Supreme Court Allows Illinois Assault Weapons Ban To Take Effect

I'm not sure what argument could possibly let this law stand.

In the recent NYC case, the opinion (written by Thomas) is clear about public safety not being a valid argument against anyone being allowed to carry any weapon.

What argument is Chicago putting forward in this case where that argument could possibly get accepted by the SC?

Is the SC now going to allow Chicago to decide what guns Chicagoans may own?

 

I saw your reply, a little too late. But your comment, I addressed here, in my reply to Mudman, about 20 minutes ago:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-take-effect.610661/page-2#post-1074226181

 

I don't know the specifics of that city ordinance-- the focus of the article linked in the OP, and of this thread, is the assault weapon ban, passed by the state of Illinois, which the SCOTUS refused to block, going into effect, as they had been petitioned to do. This is not to predict that they might not, ultimately, throw out the law, once it is argued before their Court. The point of my thread, was that no summary judgement is possible, without a judicial presentation of the case. You may have noticed, in the past, some gun advocates' stating, as though it were fact, that any bans are prima facie unconstitutional. If this were so, it would seem reasonable for the SCOTUS to place an injunction upon a law that was so obviously counter to American law, and which would so undoubtedly be overturned. So my thread is meant to debunk that gun- lovers' argument, going forward.

 

Straw man argument, again-- and a ludicrous one. Could "hands and feet" be outlawed?

 

Does anyone suppose the 14th amendment and Bruen descisions get applied in this case?

 

They can’t. And according to USSC rulings neither can AR-15’s. Hands and feet are more dangerous than ALL rifles combined. Recognizing what is actually dangerous is difficult for some.

 

[

By that logic why have laws at all? Criminals are just going to break them.

I love guns. I love shooting them. Doesn't mean I dont support reasonable restrictions.

Realistically tho, the only way to make a dent across the country are uniform laws that effect every state equally vs this piecemeal situation.

Otherwise it's just gonna be a "go to the state with the weakest restrictions and ship from there".

The article was talking about how criminals get around state restrictions by things like literally just mailing guns to themselves or their customers.

 

Which is illegal federally.

The point is that its easy to get around laws that focus on inanimate objects. MUCH harder to get around a law that focuses on improving our education system for instance. Or changing our justice system from one based on punishment, to one based on rehabilitation. Doing those things would actually be more effective in reducing crime than focusing on an inanimate object.

Some laws should not be made. Those targeting guns are prime examples of laws that shouldn't be made. Because there are more effective laws that would work far better.

 

When Democrat politicians tell you that they are not out to ban guns.... They are lying to you.

Who here actually believes that if we had a nationwide assault weapons ban, that if a number of mass shootings took place with semi-automatic handguns but they would not be eventually coming for those as well?

Does anyone actually believe that?

 

Laughable. What you actually mean, is according to your interpretation of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which counts for nothing. If it were already strictly ruled, specifically that "assault weapons cannot be banned," then this law would never have been passed. Also, as I have explained more times than I can remember, including once to you, if this question were so clearly settled, so that there was absolutely no doubt that assault weapons "can't" be banned, there is absolutely no excuse for the SCOTUS not imposing a stay, on an obviously unconstitutional law. They refrained from doing so, however. Your stated argument, here, is then nothing more than your wishful thinking.

Recognizing that their personal opinions, do not determine facts, we all know, is difficult for some.

<Google Snip>
Are assault weapons protected by the Second Amendment?

In 1989, California became the first state to ban “assault weapons,” which it defined to include a list of makes and models such as the AR-15. We challenged that law in Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp (1992), but the Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states.Dec 12, 2022
https://www.independent.org › article
America's Rifle, the AR-15 Is Protected by the Second
<End Snip>


<Google Snip #2>

Can you buy an assault rifle in California now?

California's Assault Weapon Restrictions

Generally, no assault weapon may be sold or transferred to anyone within California other than to a licensed gun dealer or to a police or sheriff's department. California law provides that the possession of an assault weapon in violation of state laws is a public nuisance.Jan 3, 2023
<End Snip #2>


I will reiterate-- since it seems many debaters here, don't always process things, the first time they hear them-- that I am not arguing, of course, that the current SCOTUS may not, indeed, rule as you speculate, here. I am only drawing a distinction between fact, and opinion/prediction, which is a distinguishment that seems to escape you, & others.

If this SCOTUS rules the Illinois law unconstitutional, it will not be a clear cut matter of language and law, but will be a matter of these particular Justices' interpretation, which should be plainly obvious. Hence, your statement that assault weapons can't be banned, is manifestly false-- even if this SCOTUS, eventually rules that way.


<Google Snip #3>
Does the Constitution allow assault weapons?

Contrary to popular rhetoric, there is no Constitutional impediment to outlawing assault weapons. Federal law has banned them before, as evidenced by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which—unfortunately—was allowed to expire in 2004.Feb 22, 2018
https://www.halunenlaw.com › the-s...
The Second Amendment Does Not Protect Assault Weapons
<End Snip #3>


BTW, the idea that future Justices are going to give as much weight to the precedents set by the rulings, and the overrulings of past precedent, made by this Court, which is held in lower public regard, than any Court in memory (maybe even in history) is, once again, laughable.

 

That's the story but I don't know how much truth is involved. I ordered a shotgun from out of State and it had to be delivered to a licensed dealer. I filled out the papers, he kept then on file and I Paid him a charge for his trouble.

 

Well, we can attempt to guess what the SC will do next.

But, if they were to uphold Illinois it would be a gigantic change of direction for them, wouldn't it?

In the NYC case, the decision Thomas wrote pretty much destroys the very idea that public safety can be considered a valid objective in gun control. He placed the 2nd amendment ABOVE public safety.

So, if Illinois can't argue public safety, what other possible objective can they argue??

Maybe Illinois found a crack to wiggle through, but I sure don't know what it could be. Do you?

 

That's probably because Thomas realizes that you can't strip people of their right to arm self defense and claim it has anything to do with their safety.

You are making them unable to defend their self. And courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect your safety so that duty falls on you alone

 

The second amendment was written by those who opposed there being a standing army of the USA. Instead of having a Department of Defense, they chose to have America defended by a well organized militia, a direction they believed required individuals to own weapons.

That has nothing to do with self defense.

I fully realize that the SC has ignored the very reason for the second amendment and has embraced a TOTALLY DIFFERENT interpretation that ignores even the fundamental reason for the amendment to have been written.

As for your claims of need, ALL other first world nations have lower incidents of lethal violence than does the USA by a LOT, while having FAR more comprehensive laws on firearms.

So, the notion that people are safer if everyone is packing guns is counter to all evidence.

 

The second amendment was not written just for militia.

What happens in other countries is irrelevant to the reality of the United States

 

There is clear history behind the reason for the second amendment, stated in the second amendment itself.

The SC totally ignores that, preferring instead to use as a guideline what the court sees as the opinion of the people through history - in other words, they ignore the constitution in favor of culture, starting back in magna carta times or even earlier (as stated by Thomas in his NYC opinion).

One catch with this is that the people in those times did not have the issues we have today. There is NO similarity in some Revolutionary War era citizen carrying a musket and those of today who choose to mow down our children as the sit in class, using weapons modeled after what our military has used.

When there is NO similarity, there is also no justification for basing OUR law on the OPINIONS of people at that time.

 

Oh you must not be fully informed. You're making the tired Old musket argument when there were plenty of repeating arms at the time.

Your opinion does not dictate United States law. The supreme Court justices are the ones that do that.

Reading other papers of the founding fathers it is completely obvious that they wanted the citizenry to be armed. Where do you think the militia draws its members from?

 

LOL.

You ignored that I agree that they wanted the public to be armed.

You ignore that I'm fine with allowing the weapons that our founders had any clue about.

You ignore that the whole reason for the second amendment was as an alternative to having a DoD.

I'm not arguing that the result is that people can't have arms.

I AM arguing that the notion that the second amendment puts gun ownership at a level that makes public safety IRRELEVANT is TOTAL BULL.

And, THAT is what Thomas stated in the NYC ruling. He stated that public safety is IRRELEVANT in the case of guns, even though it is relevant in pretty much EVERY other right or circumstance.

Beyond that, he argues on the basis of ancient culture.

BUT, today's culture is NOTHING EVEN SLIGHTLY like ancient culture when it comes to the number of Americans mowed down by privately owned guns.

He has effectively declare that gun death is something that we are not allowed to address.

 

You are comparing lawfully carrying a musket to unlawfully using a firearm. Of course there is no similarity. There is no similarity between potatoes and cigarettes either.

 

What about all these increases in shootings compared to a century ago or two centuries ago? It's gone way up. But people have always had the guns. It ain't the guns that changed its the people. Americans used to beleive in God. The People used to fear God. Now half of them don't believe in anything.

 

yes I read it, it was the typical nonsense that somehow banning honest people from owning an item-that is used lawfully 99% of the time, is going to stop those who want to commit mass murder from getting it. Completely worthless as a crime control measure. Very valuable if your goal is harassing lawful gun owners

 

every Democrat who ran for the Presidential Nomination in 2020 and all but six in the last congress-supported massive gun bans.

 

as I read all the current supreme court rulings, I believe that any state ban on semi auto firearms-is unconstitutional. what are you gun banners going to do if the USSC actually follows its own guidance?

 

can any of you gun banners point to anything in the actual constitution, that allows the federal government any power to ban firearms? all you can point to is the bullshit spewed by the FDR administration where they used the commerce clause. and lots of states are enacting laws that state that firearms made within and used in a given state are-as a matter of law-not part of interstate commerce and I suspect the supreme court will agree

 

Leftwing gun control schemes only pretend to address that. their goal is harassing lawful gun ownership