• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge blocks ban on assault rifles in tiny Illinois town hours before it was to go into effect

AFAIK, the Cali assault weapons ban, at least on sales, is still in place, along with a plethora of other regulations.

I believe ownership of grandfathered weapons is allowed.

No, if they have bullet buttons, or are regular AR-15s, they are banned from ownership. They tried to ban "high capacity magazines" but that law was blocked.

Given that the Second Amendment protects "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia", and extends those protections to the states via McDonald, why would you think that an "assault weapons" ban is Constitutional?
 
They've never been examined by SCOTUS. Those laws definitely violate US v Miller, Heller, and McDonald.



Well, the 7th Circuit Court upheld a previous ban merely to make people not be scared.
Well I find this pretty interesting, and was not aware.

So how is it possible no one appealed to the SC? I find it hard to believe no one produced a test case.
 
No, if they have bullet buttons, or are regular AR-15s, they are banned from ownership. They tried to ban "high capacity magazines" but that law was blocked.

Given that the Second Amendment protects "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia", and extends those protections to the states via McDonald, why would you think that an "assault weapons" ban is Constitutional?
I'm not a lawyer. I go by the SC rulings. If a ruling occurs, I may personally disagree, but if it stands I uphold it as constitutional - the same as the court.
 
Well I find this pretty interesting, and was not aware.

So how is it possible no one appealed to the SC? I find it hard to believe no one produced a test case.

They've been appealed. Based on the makeup of the Court, neither side has a guaranteed win so they've not agreed to take one up. We'll see who get appointed in the next few years.
 
I'm not a lawyer. I go by the SC rulings. If a ruling occurs, I may personally disagree, but if it stands I uphold it as constitutional - the same as the court.

I have no problem disagreeing with SCOTUS or lower court decisions. I certainly feel that Minoru Yasui v. the United States, Hirabayashi v. the United States and Korematsu v. the United States were horribly unconstitutional.
 
I have no problem disagreeing with SCOTUS or lower court decisions. I certainly feel that Minoru Yasui v. the United States, Hirabayashi v. the United States and Korematsu v. the United States were horribly unconstitutional.
Well, I don't claim to be a legal scholar. But even more-so, I greatly respect this country, the founding fathers, and the Constitution itself. So even when I disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I suck it up because the buck has to stop somewhere. There has to be a final arbiter in a civilized & just society, or we have nothing And for me, the Court is that arbiter.
 
Well, I don't claim to be a legal scholar. But even more-so, I greatly respect this country, the founding fathers, and the Constitution itself. So even when I disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I suck it up because the buck has to stop somewhere. There has to be a final arbiter in a civilized & just society, or we have nothing And for me, the Court is that arbiter.

Were the three decisions I listed just and civilized?
 
Were the three decisions I listed just and civilized?
Not by today's standards, but they are what they were at the time. No different than Plessy or a host of others from the past.

The point is there needs to be a final arbiter, and without one we no longer have the rule of law. We'd have anarchy. I'm not crazy about Citizens United for instance, but I respect the rule of law - so I accept it.

It don't always go one's personal way. That's life.
 
I'd call it a loss. A big loss potentially.

I once owned an AR-15. The .223 round was designed to do one thing: kill & maim human beings in battle. But the NRA & its members seemingly can't live without them.

I think the last time we had a battle in this country was at Appomattox Court House in 1865. And I don't expect another any time soon.

I live in a built up neighborhood where the houses are pretty close together Traded my S&W 9mm for a 12-gauge tactical pump action & later bought a S&W hammerless revolver in .22 Magnum, both for home defense. A .223 or a 9mm could go through a window or wall & wound or kill someone in another house. Home defense or not, I wouldn't want to face a possible manslaughter trial.

The .223 was designed as a varmint hunting round.
 
I'd call it a loss. A big loss potentially.

I once owned an AR-15. The .223 round was designed to do one thing: kill & maim human beings in battle. But the NRA & its members seemingly can't live without them.

I think the last time we had a battle in this country was at Appomattox Court House in 1865. And I don't expect another any time soon.

I live in a built up neighborhood where the houses are pretty close together Traded my S&W 9mm for a 12-gauge tactical pump action & later bought a S&W hammerless revolver in .22 Magnum, both for home defense. A .223 or a 9mm could go through a window or wall & wound or kill someone in another house. Home defense or not, I wouldn't want to face a possible manslaughter trial.

With Hornady's URBAN .223 ammo it won't penetrate.
but, I get your point.

That was why I had non-lethal hard rubber ball shells in my 12 gauge when i lived in an apartment.
Knocks the crap out of someone.
I also had some single big hard rubber balls too.
They even sell them in boxes of 25.
 
how can you possibly support a law that allows people to be punished for continuing to own an item they bought legally, and never misused?

I will get back with you on that.
I just bought some KRATOM legally and lawfully in my state from a US distributor for a medical issue I am having and for my own use.
I kept all the receipts with dates on them, and keep everything in one box.
They know who I am, where I live, and how much I bought.

Let's see if this theory holds true.
Or if I will suddenly, overnight become a user of a Schedule 1 narcotic?
Seeing how the DEA loves playing fast and loose with their Schedule of drugs.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the assault weapons ban of the '90's was found Constitutional at the federal level. So there's been at least some constitutionality found in these types of bans. But you may have a point that a municipality may not have the freedom to deviate from state or federal regulation. But we definitely do see additional regulation at the state level, for instance in California.

Chomsky,
The ban was not a domestic ban.
It only banned the IMPORT of foreign guns.

If someone still had an AK, AR, or FAL they could still keep it and shoot it.

Deerfield told people that already had them, they had to turn them in for be fined/arrested.

Big difference from the 90's.
Nothing in the 90's said anyone still possessing one had to turn it in.
Deerfield did say they had to turn them in.

SHOT DOWN and rightly so.
 
Chomsky,
The ban was not a domestic ban.
It only banned the IMPORT of foreign guns.

If someone still had an AK, AR, or FAL they could still keep it and shoot it.

Deerfield told people that already had them, they had to turn them in for be fined/arrested.

Big difference from the 90's.
Nothing in the 90's said anyone still possessing one had to turn it in.
Deerfield did say they had to turn them in.

SHOT DOWN and rightly so.
Thanks. That's why I'd like to read the ruling.
 
Thanks. That's why I'd like to read the ruling.

I'd like to see the scum who passed this blatantly unconstitutional law being charged with mass violations of peoples' constitutional rights and treated the same way some others found guilty of violating 42 USC 1983 were treated-such as the Klanners who violated the civil rights of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi more than 50 years ago or the officers who beat the snot out of Rodney King.
 
Back
Top Bottom