Supreme Court Allows Illinois Assault Weapons Ban To Take Effect

Yes. Times have changed!!! So did guns!!!

You believe in god, but you aren't praying away the problem.

Not believing in YOUR god doesn't mean people "don't believe in anything".

Question:

Do you believe reducing gun deaths in America is a legitimate objective?

 

You're jumping the gun, so to speak. The case is still in Appeals Court. It will be some time, before the SCOTUS actually hears the case, and longer, before they weigh in, on it. Even should they rule this as not allowable-- and it should be noted that California has had a ban on assault weapons, since 1989, and that the 9th Circuit Court ruled, in that case, that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states-- it is not even safe to assume that there won't be any major shake ups, in the High Court, in the relatively near future (perhaps in a 2nd Biden term). So I am deferring speculation, for now, to the ambiguity of the future.


In another instance, however, showing that the type of action taken by Illinois is seen as constitutional by many courts, beneath the SCOTUS:

<Google Snip>
The Third District Court of Appeal ruled Friday that high-capacity rifles like the AR-15 cannot be sold or possessed in the state of California. The ruling also upheld the conviction of Alex Bocanegra from San Jose, who was charged with attempted murder when he used an assault rifle to shoot at a former friend.May 3, 2023
https://www.ktvu.com › news › cali...
<End>

EDIT: Since I see that the link that came with my Snip from Google, does not bring one directly to the story cited, here is another source, for (interesting) background on the case:

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/c095234.html

<Snip>
Defendant Alex Bocanegra and Vernon R. were very close friends for decades. However, one Christmas, defendant, who was married, slept with Vernon R.’s girlfriend. The next year, Vernon R., by his account, slept with defendant’s wife, or, by her account, forcefully tried to. By this point, the friendship between defendant and Vernon R. was “dead.” Rather than allowing this saga to end, on the night of January 12, 2020, defendant drove from his home in San Jose to Vernon R.’s home in Manteca armed with three firearms including an AR-15 style rifle. Defendant broke a front window and fired shots into the house as Vernon R. scrambled through the house and dove out a bedroom window to get away. A jury found defendant not guilty of attempted murder, but found him guilty of assault with a firearm, possession of an assault weapon, discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner, and causing a concealed firearm to be carried in a vehicle while an occupant, and found true an allegation that, in committing assault with a firearm, defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of a felony.

On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the matter had to be remanded for resentencing based on changes to Penal Code section 6541 made by Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.); and (2) his conviction of possession of an assault weapon had to be reversed because Penal Code section 30605 was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, ___U.S.___ [213 L.Ed.2d 387] (2002). Agreeing with defendant on his first point, the Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing. Otherwise, the Court affirmed defendant’s convictions.
<End Snip>

The Appeals Court did not agree with his second point, that the California law had been nullified by the Bruen decision. So, obviously, there is a legal rationale, that can be used.

 

The SC has ruled from nearly the beginning that rights may be legitimately restricted for various objectives deemed important. For example, taxes aren't equal.

What is novel today is that our rights CAN be limited in favor of important public safety objectives.

BUT, that public safety is IRRELEVANT when it comes to GUN rights!!

The Thomas court puts gun rights higher than all other rights, stating that public safety can not apply to regulation related to gun rights.

To him and his SC, the first amendment may be first, but it is SECONDARY to the second!!

 

The problem with bringing lower court opinions here is that those opinions WILL go to the SC. Remember that the Bruen decision reached a different position at the Appeals Court level, too.

And, the SC has been strongly tightening its objections to ANY restrictions on guns, as seen with Heller and with the NYC Bruen case, wherein the opinion of the court (written by Thomas), states that public safety is not even a valid basis for discussion on guns.

This court is highly partisan and that can be seen as the court moves against those trying to secure public safety.

The SC push against public safety improvements regarding guns will, as with all other SC legislation, STRONGLY affect future Appeals Court decisions, obviously.

One can expect an increasing number of cases related to public safety and firearms, now that the SC has ruled that public safety is no excuse for regulation of firearms.

 

job security

Last time I looked;
Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is the constitution bipartisan too?

 

only if it was stipulated when they joined the union
does scotus have any bearing on california?
thats another part of the constitution

 

I do stop poisoning our children by feeding them fists full of drugs

 

having read every pertinent supreme court case including the laughable Miller case, I cannot see how the supreme court can allow any bans on commonly owned firearms to stand

 

and militias have assault weapons, are we to believe that the guv is going to issue 300 million assault weapons if we ever need to mobilize the militia?

Now that these goof balls have turned us into a fast approaching 3rd world banana republic a Ukraine future is not out of the question.

Especially with brandon flirting with a 3rd world war.

 

you seem to not understand the concept that bogus arguments for public safety don't trump constitutional rights.

 

assault rifles. assault weapon is a bullshit term that has no meaning

 

At present, the facts are against your reading of the rulings. That is, in the cases which have come up before other Circuit and Appeals Courts, even after Bruen, those judges did not see any SCOTUS decision, as invalidating California's assault weapons ban. Initially, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the federal, but not the State governments. This actually makes sense, if you think about it-- recalling that the constitution's actual language, speaks of well regulated (state) militias. So there is a rationale of limiting federal power, by preventing it from stopping states, from having their own "militias." But that would not compel a state, to have one (obviously). IOW, the 9th Circuit chose to do more of an Originalist reading of the constitution, than has the SCOTUS.

Moving on from the 1989 CA ban, which is still in effect, there was a case of a man convicted of possession of an assault weapon (among other things), subsequent to the Bruen decision, by which he contended, in his appeal, that this charge could not apply, since the CA law was now unconstitutional. But the Third District Court of Appeals, in that case, did not accept his argument. See post #77, just a few before this one.

This all goes to the point of my argument. Even if you choose to call all the decisions that you don't like, "wrong," and say that the only judges who decide "correctly," are those who share your own view, this does not change the demonstrable fact that the Constitution's language is not, of itself, perfectly lucid on the issue. That doesn't mean that it can't seem perfectly clear, to any given individual; the important reality, is that it's intent can seem just as obvious, to another competent legal mind, who sees it in a completely different way. Therefore, until there is a more definitive ruling from the Court, all those claiming that such & such regulation is unconstitutional are really only giving their own, personal opinions, based on other rulings. They are not stating facts. So any argument which tries to rely on a debater's own interpretation of prior rulings, has no authority, to back it up.

 

or another legal mind can present it as competent when in fact is not.

the word infringe is used meaning the guv shall do NOTHING to interfere with our guns.

 

The Supreme Court has often chose not to take some cases of gun laws. I think it is because they know it’s cut and dry and would rather not enforce it.

 

The REASON for the second amendment is clearly stated IN the second amendment. Further research shows that this reason was born of the desire NOT to have a standing army. The didn't want a DoD!

Restricting public carry does not infringe on the reason the second amendment was created.

 

NO. I asked a question.

Before you post to me, you need to answer.

 

the larger problem is if they go too far and piss off the people that own over 360million guns they could spark a civil uprising the extent no one can imagine, think about all the blood that would cause.

 

the REASON is self protection, you cant use a gun to protect yourself is you cant carry!

Hey Putin america banned guns help yourself! lol

 

You aren't telling me anything that I don't already know. You'd asked if there was any way, given prior Court decisions, that the Illinois law could be seen as still Constitutional. So I pointed you to courts, which had found that to be the case, thereby showing that legal rationales are still possible. That was not the same as predicting what this SCOTUS will do (which I'd deferred from offering any speculation about-- remember?). If they decide to rule a given way, law becomes, in truth, irrelevant-- since they are the ones interpreting, what the law actually means. It doesn't even matter if they are completely wrong, in an objective sense because, in a practical sense, whatever they say is deemed to be right.

 

so given your astute understanding of supreme court case law, tell us how your beloved gun bans survive . what supreme court case can you cite, supports banning a firearm that over 30 million Americans currently own, and which are being bought at a rate of over 50,000 or more a week

from the NSSF The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates the United States imported or manufactured a record-breaking 2.8 million AR-15 and AK-style rifles in 2020 alone (NSSF subtracted exports to other countries from its figures).

 

No, the reason was for protection of our country, given that we were not going to have a standing army.

Your Putin comment is nutty, right? I mean, they aren't doing that in any European country that has far more control of their gun situation than we do.

 

That was a fine effort.

I'm just saying that any of these ideas will have to pass SC review.

And, I see NO justification for suspecting the SC will allow those attempts.

I agree with you that the SC is the final arbiter, so once they decide that public safety is irrelevant, it would take some truly radical move.

 

As long as you understand that what you are offering, is your opinion, on what judge's opinion is competent, & on who's reading of the law, is not. In fact, you are even supporting your point, here, with a textual reason-- great! My whole point has been that one cannot state, as a matter of fact, that it is "unconstitutional to ban assault weapons," because that question is still hotly contested, within the legal community, and has not been firmly resolved, by the courts.

That's all. I have no problem with your making your points, citing legitimate evidence-- I am just getting tired of those who want to use an erroneous assumption, to justify their argument, without needing to actually debate anything . Their arguments, in effect, come down to only, "because I say that's what it means."

 

Yes, that is what anti-bill-of-rights arguments are about, and its all opinion stated as fact.

Flag burning is illegal constitution and bill of rights burning is legal

Scotus has to convince all those people with guns, so they dont incite a civil war

I can see the history books now, people with guns vs people without.

 

The assault weapons ban in California-- if I have under-emphasized this detail-- has been in effect for 34 years. So, it has either passed "SC review," or has never made it to the Supreme Court, for review, as hard as that might seem, to believe. Since I never claimed that the SCOTUS is not the Highest Court in the land, so that they couldn't overrule almost any law, I honestly cannot figure out what point you think needs clarifying. It seems like you are saying that it would be inconsistent of the Court, not to take on as many gun cases as necessary, to make their position, crystal clear. This is where I would normally put in one of those rolling on the floor laughing icons. I cannot predict what the Court will do, though I agree with you, on what seems to be the intent, over there. That was a reason why I'd pointed out that we may not be stuck with this Court, in its current form. But I really can't speculate about that, either.