you sure you don’t just hold an extremist belief about guns that most people in Illinois seem to want legislation to protect themselves from?
  
  If you read the article the court didn't rule that the actual law was constitutional. The court's ruling was that there was no constitutional issue with the law particularly as it related to the equal protection clause. This ruling doesn't mean that there isn't any other constitutional issues that arise from it, such as 2a or 4a violations.
  
  It’s not “unconstitutional until proven constitutional” lol
  You clearly think this law is unconstitutional and hasn’t been shown to be constitutional yet but that’s just not how laws work.
  
  I don't believe this law Would survive the Bruen test. I'm not suggesting that every law must be proven to be constitutional in court before it may be employed. I was stating that the question at had in the court wasn't if it was constitutional or not it was whether it violated the Equal Protections Clause. Which the court found it didn't violate.
  
  Where is the equal protection clause written
  Edit: cause you keep replying and deleting or Lemmy is being weird I’ll just answer my own rhetorical question. The 14th amendment of the constitution. It’s a ruling that the law doesn’t violate the 14th amendment of the Constitution. there are parts of the constitution other than the second amendment - hard to believe I know, but they are also in there. And rulings on those grounds are just as constitutional.
  
  The 14th Amendment, this case was about this the plaintiff was arguing on 14th amendment grounds not 2nd per the article.
  
  I'm sure it was just a coincidence that Pritzker then also passed a bill that lawsuits regarding this anti-gun bill (among others) could only be tried in the courts of Chicago and Springfield, the only two courts willing to allow this dogshit. Right, it was really a fair trial.
  I'm from Illinois, every county outside those has stated their dislike and contempt for this law enough that sheriffs have made mention they will not zealously enforce this. It is overwhelmingly a hated bill and there are piles upon piles of lawsuits in the lower courts that are now invalidated thanks to Pritzker's bullshit. They will be up for federal review and hearings on why the upper courts have made this faulty judgement despite the contempt, citing those lawsuits.
  I'm sure it was also a coincidence that right after it was passed, the Pritzker family made notice they would be building a giant megaplex gun range and firearm museum directly on the border in Wisconsin where the banned items would be available for rent.
  
  So most of the people in the state support the law, but the land outside of those cities doesn’t? Sounds like voting worked.
  I’ll be waiting with bated breath for the giant scandal coming out of Illinois. Sounds like these Pritzkers have subverted the entire state court system, what a big scandal. Any day now that very real and not at all made up scandal is gonna come to light. Aaaaaany day
- It's not though mate. This problem is highly specific to countries that have loose gun control laws. There is no good data that more guns makes anyone safer. There are decades of data that show that gun control works.
  
  It's a cool idea in general but won't work long term- the ppl in power have more force multipliers and you don't, after all. So hopefully they work in your favor forever, but they won't :( we are all screwed either way. I guess I just feel good having my life in my own arms, so to say..
  
  Do you think your assault rifle can protect you against the military in case they turn rogue?
  
  The same military made up of the citizenry, of which the vast majority like guns in the first place and would turn against the government themselves... Right.
  
  The Viet Cong had AKs, seemed to work out for them.
  The absolute last fight any country's military wants to pick is one against a guerrilla force especially when that force is compromised of their citizens. It would be an incredibly unpopular war of attrition.
  
  It would do a better job than your fists Edit- not an "assault" rifle, as I don't assault anything or anyone. Just a word they use so ppl like you get up in arms
- Agree with one exception: It's a dog eat dog country. It's not like that anywhere else in the industrialized world
  
  Yeah but Russia, North Korea, China are all industrialized, see where they are? Government screws them daily.. It's about individual lives and freedoms. About me. And about you. More discernment to gun purchases are needed, if anything. To keep them away from nutsos
  
  Now list all the industrialized countries that don’t have widespread gun ownership and do have individual lives and freedoms. I mean according to you they should all be like Russia, China, and North Korea right?
  
  Nope just listing the shitty ones that have no citizen rights because the government took them away like they are trying to do in Illinois w "assault" guns, as this article says. You list whatever you want though
  
  Now do this again but with a country you'd like the USA to be compared to.
  
  No country is on USA's level- we are a world leader. Pioneering the way. Yes some individuals make wrong decisions but at least we can make our own choices to speak and act how we want and learn from the consequences; we can overturn our governments in the courts if they violate our constitutional rights at this point- let's keep it that way.
  I was just talking about countries that forbid you to protect yourself (as a strong example of my point of our rights being taken away).
  
  If no county is on our level, why are you comparing us to the worst in the world, instead of the best of the world? That is, in my opinion, the most damning part of your argument.
  If no other country is on our level why are we not leading in the way in life expectancy, human rights index, prison population, suicide rate, gun violence, murder, paid time off, parental time off, health care outcomes, childbirth survival rates, equality indexes, and many many more?
  
  We get screwed by the government in the US, too. Yet, people aren't actually taking up arms against the government out here. They're taking up arms against each other. It really seems that we've missed the mark on why we're supposed to be such a pro-gun nation in the first place.
- Even the wild West has gun bans in large towns, wake the fuck up
  
  The Wild West is not the place you want to look at for constitutional (or even just moral) government practices.
  
  Yeah, the one part of the country in the 19th century that accepted black people as equals after the Civil War- we sure shouldn't look to them for how the country should be today.
  
  Tell that to the Buffalo Soldiers in Brisbee, AZ. Racial prejudices were unfortunately brought West.
  
  Compared to the rest of the country? Black people could hold the same jobs as white people, including law enforcement and other powerful roles, and this was tolerated. Do you think they would have tolerated Bass Reeves anywhere else in the country?
  
  My point is that racism still existed in the West, often in various levels depending on the specific location. Pre civil war Southerns flocked West to claim states as slave states to attempt to secure the future of the institution of slavery.
  
  I didn't mean to suggest that there was no racism in the West, just that there was a lot of equality compared to the rest of the country. The rights of black people were, in many parts of the West anyway, on or close to parity with white people as far as local governments were concerned.

148 comments