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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Good. Not because AWBs are good, but this means it will likely go to the SCOTUS faster to be overturned nation wide. 2A grants The People access to weapons, the state has no right to prevent law abiding citizens access to arms.
So when are you getting your land mines and napalm?
As soon as the NFA stamp gets back.
I don't want either. But since I assume you're implying these are illegal, landmines are legal for citizens to own with either an NFA tax stamp (about $200 each) or with a SOT/FFL (about $600/year) and napalm like substances are easy to produce yourself (I'm not sure on its legal standing, but retro enthusiast criminals who want to hurt people with napalm aren't exactly concerned with the law).
Ooh ooh ooh, my favorite!
criminals exist and do not follow the law, therefore law should not exist
totally a big smart boy take and definitely NOT smooth brained nonsense
Not what I said. You're extrapolating what you think someone who is pro gun rights would say.
I can clarify or answer questions about my position, but you clearly are just looking to "own" a random person on Lemmy not actually have a conversation.
Not the person you replied to, but I'll give you a chance. I'm not American, but I do hunt and own guns.
Why are you against the government having a licensing program before giving access to firearms?
The American understanding of rights is that they are inherent and bestowed upon all of not by the government but by right at birth.
We have the right to criticize our government not because they let us but because that's a right all humans have. Even if the government decided tomorrow that the First Amendment doesn't apply anymore we would still have that right, because the First Amendment didn't grant us a right it simply acknowledged the existing right.
If your ability to practice a right is contingent on government approval your rights are being impeded.
People just don't understand or appreciate natural rights anymore and it saddens me.
Civics should be taught for much longer than it is in K-12.
It's in the top 3 issues I have with the current wave of leftist populism for sure.
That doesn't completely ring true. The Second was written to ensure the well-regulated militia (which has slowly morphed into a standing military) that would be needed to protect the free society.
The militia that was comprised of and armed by the people. That well regulated part meaning fully functional by being trained in tactics and doctrine to work with other militias and divisions. The Militia Act further confirmed the individual right to arms, outlining that the members were required to report with their own guns, ammo, and rations. While we may have a standing army now, and the reserves and Guard units, that doesn't change the fact that the Second was and is an individual right to military arms for personal and State protection. If anyone believes that we no longer need this, then find enough people that agree to amend the constitution. Until then, we don't get to pick and choose which rights get defended.
An individual right that you yourself seem to agree requires proper training in tactics and doctrine.
There's a huge gap between a well-trained, disciplined gun owner and these "guns as my personality" chucklefucks that have absolutely no discipline in their behavior.
Licensure is one tool to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it doesn't violate the above percepts as long as it doesn't impose a substantial financial burden.
You have my perspective slightly backwards. The trained militia is contingent on having an armed populace to draw from, not the other way around. It is not the right to be trained and then armed as a soldier, but the general right to bear arms. I do think that gun safety, training and handling should still be taught in school like it used to because there are more guns than people in this country, but don't believe that any of your natural rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights have any requirements to meet to practice. The "guns as a personality" chuckle fuck has the same right to bear arms that you or anyone else does, until or unless such time as he loses that right through criminal conviction. I also don't support losing voting rights, gun rights, or any rights for non-violent offenses, especially non-violent drug offenses which shouldn't be criminalized anyway. Innocent until proven guilty, without a need to establish a baseline of innocence first through taking a test or being investigated by the police.
Requiring licensure is an infringement that no other constitutional right requires. There is a huge gap between an educated journalist and a wacked out conspiracy theorist making vaccine conspiracy their entire personality too, but even though they indirectly or directly caused or contributed to an unknown percentage of millions of deaths, it is unconstitutional to require them to go take classes and get a license to speak on TV or on the internet or in public. If you have to ask permission from a governing body to exercise it, it's not a right it's a privilege. Freedoms come with risk, the founders knew this and thought it was worth it, which is why it was enshrined in our founding documents.
Are you equating owning a gun with criticizing the government? Because I'm not seeing the connection.
The connection is both are natural rights recognized in the Bill of Rights that should be held with equal reverence. They are the second and first amendments respectively.
How is owning a gun a 'natural right' when guns didn't even exist for the vast, vast majority of human existence? That doesn't make sense either.
Owning a gun is the logical step from the natural right to defend your life. If you are under threat of death by another individual, why in the fuck would you ever willingly put yourself at a disadvantage. Does your moral grounds of guns = bad really overvalue the rest of your natural life?
Someone invades your home, you grab a knife, congratulations knives are far more dangerous than a gun for every participant of the struggle and you have now made it statistically more likely to accidentally kill yourself. You use your hands, disadvantaged against someone with a weapon, death.
The point is literally that you have a personal freedom from birth to keep yourself alive and in a world that has afforded us better and better tools to ensure that, use them.
Statistically, having a gun in your home is more dangerous for you and your family, especially if you have young children or teens. A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide.3
https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/
Doesn't sound like an advantage to me.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Someone might choose to own a firearm because they feel like they're at an elevated risk for victimization (ex. they've been threatened by a crazy ex) or someone who has suicidal ideation might go out an purchase a firearm for the purpose of commiting suicide. The acquisition of the firearm didn't cause either preexisting condition.
The licensing program is a defacto registration requirement. Registration = confiscation
Yeah, just like how they confiscate everyone's cars.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
The post I'm replying to has "assault weapons" in the title. Guns, I'm talking about guns and gun laws. You're being obtuse and you know it.
If you need an example of registration leading to confiscation look at Australia and New Zealand. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws, or their effects in those two countries, it's a fact that confiscation would not have been as effective without a national register of gun owners.
Australia and New Zealand? You mean places that don't have mass shootings every day but do have national healthcare? I think I will look at them. They sound like good models.
If you had actually read my reply you'd see that I was not commenting on whether Australia or New Zealand had better or worse gun laws or healthcare. It's pretty clear that I actually went out of my way to stay away from commenting about whether I thought their laws were good or effective compared to the US. All I said was that registration made eventual confiscation more effective for them. A fact you have not disputed, so I'm glad we agree.
I love it when they say that. Guess what? Criminals don't follow murder and rape laws when they murder and rape people. Should those laws be taken off the books too?
Do you support your local PD?
I do, I support the defunding of my local PD
Can you enlighten me on that? How does it work if you want to ban "assault weapons" and defund the police? Isn't that counter intuitive? A police state is almost required to enforce the laws that are put in place like this. I have a difficult time understanding how that works.
Enlighten me on where I said those words in that order. Even paraphrasing.
What absolutely blows my mind are the gun sucking, boot munching morons who somehow simultaneously hate any kind of government overreach but would let a cop do anything they wanted to anyone they knew without blinking an eye. Now how does that make any sense? I thought we had the second amendment to protect ourselves? Are we really always gonna rely on fucking obese white supremacist Copper Dan to help in our time of need? Those goddamn little bitch babies in Uvalde certainly didn’t rise to the occasion, what makes you think they’d do anything to help you?
I have a difficult time understanding how that works.
I fail to see how that’s my problem.
My bad for assuming that we were engaging in mature discourse about gun restriction enforcement and who is responsible for it.
It's clear now that you're not interested in a conversation. Your just looking for someone to nod their head and agree with you instead of asking questions.
Yes, it is your bad for asking stupid questions. Gun restriction enforcement is done by the government.
Nice attempt to take the high road though. Acting like you’re better than everyone else on the internet won’t fix anything.
Ah, so then you understand that the government is allowed to regulate and distribute the usage of some weapons, glad you pointed that out.
When did I say theyre were allowed to do this or that I approved of it? The NFA is just as unconstitutional as an AWB.
The lefty populists are too numerous on this site but thanks for fighting the good fight lib brother.
I needed this, thank you.