The Illinois Supreme Court found the state’s assault weapons ban constitutional. It was passed after the Highland Park shooting last year.
You must log in or register to comment.
thank God my state is still a little civilized… way to go Land of Lincoln!
deleted by creator
Of course they would. The highest rate of gun crime is high gun restriction states.
2A says Shall not be infringed, and a ban on a certain kind of arm sure sounds infringing.
The 2nd Amendment also says “well-regulated,” but folks sure seem to forget about that bit, huh.
It’s only been in the last 50 years or so that people considered that phrase meaningless. It used to mean exactly what it said. Thank the NRA for being a industry-pushing, Russia-money-taking scumbag.
The militia is every able bodied man in the country. That was the definition at the time. And being that a well armed populace is important to the freedom of the nation we shall not infringe on their rights to keep and bare arms.
That’s the actual modern day translation for you. It’s not “exact” because just using colloquial phrasing, but the meaning should be clear.
Interesting. We have the National Guard now to fill the role of militia, which we know because it was created by the Militia Act. Pretty clear intent on that one.
Using the definition at the time, it appears that there’s actually not a right for any random person to have a gun. If you want one, join the well-regulated militia.
Can you share a source? I’m very surprised to hear that they specified well-regulated militia when they just meant basically everyone.
You don’t even know what that means. It means “regularized”, as in well trained and supplied. The idea was that having the populace be well armed would make it easier to muster a defense force in case of a conflict. “Because the state needs a well supplied and trained military force to remain free, the people have the right to own and carry armaments without restriction” would be the correct transliteration using the vocabulary of today.
We have a standing army now, so yeah. About that. It’s an outdated amendment that only recently has been interpreted as zero restrictions.
It was interpreted as having 0 restrictions for 150 years.
You might find it outdated and useless, repeal it then.
You do not know what you are talking about, or the laws around it and the interpretations of it changed in the 80s.
I will not argue with y’all gun weirdos. Have a lovely day.
maybe you’ve never been to a city, or don’t understand what it’s like to live around a lot of people
I’m glad as fuck I don’t love around a city because apparently it means I have a much much higher chance of getting caught up in gang violence and shot. Why would I want to put up with that?
Aaaaand there’s the dog whistle.
How is it a dog whistle to acknowledge high rates of gang violence in cities? Is it suddenly not true because you think it’s racist?
i know there are cowards out there who need to hide in the country with their guns, it’s okay son… there is still life in the city in spite of your fear… there’s even real people in the city who get along and everything, you should see it…
I live in a very rural area but I’m in the fucking Bronx twice a week. I just don’t like it, not that I’m afraid of it. But what I’m trying to say is there are fundamental problems if there’s so many gangs creating such a high incidence of gun related fatalities. It’s not a problem of law abiding citizens or of not enough gun laws because criminals don’t obey laws in the first place. Gangs wouldn’t have it so easy if the populace didn’t turn a blind eye.
and none of that has anything to do with assault weapons in Illinois… do you comprehend that?
The highest rate of gun crime is high gun restriction states.
What does gun crime mean in this context?
Does it mean crimes committed with a gun?
Does it mean violations of gun laws? If so, is that normalized with respect to the stricter restrictions in those states?
Is it normalized with respect to total population? With respect to population type (rural versus urban)?
Is it possible that the states with more restrictions have done so because of the rates of those crimes?
“Chicago’s homicide rate is an outlier among major U.S. cities. At a rate of 29 firearm homicides per 100,000 residents, it is six times higher than New York City’s and three times higher than in Los Angeles.”
Illinois, and Chicago in particular, is the highest gun crime area in the US and guess what city has the most restrictive gun laws.
Gun laws vary from state to state. In some U.S. states, there is virtually no gun regulation at all, like Montana and Alaska. On the other hand, some states have stricter gun legislation. Some of these states which have the strictest gun laws tend to be those which are most populous and have a larger urban community, those who are residing in cities compared to those in rural areas. Take California for example, which has the strictest gun laws in the United States and has the seventh lowest rate of death by gun violence despite being the most populous state. Other states with some of the strictest gun laws include New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Connecticut.
Saying “Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws” is something I’ve heard passed around on FB before. It doesn’t surprise me that gang violence and random gun violence happens in more populated areas, and that cities and densely populated states would have crime and laws to match. But I’ve never seen evidence that Chicago is an outlier for gun laws as a city. I mean, the post here suggests that the “assault weapons ban” is new, so clearly the state hadn’t made any laws against semi-auto firearms, large calibre firearms, or large capacity mags until now (recently).
If you are going to make an argument of correlation equaling causation, you should probably at least establish the order of operations so your argument is clear.
