Illinois Supreme Court finds assault weapons ban constitutional
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.
-
Finally, some good fucking news.
-
What do you guys think of an "USA-News" sub?
Always those "US court decides X over weird US law, Court 2 decides Y, Court 3 decides both are idiots" littering the news.
-
I'm pretty sure all of the people you don't want having assault weapons in states like Illinois already have them.
I'm not so sure the ones those people dream of targeting have yet acquired reciprocal defenses.
Happy to see less guns around, but I do worry about the pre-existing distribution of them.
-
First, you have to start somewhere. If one person legally purchased a nuclear bomb, I don't think they shouldn't pass a law preventing anyone else from purchasing a nuclear bomb.
Second, you're not going to be carrying around any long gun. Those will be for home defence at most, likely just a range toy (and also to be shown during a protest to make sure other people know your people are armed). Maybe it'll be useful if we end up in a civil war or something, idk. A handgun is nearly as good at killing people and can be carried around easily. If you want protection from these people then you want a handgun.
-
That's the big problem. There are a bunch of gun stores in East Chicago, because it's in Indiana. People just cross over state lines, buy guns, and go back to Chicago proper.
-
Not legally, and not through any licensed dealer. So if you know of anyone doing that, feel free to report their crimes to the police so you can do your part to reduce gun crimes.
-
Well if you’re a resident of Illinois you can’t go to another state and buy a gun from a licensed dealer. You’d have to have it shipped to an FFL in your state. Since this rule is in effect then the FFL in Illinois wouldn’t sell it to you.
The only way you can go to another state and get a gun is if it’s a private sale.
-
-
The obsession of guns in the USA is insane.
- Sandy Hook massacre of 2011 did not change anything.
- Las Vegas massacre of 2017 did not change anything.
- High school massacre of 2018 in Santa Fe, TX did not change anything
- Grocery store massacre of 2019 in El Paso did not change anything
- Robb Elementary massacre of 2022 in Uvalde did not change anything.
- Outlet mall massacre of 2023 in Allen, TX did not change anything
(yes there are many more mass shooting prior to 2011 and in between. These are just the ones I can recall as of writing this post)
American Exceptionalism at its best
-
Every year, there are about two million defensive uses of guns. This obsession saves those people.
-
Sure...
-
Two-thirds of gun-related deaths are suicides. This obsession enables people who are hurting and struggling to end their lives, and in some cases, the lives of many people around them first.
-
There's way more firearm accidents and suicides than incidents where guns actually helped. They make everyone, especially gun owners, less safe. If safety is the primary concern, the less guns the better.
-
Defensive use of guns, like defending yourself from a kid you decided to pull over because he had skittles!
-
Do states have "Supreme Courts" in the US? What an odd naming scheme.
-
Yes. Each state has a Supreme Court of the state, and then there the Supreme Court of the United States for matters that regard the federation of the states. If it's only a state matter, it won't go to the SCotUS. The SC of the state is the highest court where the state law is applicable.
-
Except for NY
-
Ah no my point was just about the name given to it, where I'm from (India) we have a similar system just that the highest state level court is called "High Court" and not State Supreme Court. There's only one Supreme Court and that does the federal level stuff. Wouldn't seem very supreme if every state had one did it :P
-
-
The intention is that each state has full self-determination as long as it doesn't run counter to federal law. Each state has its own legislature, executive, and judiciary.
-
Yes, all of them do as far as I know.
-
-
Such a weird way to sue against this law. What kind of equal protection defense could you wage?
-
Because why should a retired police officer be allowed to own a weapon that nobody else can? It only makes sense because otherwise they'd lose the support of law enforcement.
Either everyone should be able to own them, or nobody.
-
Im good with the second option!
-
-
-
But but, if I go to dairy queen, who will protect me from Margaret and her damn screaming kids
-
This is a bad news
-
I believe in no restrictions. If I want to own a nuclear missile, so be it.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
Agree with one exception: It's a dog eat dog country. It's not like that anywhere else in the industrialized world
-