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.
Either way, us news is still going to be posted to news because it is news. It makes no specification on location and there seems to be far more US users than anywhere else. If you want to see other news, post it.
It’s probably be a better option to make a “non-us news” community.
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. 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.
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
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.
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.
And you are the reason these restrictions exist. 2nd Am. is a very important right and the real reason the fight against it is so successful is because of immaturity from the gun rights supporters.
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.
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.
yes but everyone who wanted to smoke in the 80s and everyone who wants to smoke today does- but there are only less smokers and less smoke inside nowadays because it was legislated.
I guess I should have explained my opinion. Fair enough.
Cigarettes are not reusable, are not continuously functional for a hundred years or more, and cannot end a life in a single muscle movement. This severely restricts situations in which they could potentially act analogously - they are too fundamentally different.
Just to reiterate this, there is a difference between smoking the last cigarette you could legally purchase, and the last gun you could legally purchase: The gun sticks around afterward.
I agree to the change in behavior that it will lead to a decrease in sales on legal markets, which was the basis of my comment. Now, what change in user behavior - if any - do these laws cause that would result in the non-possession of currently possessed firearm? That’s the only way the bans would be comparable.
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.
…I’m too informed to believe that a hand gun would be useful against these assault weapons, sorry.
I grew up around these things, you see - and hated them for years. Then at one point I realized I was just about the only leftist around, and just about the only person without a gun around, and the math clicked for me: It’s a much stickier situation than anyone really wants to acknowledge.
I’ve seen them carried around frequently while in the US - people carry them openly displayed on the back of their trucks. Who’s to guess how many have guns in their cabins and trunks? I’ve also followed the US’ wars closely enough to know that modern warfare looks like a bunch of armed citizens in a hilux, and that a state border won’t be saving any leftists stuck in southern Illinois when the RWDSs return.
Edit: I’m standing by this one. Disagree as you will.
A handgun has almost as much killing power as a rifle. Most rifles people have are fire 5.56x45mm rounds. The penetrative power of those are reasonably low. Now, 7.62 will probably punch through any body armor they’re wearing, but that’s fairly uncommon I’m the US. With the NGSW we’ll see more larger rounds, but until then your handgun will kill about as well as their rifle, assuming your close enough which a self defence situation would imply.
A longer gun is better for longer ranges. If you’re at longer range, probably just get out of the way instead of thinking you’ll fight back. Most likely you’ll just make the situation more confusing and no one will be able to identify the “good guy with a gun” and you’ll get shot, by police or otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
In the ruling, which was 4-3, Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote, “First, we hold that the exemptions neither deny equal protection nor constitute special legislation because plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that they are similarly situated to and treated differently from the exempt classes. Second, plaintiffs expressly waived in the circuit court any independent claim that the restrictions impermissibly infringe the second amendment. Third, plaintiffs’ failure to cross-appeal is a jurisdictional bar to renewing their three-readings claim.”
Add comment