Supreme Court leaves in place Illinois restrictions on military-style weapons — The Washington Post
The Supreme Court turned down a request to put on hold laws banning AR-15-style weapons and large ammunition magazines.
apple.news - Thread starter SilentStalkr
- Start date
apple.news Pay wall.
Details for those of us that refuse to support MSM?
Details for those of us that refuse to support MSM?
I don't support them... But had no problem opening the article in my Apple news feed... Its an apple thing I guess.
Worked fine for me.
Supreme Court leaves in place Illinois restrictions on military-style weapons
The Supreme Court turned down a request to put on hold laws banning AR-15-style weapons and large ammunition magazines
The Supreme Court on Wednesday left in place for now Illinois’s new ban on the purchase and sale of AR-15-style weapons and large ammunition magazines, the court’s first consideration of gun control legislation since its conservative majority made it more difficult for governments to justify such restrictions.
The court without comment turned down a request from a gun shop owner from Naperville and a national gun rights organization to keep both the state and local laws from being implemented while legal battles continue. It comes as the nation has recently weathered dozens of mass shootings, many of them performed with the kinds of weapons Illlinois and the city of Naperville seeks to ban.
There were no noted dissents to the order.
The Supreme Court’s order follows a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to allow the laws to take effect while courts consider constitutional challenges. Gun shop owners and other organizations have said the laws violate the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen that extended Second Amendment protections.
The 7th Circuit has scheduled a hearing on the issue for next month.
Naperville and the state acted after a horrific mass shooting in the state last July 4. A shooter armed with a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle opened fire on a parade in Highland Park, Ill, a Chicago suburb. The shooter fired 83 rounds in less than a minute, killing seven people and wounding 48. He was apprehended and charged with murder.
A Highland Park ordinance prohibited the sale of such weapons, but the assailant purchased the weapon elsewhere in the state. Soon after the shooting, Naperville, west of Chicago, passed an ordinance prohibiting the sale of “assault weapons." In January, the state legislature passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which restricts the "sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, or importation of 'assault weapons’ and ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices’ ” subject to exceptions for law enforcement, members of the military, and others with similar firearms training.
Gun groups immediately challenged the law, with differing results.
U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall turned down a request to put the laws on hold, the case now at the Supreme Court.
“The text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected,” Kendall wrote.
She added: "Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition. Naperville and Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale, and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales.”
Get the Post Most Newsletter
The most popular and interesting stories of the day to keep you in the know. In your inbox, every day.
But U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, acting on a challenge to the Illinois law brought in a different part of the state, disagreed.
“Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?” McGlynn wrote. "More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? ... The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is ‘likely no.’ "
The 7th Circuit, though, allowed the laws to proceed while appeals continued.
Robert Bevis, owner of Law Weapons and Supply in Naperville, brought the case for an emergency stay to the Supreme Court, along with the National Association for Gun Rights. Bevis claims the laws have cost him thousands of dollars in lost sales.
His lawyers said Kendall’s ruling did not comply with the Supreme Court’s findings.
“An arm cannot be subjected to a categorical ban unless it is both dangerous and unusual,” they told the Supreme Court, noting that at least 20 million AR-15s and similar weapons are owned by millions of Americans. “An arm that is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes is, by definition, not unusual.”
Naperville and Illinois argued there was no reason for the court to step in at this time, when the 7th Circuit already is scheduling a hearing on the law.
Most district courts have said such bans on sales are constitutional, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D) told the Supreme Court, and no appeals court or state high court has ruled on the issue. “At the very least, further percolation is warranted” before the justices get involved, he wrote.
Layers for Naperville argued that the request from Bevis was not an emergency. “The loss of business from being unable to sell one category of one possible product line at a gun store simply cannot carry sufficient weight against the danger of a murdered or permanently maimed Naperville resident, senselessly shot by an assault rifle.” the city said in its brief.
The case is National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville and State of Illinois.
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.
Democracy Dies in Darkness
© 1996-2023 The Washington Post
Just until it goes into effect. They agreed with the lower courts to wait until the laws take effect.
Our legal system is a fucking joke on every level
Our Constitution is no longer being defended or upheld.
Not unexpected. This guy in the video below posted that the SCOTUS would most likely do what they did about a week ago. You should probably subscribe to his channel.
The SC did not uphold the ban. They declined to rule while lawsuits are still working through the system.
“Dad, can I have I ice cream?”
“Not until after dinner.”
“I want ice cream now!”
“After dinner.”
“Mom, dad won’t let me have ice cream!”
Same thing…
“Dad, can I have I ice cream?”
“Not until after dinner.”
“I want ice cream now!”
“After dinner.”
“Mom, dad won’t let me have ice cream!”
Same thing…
Another symptom and proof that The Republic has failed. Control the crash in your immediate vicinity as best you can. No one's coming to save US.
VooDoo
Never trust the stinking Black robes! They are part of the political class and care nothing for us serfs!
They be did not uphold it. My understanding is they declined to issue an injunction to put the new restrictions on hold until the issue works it’s way through the courts.
Supreme Court leaves in place Illinois restrictions on military-style weapons — The Washington Post
The Supreme Court turned down a request to put on hold laws banning AR-15-style weapons and large ammunition magazines.
Not the same thing.
Meanwhile in IL, residents have to pay the government to have their 2A right. If they don't pay the government to have their right, they go to jail.
Yes, but “nuance” doesn’t drive clicks…
The legal system is political. If it weren't why would it matter which political party placed the SC judges...
It’s the same thing until it’s sorted out, assuming it ever is. Could be years...
No it is not no matter how many times you say it.
One is a declining to get involved and will be temporary until eventually settled (which may reach SCOTUS via appeals) and the other sets precedence which is given great weight and deference in future cases.
Not the same at all.
So does this override McGlynn who blocked the law from going into effect?
SCOTUS is waiting for a better case... This isn't the one yet. Watch The Four Boxes Diner Youtube channel. Mark Smith does an excellent job at analyzing what is in play around the country and with the SCOTUS...
I agree except instead of ice cream we should go back to tar and feathering
This quote by
FFS...there is a claimant (correct term?) with standing in this case. Its a gun shop in Naperville, IL
And, this case has now headed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals...Fed Court of Appeals is one down from SCOTUS.
Once decided there...no matter what side is favored...I predict another appeal which will take it to SCOTUS who may choose to hear it or not.
Ok. So let me ask you this? Are people currently limited or not allowed to use their 2A rights in full, right now, because of this? If you answer yes to any part of that then is it not a de facto ban as a result of the courts declining the case i.e. upholding the ban, temporary or not?
The hand wringing and poor reading comprehension of Hide members may be an ever higher percentage than that of the general public!
Im not a genius by any measure, and I can understand the article fine.
And no, residents of IL have not been able to exercise their 2A rights in some time.
FOID card anyone?
Im not a genius by any measure, and I can understand the article fine.
And no, residents of IL have not been able to exercise their 2A rights in some time.
FOID card anyone?
absolutely. Completely different topic from our prior exchange, but yes...absolutely.
And, for those of us who cut civics classes to go smoke cigs behind the gym (ah..like me! haha)....there are few if any rights in the BoR's that are without any limits or restrictions at all.
As an example, freedom of speech in the 1st A which says... in part (underline added by me):
"Congress shall make no law ........abridging the freedom of speech...."
Which does not mean you get to shoot your big fucking mouth off (eh, general "you"...not you SilentStalkr) with whatever you want to say and wherever you want to say it. Good example, yell fire in a crowded, dark, movie theater when there is not one...and people are injured, perhaps killed, and property damaged. In such a case, hopefully your family will visit you in the penitentiary on a regular basis.
Have a great day.
I have. The issue is, until “the right” case comes around, all this bullshit stands as law, which is automatically defiant to what the BOR spells out in black and white. This is politicized bullshit. We either have the rights or we don’t, and the BOR is pretty clear, despite what any idiot in court says. If they don’t like it then there is processes to change it. It’s really that simple. What you have here is a bunch of fucking morons that are abusing their powers. Does the courts override the supreme law of the land? Got to be careful on how the question is answered.
Yep. Against the 2A as well. All of this stuff should be struck down. I’m a bit of a purist. It literally says shall not be infringed. People can argue semantics all they want but it’s as clear as it can be. If they don’t like it, then change it. There are processes outlined to do so. But again, you have a whole bunch of people that completely disregard what the BOR says.
Last edited:
He is one of the ones I watch. Seems credible.
Yeah, well that is not how the Heller decision reads that refused to ban handguns. What is more dangerous a firearm that kills over 10K a year or a firearm by class that kills less than 1k? If SCOTUS eventually just uses Heller “In common use for lawful purposes” precedent there is no way an AR ban could stand, nor a 30 standard capacity round limit.
In fact based on Heller, McDonald and Bruen these laws shouldn’t even need to make it to SCOTUS. The lower courts should be striking these laws down.
In my opinion, without them writing a 74 page ruling they could have slapped them down with the precedence already set, and stated, Not constititional, done.
I ate asparagus.
It is good fiber.
Now I have gas.
There will be a most wonderful shit come morning.
Thank you, please be seated.
Constitution in a nutshell.
The SC didn't do anything.
Conclusion jumping leads to tales of shit.
I just gave you one.
Profit.
It is good fiber.
Now I have gas.
There will be a most wonderful shit come morning.
Thank you, please be seated.
Constitution in a nutshell.
The SC didn't do anything.
Conclusion jumping leads to tales of shit.
I just gave you one.
Profit.
They will make laws to enforce laws...
Yes, I think everyone gets all this. My issue with any of this is that until a case comes up and in the case of the courts not acting these things become de facto law/rule whatever until the right opp presents itself to overturn. That could be years. So in theory things like this could just keep being brought up over and over and over and thereby denying people their full rights. And the 2A is pretty clear. This simply isn’t right. Is the Constitution the law of the land or not? Is it a right or is it a permission? I think we all know the answer to that. Yet it’s clear that the gov and the courts view it more of a permission that they can take away at any time. Need I remind people that the BOR puts restrictions on the gov, not the other way around, despite what the courts or any media idiot says, yet somehow that has gotten twisted.
Last edited:
“The text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected,” Kendall wrote.
The thing that concerns me is that the person making this statement is not a stupid/low IQ that is incapable of understand the true words/context of the 2A:
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.[32]
This person knows exactly what the verbiage is, and what it means so this convolution of the wording is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution of The United States and it cannot be an accident. This is an attempt to deprive citizens of a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. So what is the motivation? what is the real reason this person wants US disarmed and deprived of our Rights?
I was taught that the only reason to disarm a Free Man was to kill him, subdue him, and "have your Way with him" and that man disarmed/denied his Rights is now a criminal or slave and that means he has *No* Rights and can be subdued/dealt with.
The people that say and do these things have An Agenda to take our Rights and do as they please once we are disarmed. No one is stupid enough to believe that once we are deprived of our Rights we won't be exploited. Nobody is dumb enough to believe these people have any other Agenda than to destroy me and take my stuff.
VooDoo
The thing that concerns me is that the person making this statement is not a stupid/low IQ that is incapable of understand the true words/context of the 2A:
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.[32]
This person knows exactly what the verbiage is, and what it means so this convolution of the wording is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution of The United States and it cannot be an accident. This is an attempt to deprive citizens of a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. So what is the motivation? what is the real reason this person wants US disarmed and deprived of our Rights?
I was taught that the only reason to disarm a Free Man was to kill him, subdue him, and "have your Way with him" and that man disarmed/denied his Rights is now a criminal or slave and that means he has *No* Rights and can be subdued/dealt with.
The people that say and do these things have An Agenda to take our Rights and do as they please once we are disarmed. No one is stupid enough to believe that once we are deprived of our Rights we won't be exploited. Nobody is dumb enough to believe these people have any other Agenda than to destroy me and take my stuff.
VooDoo
I think you may be giving the average voter way too much credit here.
Been mildly following this. I think SCOTUS is giving the 7th circuit their duty for review and ruling. (and hopefully do the right thing). If in their ruling they don't, SCOTUS will pick up the appeal, and smack it down.
This is precisely my point.
Yes, exactly. I think we all know this, despite some people in this thread thinking certain people have reading comprehension problems. My issue with it is, in no circumstances should anyone’s rights be suspended on these grounds while we wait for any part of the courts to do the right thing. Period. If they can be placed on hold, reinterpreted and so forth then they are not rights and the constitution is useless. They are undermining the BOR supremacy.
From where I’m standing it would seem that those who are writing the laws are woefully ignorant of our laws and processes or they are willfully trying to subvert the supreme law of the land or it’s a combo of both. Either way it’s either the supreme law of the land or it’s not and last i checked nobody has gone forward with any processes to change or have the people acknowledge that the supreme law should be dismantled and done away with or rewritten. So until that time comes it is the law of the land. 90% of this country’s problems stem from people not following the laws as they are in black and white. All this reinterpretation and rewriting crap to fit an agenda clearly causes lots of issues. If we simply followed the beautiful yet simple things we were founded on then a lot of things would get cleared up rather quickly.
Last edited:
Right here is the crux of the matter. A Federal Judge issues a ruling so out of step with established precedent that they should be impeached. It literally flies in the face of all recent 2A decisions, but everyone is focused on the Supreme Court or Illinois or some random 3rd option.
Remember be the left lost their shit over Roe V Wade or Planned Parenthood v Casey because precendent was overturned?
Well right here we have a Federal Judge ignoring established law from Supreme Court decisions. Now the Supreme Court is probably away of this, but right now is under so much pressure they have to do things by the book. Just look at what they have been doing to Thomas over doners. They pressured Roberts on the Healthcare, and Garland has been allowing protests over everything but the kitchen sink right now.
So remember, when Donald Trump pisses you off and you vote third party or don't vote, THIS is the shit you get--random mid-level judges appointed by LEFT WING presidents shitting on your rights (And Ironically she was nominated by GWB, confirmed via voice vote--once again those Senate Republicans caving like bitches--why in the FUCK would you nominate ANYONE from Chicago). And half of you are all over the Supreme Court who haven't even heard this case yet. Yes, rights are being infringed. Wanna Blame Someone? Blame that judge. Blame the Illinois Politicians. Ask why IL doesn't have a Senate that represents the whole state, instead of just the Banana Republic of Chicago.
Understanding how the system works is 90% of the battle.
Maybe I missed this in civics class but someone please show me where in the world it says that peoples 2A’s rights should be suspended, at any point in time! How is a right that is granted by God for the sheer sake of existing able to be taken away by gov?? Again, it’s not permissions. It’s inalienable rights. Nowhere to my knowledge does it say your rights are to be suspended at any point in time. This is a modern construct and still a violation of the supremacy clause. Again, it’s pretty simple, we either have rights or we don’t. Are they inalienable or not? It really is that simple. The moment you say it’s ok, but under certain circumstances then you’ve automatically changed things.
You’re not wrong, but you are asking the wrong people. I can’t imagine there are many here that disagree with you, but this this where we are and where we have allowed ourselves to be cornered. The rights of the people have been redefined by a carefully enacted plan to normalize socialism and then communism in the US. Now it is a right to be a victim. A right to be paid for reproducing if you can meet the racist criteria required. A right to not be called out or have your feelings hurt.
But the actual rights spelled out in the law of the country are to be challenged constantly for the advancement of those with money and power.
But the actual rights spelled out in the law of the country are to be challenged constantly for the advancement of those with money and power.
Then it sounds like we have already lost.
I don’t know. Sometimes it feels like that. We certainly are late to the party. But I do think that maybe we can slow down and maybe reverse that snowball (or pendulum if you prefer) if we are vocal, and adamant, and challenging.
There does seem to be more backlash against this crap, even amongst those that previously kept quiet and uncommitted. Whether it’s too late or not remains to be seen.
Similar threads
