Supreme Court Allows Illinois Assault Weapons Ban To Take Effect

What race? Best bet would be get criminals off the streets. Harsher sentences for violent crime instead of pat on the hand and let them go. Taking away guns will do little to stop criminals.

 

Yes, I understand you want to ban more things. Funny enough, you want the violence to stop, but this ain’t going to do it and also appear to be ok with unconstitutional banning of firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes.

 

Assualt weapons shoot bullets, Ranch Rifles shoot delicious condiments.

 

If someone is willing to risk the penalty for murder, why would they avoid risking the penalty for breaking gun laws?

 

Sure there is. Media hysteria, for one. 'SC goes out of its way to undermine local courts before decision on 'gun safety' ' is what the corporate media horns would blast. No reason to give em that kinda ammo if the case is gonna wind up on their docket soon in due course anyway.

 

Depends. Some people who commit murder do it in the heat of the moment. If they have to wait to get a gun, then the chances of them still being in the mental frame of mind to commit said murder go down.

But ultimately if they have a hard time getting a gun anywhere, it means they have to reconsider or find an alternative. It's a complex subject with a multitude of options and ideas to deal with. And I say all this as a gun lover. But I detest the idea of making them easier for anyone to aquire without barriers.

 

So you believe gun laws are barriers for criminals? How so?

 

Criminal is a blanket term. If a person has legal barriers to acquire one then they either go through said barriers, or they try and find one on the black market. Not every criminal is determined to kill someone. It all depends on how badly they want one and to use one. Some hit a barrier and just decide it's too much hassle or brings on too much heat, or they simply can't get one.

 

It was in your OP that you said,

which if read, never mentioned the shadow docket, or emergency petition act for said ruling. But as your OP title suggested, there is a hint or implication that this was a "win" and I am simply stating that it is not a win or loss. Furthermore, the way you wrote the synopsis of the challenge also indicates that this went through the court simply as an injunction, and not as a Constitutional Challenge to said law, which cannot take place until after the law takes effect. I just don't think you were clear enough on that part. What needed to be more emphasized in your post was that the legal challenges once this law will take effect will make its way through the courts and why I said it will make it to the Supreme Court docket in about a year or two at the federal district level. That really needs to be emphasized

 

Interesting. Can you give me an example of this "Some"?

 

Emotional distressed individuals come to mind. Heat of the moment kind of stuff.

Suicides are another. The Canadian gun registry study showed that wait times reduced suicides.

It's about determination. How determined is the individual to get a gun.

It's kind of like liquor at a liquor store and kids trying to score booze. Up here in Canada you can't be in a store if your under 18. Kids try fake IDs or getting others to buy them and sometimes they succeed but most of the time they don't. But just because some people beat the system, doesn't mean we give up trying.

 

So, SCOTUS is sending the issue back to the state but allow the ban to remain in effect.

 

gun banners never can answer this-and they don't care. their goal is banning lawful gun ownership, not preventing criminals from being armed.

 

Not really, no. Because the issue never left the state. The request could not be for the SCOTUS to take a case, while it was still being adjudicated, in the lower courts. The request had been for the SCOTUS to issue an injunction, to stop the ban from going into effect, before it had been adjudicated. According to the gun rights litigant, quoted in the article, it looks as if this law is going to be upheld at the Appeals Court level. But they will then, no doubt, appeal it up the chain, to the Supreme Court.

My point had been, that if this ban was so blatantly unconstitutional, that it was sure to be overturned, that would seem the most likely justification for the Court to block that clearly unconstitutional law, from going into effect. The SCOTUS did not do that. They put no stay, on the enacting of the law. This implies that the law, at least possibly, might be constitutionally sound; IOW, that this has yet to be determined.

The reason I wanted to point this out, is because the "argument," sometimes presented by the gun- lover side, is that any such ban is automatically, on its face, unconstitutional. The SCOTUS refusing to do anything to stop the law from going into effect, disproves that argument (in advance of the times in the future when, I'm sure, I will hear it from someone on that side of the issue, once more).

 

Yeah, thanks. "sending it back . . ." was a poor choice of words.

 

It needs to be mentioned that the left ALWAYS avoids this question like the plague.

To the left, if it's all black, it's an assault rifle.

 

Didn't you read? The law prohibits importation of the banned guns also. Surely no one would break the law...right? Right?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html

 

NYTimes is a paywall. But just reading the link itself shows what the answer is. Which of course is that people planning on committing crimes, such as mass shootings, will still get the guns regardless of what the law says. Which means all this law does is target innocent civilians and has no real effect on doing what they claim it will do. There will always be "lines" to cross. Doesn't matter if its half a mile away, or 50 or 1000. Crime will still happen. All because the left wants to focus on an inanimate object rather than the core issues that cause crime to happen.

 

No, clearly your mind will let not you admit the possibility that this law, made by Illinois lawmakers, & signed by the Illinois governor, was in direct response to both an ongoing epidemic, in the opinions of a majority of your fellow citizens and, probably more consequentially, because of an outcry from the citizens of Illinois, for their elected officials to do something about it. Instead, your psychology limits you to seeing any call to limit any firearm, or accessory, as the desire of prohibition for its own sake, or as an antipathy to guns, in themselves, apart from any events tied to them. Hence, you rebut none of my arguments, but instead make up fantasy points for me, in place of what I have actually been saying. Any such discourse, of course, cannot be called a debate. Therefore, I can only take your non sequitur reply, to mean that you choose to offer no real debate argument.

Just as a reminder-- though I said this in my OP, and have needed to repeat it, already two or three times, since then: my thread's point is that, the SCOTUS apparently did not feel this law is so clearly unconstitutional, that it is a foregone conclusion that it will be overturned, and so would see the merit in issuing a stay, and preventing its taking effect, prior to its examination by the courts. IOW, the banning of a gun is not, ipso facto, unconstitutional. The reason that I had wished to point this out to the forum, is that this false argument is not infrequently seen, coming from those gun enthusiasts with POVs as similarly restricted, and fictitious, as your own.


FYI, I offered no opinion of my own, on the efficacy of this law. I do not know, how much effect it will have. I do know, however, that you cannot know that it won't do any good. I have heard contrasting assessments, on the effect of the former, 10 year national ban on assault weapons. OTOH, statistics of overall gun deaths, in states with tougher gun regulations, clearly attests that legislation does appear to make a big difference. But none of this, was in my argument. I had merely been saying that because a law restricts or even prohibits some form of firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessory, does not prove that the law must be in opposition to the constitution. It requires adjudication and, ultimately, comes down not to clear cut fact, but interpretive opinion. That is not to say that I don't think that our current SCOTUS would be more inclined to strike down any such law; only that this would by no means suggest that a High Court with a different makeup, would not reverse this Court's ruling.

I can put my point, in no simpler terms, than those; so if you still are either unable, or unwilling, to offer a rebuttal or comment that falls within the framework of this very basic argument, there would seem to be no reason to provide further, pointless, corrective explanations.

 

This should serve as a great warning to all gun owning Americans that the federal government does want to establish a registry.

 

It should also be mentioned, that one's advertising one's ignorance of the subject under discussion, does not pass for an argument. Hence, it is not surprising that someone on the Left, or on the Right, for that matter, would wish to avoid getting tied up that sort of deflection, from the actual issue.

Assault weapons, are a legally defined thing, that one can look up, if they are unsure. They are semi-automatic firearms which have any one of various other characteristics. It is an old argument, that assault weapons can then be altered, to no longer fit the description; the real salient feature, of assault weapons (beside being semi-automatics), is the way the are marketed. I hope you find that educational.

To cut off a further, standard, argument of distraction, the main people whom such laws are focused on preventing from killing people with these weapons, are not the hardened career criminals and gangs, but the wannabe race warrior, or otherwise off-kilter nutcase, to whom the image of these weapons has shown to be highly appealing. In fact, since you seem to be wanting of these, assault weapons are relatively rarely used in run of the mill crimes (robbery, etc.). But they are the preferred weapon, of those who go on shooting sprees. So, as a practical matter, it would probably be easier for you to understand "assault weapons," as being the semi-automatic weapons, capable of receiving large capacity ammo magazines, which are most highly favored, by mass shooters.

 

Straw man argument-- by which logic, all laws, then, would be pointless.

 

as long as the drug war funds gangs, gang violence will continue

 

Most Americans in general, however, do not see the keeping track of the owners of assault weapons, as anything sinister but, rather, as something sensible.