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.

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.”

  • doomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      change can only come through attempting change

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A rifle won’t protect those people either.

          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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • BootyCreekCheekFreak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • baatliwala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • delicious_tvarog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Corhen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Such a weird way to sue against this law. What kind of equal protection defense could you wage?

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you’d be okay if some crazy killed you and everyone around you because they had their own personal nuclear weapon to do it with? Really?

    • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • sudo22@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • sudo22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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).

        • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • XbSuper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Are you equating owning a gun with criticizing the government? Because I’m not seeing the connection.

                • Staccato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Torvum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              CLEARLY nothing because everyone knows that misrepresenting your opponent to force your own dogma into the conversation without any level of actual intelligence just to get the heckin moral superiorityino is the proper way to discuss these days.

            • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              My firearms and I will be completely fine.

              All of the rotting corpses of school shooting victims may have an issue though

                • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Care to explain your arguments there or are you just being emotional?

                  Tons of children dead in America. Tons of school shootings. Once we decided Sandy Hook was fine and acceptable and did absolutely nothing to help prevent something like it from happening again, our fate was sealed. Regardless of whether you or anyone else think that’s irrelevant or invalid or moronic is all well and good, it won’t bring them back

              • sith_lord_zitro@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • money_loo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah, so then you understand that the government is allowed to regulate and distribute the usage of some weapons, glad you pointed that out.

    • Torvum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      The lefty populists are too numerous on this site but thanks for fighting the good fight lib brother.

  • djflusso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    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…

    • jcit878@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      not in civilised countries it’s not mate. sounds like a shithole if you need an AK47 to go to the shops

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

            • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not “unconstitutional until proven constitutional” lol

                  You clearly think this law is unconstitutional and hasn’t been shown to be constitutional yet but that’s just not how laws work.

              • Torvum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Wild West is not the place you want to look at for constitutional (or even just moral) government practices.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Tell that to the Buffalo Soldiers in Brisbee, AZ. Racial prejudices were unfortunately brought West.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.