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

[Lutherf]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3k44pk/judge-blocks-ban-on-assault-rifles-in-tiny-colorado-town-hours-before-it-was-to-go-into-effect

A judge blocked a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines in the small town of Deerfield, Illinois, less than 24 hours before it was meant to go into effect.

The decision, handed down Tuesday evening in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Lake County, Illinois, is a small victory for gun rights groups, who sued the Chicago suburb in April after it became the first municipality to ban assault weapons following the Parkland high school shooting. The Deerfield ordinance was passed unanimously by all six board members on April 2.

It's a small win but a win is a win.

 

[JacksinPA]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3k44pk/judge-blocks-ban-on-assault-rifles-in-tiny-colorado-town-hours-before-it-was-to-go-into-effect



It's a small win but a win is a win.

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.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Well, clearly you still don't understand the main purpose of the Second Amendment if you think you've made some kind of point with the bolded section of your post. :roll:

It is not designed to protect hunting rights, although guns can serve that purpose.

It is not designed to protect the right to sport shoot, or collect for display, although those are things they can be used for.

It is designed to protect the natural right of access to the best means of self defense and the defense of others against criminals, enemy insurgents, invading armies, and if necessary to engage in active rebellion against government tyranny.

The fact that weapons like the AR-15 are designed for this purpose is exactly why the Second Amendment applies to it. :coffeepap:

 

[TurtleDude]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3k44pk/judge-blocks-ban-on-assault-rifles-in-tiny-colorado-town-hours-before-it-was-to-go-into-effect



It's a small win but a win is a win.

true, the assholes who passed that idiocy should be facing federal civil rights criminal felony charges under 42 USC 1983

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

why are you telling obvious lies. the 222 was the basis for the 556 round. it was designed as a very accurate VARMINT round designed to shoot woodchuck to coyote sized targets at long range. The military logic behind adopting a round based on that is as follows

1) with modern artillery and aircraft-riflemen no longer are the primary tool to inflict casualties on the enemy at ranges past 200 yards

2) inflicting casualties is the main job of soldiers-not "killing". a light fast round inflicts substantial wounds but allows a soldier to carry far more ammunition than the of a traditional battle rifle

3) more and more recruits came to the military without any shooting experience. the heavy recoil of main battle rifles inhibited competent marksmanship. The much lighter recoil of the 556 allowed better shooting. additional, rifles using full power cartridges are almost impossible to control when being used to lay down fully automatic suppressive fire.

 

[Chomsky]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3k44pk/judge-blocks-ban-on-assault-rifles-in-tiny-colorado-town-hours-before-it-was-to-go-into-effect



It's a small win but a win is a win.

I see it (possibly) a big win for gun proponents.

The last two SCOTUS cases expanded gun rights to self-defense, but also left open the right of local jurisdictions to regulate them. I, and many others, assumed this would allow an assault weapon type ban. It seems here, it didn't. I'd like to see the ruling to see if there were specific defects in this particular ban order, or if rather the judge found a more general & global reason to strike it down.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I'd call it a loss. A big loss potentially.

For you and the anti-freedom side, yep! Glad to hear it.

 

[Rucker61]

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.

The .223 was developed from the varmint .222. There's almost no difference in the round. The standard round used in the early M16s was a 55 gr FMJ, based on the same bullet used in the .7.62N and the .30-06 Springfield. There was nothing new in either the caliber, the cartridge or the bullet. My 9th edition of the Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading shows 16 different cartridges that use the .224 diameter bullet, including the .22-250, a .30-06 casing necked down to .224 that predates the development of the 5.56mm NATO by twenty years. For just Hornady bullets there are 23 differents type and weights of the .224 bullet, with each type useful for different purposes. lastly, the AR family is available in over 100 calibers, most of which are typical hunting and target calibers. They aren't just for killing people, or it would have taken longer than 48 years for the first AR-15 to be used in a mass shooting by a civilian in the US. There's a reason why these are the most popular types of long guns in the US, and it has nothing to do with killing people.

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 .224 55 grain FMJ-BT has less overpenetration through walls than either a 9mm JHP or 12 gauge buckshot. Use a frangible varmint round and the penetration decreases even more. It's also more accurate in a rifle than a handgun and easier to manage than a shotgun. You'd be less likely to have a stray round with an AR. Personally, I wouldn't wouldn't trust a .22 magnum in a pistol for self defense, but that's your choice. I note that you do acknowledge that a firearm could be useful in home defense. Good on you.

 

[TurtleDude]

I see it (possibly) a big win for gun proponents.

The last two SCOTUS cases expanded gun rights to self-defense, but also left open the right of local jurisdictions to regulate them. I, and many others, assumed this would allow an assault weapon type ban. It seems here, it didn't. I'd like to see the ruling to see if there were specific defects in this particular ban order, or if rather the judge found a more general & global reason to strike it down.

if a city can ban guns rarely used in crime then what would stop bans on handguns (which we know are unconstitutional)

 

[TurtleDude]

I see it (possibly) a big win for gun proponents.

The last two SCOTUS cases expanded gun rights to self-defense, but also left open the right of local jurisdictions to regulate them. I, and many others, assumed this would allow an assault weapon type ban. It seems here, it didn't. I'd like to see the ruling to see if there were specific defects in this particular ban order, or if rather the judge found a more general & global reason to strike it down.

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?

 

[Rucker61]

I see it (possibly) a big win for gun proponents.

The last two SCOTUS cases expanded gun rights to self-defense, but also left open the right of local jurisdictions to regulate them. I, and many others, assumed this would allow an assault weapon type ban. It seems here, it didn't. I'd like to see the ruling to see if there were specific defects in this particular ban order, or if rather the judge found a more general & global reason to strike it down.

That such firearms are protected by the Second Amendment under Miller, Heller and McDonald, and thus a state or city shouldn't be able to get away with banning them?

 

[Chomsky]

if a city can ban guns rarely used in crime then what would stop bans on handguns (which we know are unconstitutional)

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]

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?

What are you stating here, and how did you derive this from my opinion above?

 

[DarkWizard12]

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.

Actually, it was intended for small game, but go on.

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.

Hmmm, what was it like when you found out a 22 mag is just as effective at shooting through walls?

 

[Rucker61]

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.

What SCOTUS ruling found it Constitutional? Did it actually ban ownership?

Edit: Note that the 1994 ban predated Heller, McDonald and Caetano.

 

[ludin]

true, the assholes who passed that idiocy should be facing federal civil rights criminal felony charges under 42 USC 1983

You know it would never happen.
We have lost all of those powers a long time ago.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

not by the Supreme court-and that was before Heller and McDonald. Can you seriously read the second amendment and with a straight face tell me that banning stuff and criminalizing its possession doesn't infringe on rights?

 

[TurtleDude]

What are you stating here, and how did you derive this from my opinion above?

my mistake, I misread your post

 

[TurtleDude]

You know it would never happen.
We have lost all of those powers a long time ago.

we can only hope. I'd like to see politicians nailed to the wall when their laws are clearly unconstitutional

 

[ludin]

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.

Some of those are still working through the court system.

 

[ludin]

we can only hope. I'd like to see politicians nailed to the wall when their laws are clearly unconstitutional

Won't ever happen. They have been allowed to get away with it for too long.

 

[Chomsky]

That such firearms are protected by the Second Amendment under Miller, Heller and McDonald, and thus a state or city shouldn't be able to get away with banning them?

I'm not as familiar with Miller, but Heller & McDonald did not disallow restrictions on firearms by states and other areas. These variances can be seen with the plethora of California regulations that have not been found unconstitutional, including their own assault weapons ban.

Many thought this would apply to the Illinois case, as was pointed-out in the article with the judge's contrary decision being "unexpected". I'd like to see the ruling, because if the ruling cites general grounds this may be a big deal for gun rights.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm not as familiar with Miller, but Heller & McDonald did not disallow restrictions on firearms by states and other areas. These variances can be seen with the plethora of California regulations that have not been found unconstitutional, including their own assault weapons ban.

They've never been examined by SCOTUS. Those laws definitely violate US v Miller, Heller, and McDonald.

Many thought this would apply to the Illinois case, as was pointed-out in the article with the judge's contrary decision being "unexpected". I'd like to see the ruling, because if the ruling cites general grounds this may be a big deal for gun rights.

Well, the 7th Circuit Court upheld a previous ban merely to make people not be scared.

 

[Chomsky]

What SCOTUS ruling found it Constitutional? Did it actually ban ownership?

Edit: Note that the 1994 ban predated Heller, McDonald and Caetano.

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.

 

[Chomsky]

not by the Supreme court-and that was before Heller and McDonald. Can you seriously read the second amendment and with a straight face tell me that banning stuff and criminalizing its possession doesn't infringe on rights?

I'm not calling for a ban. I was trying to opine that the decision may indeed be a big one for gun rights, rather than the "small one" claimed in the post I was responding to.

In effect, I was claiming the decision was more positive than may be realized.

And damn, we shouldn't have to walk on eggshells in this forum.