Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[cnm]

We are citizens, not subjects.

And as ignorant as you are misinformed but not as much as you are verbose.

 

[Kilroy2]

Thanks

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

You do realize that this link does not support your AR 15 argument. Your just quoting a dissention by the Supreme Court. Circuit court agreed that the ban was correct. The losers appealed to supreme court. Only 2 judges Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. Unfortunately 4 judges of the SC refused to hear the case. This case sited by your source was denied for it to be heard before the SC. Thus the low courts decision was affirmed.

Really just points out how those on the SC can disagree about a firearm debate. Still as I posted at least 10 states have laws on AR 15 and yes those who had AR 15 before the law was passed is grandfathered in. The 2nd amendment is not a slam dunk.

 

[2aguy]

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

You do realize that this link does not support your AR 15 argument. Your just quoting a dissention by the Supreme Court. Circuit court agreed that the ban was correct. The losers appealed to supreme court. Only 2 judges Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. Unfortunately 4 judges of the SC refused to hear the case. This case sited by your source was denied for it to be heard before the SC. Thus the low courts decision was affirmed.

Really just points out how those on the SC can disagree about a firearm debate. Still as I posted at least 10 states have laws on AR 15 and yes those who had AR 15 before the law was passed is grandfathered in. The 2nd amendment is not a slam dunk.

Yes....it explicitly supports my argument for the AR-15 since Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller.......so what he says on guns, in later cases whether the court decides to hear them, has actual meaning....

You quoted Scalia.......now I am going to quote Scalia, the parts you guys don't want anyone to know about.....

At the time of Friedman there were 5 million AR-15s in private hands...there are now over 20 million....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

And the part of Heller you guys want to ignore.....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------


Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd amendment was held but it is not unlimited. Thus there are limits that can be imposed.

“1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. ” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)


(The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.) as he was a policeman

You guys are just pointing to the obvious yet the case concerned handguns. The problem is interpretation and reading the fine print. Individual right to keep and bear arms is valid with limitations. It what the state allows.

Scalia also goes on to say
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” So yes as stated citizens can bear arms for service in the militia. As long as the rules are followed.

Yes they can use this to protect there home still the following was held to be valid

“Until the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576 n.2 (2008)



JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

Thus is has limitations.


So they can be banned under certain conditions.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 2816 – 2817.

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 571 (2008)

Thus, whereas Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) found that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional because the original meaning of the text of the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms independent of service in a state militia, Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissenting opinion relied on a similar historical analysis to draw exactly the opposite conclusion. Scalia did not deny the validity of such critiques, but he argued that his approach was nevertheless superior to any other method at reducing inappropriate influences on judges’ decisions.

The only thing that he confirms is the militia clause in the 2nd. The government can regulate.

thus it is still unlawful to care an unregistered gun for example.
“Until the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes. ” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576 n.2 (2008)
AR 15 arguments
Illinois residents cannot purchase an AR 15 or assault weapon beginning January 11, 2023 unless subject to one of the narrow exemptions listed in section 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(e) within the link above.
so there are exemptions and there is a law.

Under a law passed on January 10, 2023, Illinois has defined certain firearms as assault weapons. It is illegal to manufacture, deliver, sell, or purchase an assault weapon. Any assault weapons that are already owned by residents are legal to possess if registered with the state police by January 1, 2024.
They regulate and what was okay before now has been limited to what is already own.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling years ago
Now I do not know what other states have done but this is an issues that is waiting for the next mass shooting event.

The 10 states with laws restricting assault weapons after Washington enacted ban

Assault weapons have been linked to some of the deadliest mass shootings in the the U.S in the past decade.

www.axios.com

10 states have already banned it. It does appear that those who have the weapon are grandfather in.
Biden wants to ban them and I guess that is making some upset. All well, get them while you can. They are quite expensive but hey if you got the cash.

And you too ignore the parts of Heller where Scalia refutes everything you just wrote.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------


Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Then you have to ignore the follow ruling in Caetano.....
Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.


And Scalia elaborates on his Heller opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Now.....you also have Bruen..........which also means what you just posted is irrelevant.......
Because public carry is a constitutional right, Thomas ruled out use of the two-part test to evaluate state gun laws, which generally involved application of intermediate scrutiny, that many lower courts had used, and instead evaluated New York's law under a more-stringent test of whether the proper-cause requirement is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.[25] Thomas wrote that gun control laws that identify restricted "sensitive places", such as courthouses and polling places, would still likely pass constitutional muster, though urban areas would not qualify as such sensitive places.[25]

After striking down the two-step test (formerly used by Courts of Appeals addressing Second Amendment issues), Bruen identified the new test courts must use on Second Amendment cases. The Court held: "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2aguy]

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

You do realize that this link does not support your AR 15 argument. Your just quoting a dissention by the Supreme Court. Circuit court agreed that the ban was correct. The losers appealed to supreme court. Only 2 judges Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. Unfortunately 4 judges of the SC refused to hear the case. This case sited by your source was denied for it to be heard before the SC. Thus the low courts decision was affirmed.

Really just points out how those on the SC can disagree about a firearm debate. Still as I posted at least 10 states have laws on AR 15 and yes those who had AR 15 before the law was passed is grandfathered in. The 2nd amendment is not a slam dunk.

And the internet answers....


The problem for you is the Supreme Court waits for there to be disputes among lower courts, and they want issues haggled over in the lower courts before they take the cases.........

And now that there is Bruen, the anti-gun states don't have any leg to stand on when they ban the AR-15.....and lower courts are just now understanding that....

on Friday with U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s order granting a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. McGlynn delivered a strong rebuke to the architects of the ban in his ruling, noting the Highland Park Independence Day was the impetus for the ban and wondering whether 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?”
The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.
-----
Defendants first argued that PICA is consistent with historical tradition because “[n]either large capacity magazines nor assault weapons were in common use when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified.” This argument is “bordering on the frivolous” because “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Defendants also argued that “[t]he Act restricts weapons and accessories not commonly used for selfdefense today.” Similarly, this argument is misplaced.

Bruen clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects “possession and use” of weapons “in common use” not just weapons in common use for self-defense as Defendants’ argued.

Even if there was a requirement that the “common use” of an “arm” be self-defense, AR-15 style rifles would meet such a test considering that 34.6% of owners utilize these rifles for self-defense outside of their home and 61.9% utilize them for self-defense at home.
-------
Handguns, many of which are limited under PICA, are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” It is also uncontroverted that many of the banned modifiers, including but not limited to pistol grips, protruding grips, flash suppressors, and shrouds, have legitimate purposes that assist law-abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves. The other side is less clear – there is no evidence as to how PICA will actually help Illinois Communities. It is also not lost on this Court that the Illinois Sheriff’s Association and some Illinois States Attorneys believe PICA unconstitutional and cannot, in good conscience, enforce the law as written and honor their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.

Federal judge grants injunction against Illinois "assault weapons" and magazine ban

bearingarms.com

 

[Kilroy2]

And the internet answers....


The problem for you is the Supreme Court waits for there to be disputes among lower courts, and they want issues haggled over in the lower courts before they take the cases.........

And now that there is Bruin, the anti-gun states don't have any leg to stand on when they ban the AR-15.....and lower courts are just now understanding that....

on Friday with U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s order granting a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. McGlynn delivered a strong rebuke to the architects of the ban in his ruling, noting the Highland Park Independence Day was the impetus for the ban and wondering whether 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?”
The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.
-----
Defendants first argued that PICA is consistent with historical tradition because “[n]either large capacity magazines nor assault weapons were in common use when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified.” This argument is “bordering on the frivolous” because “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Defendants also argued that “[t]he Act restricts weapons and accessories not commonly used for selfdefense today.” Similarly, this argument is misplaced.

Bruen clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects “possession and use” of weapons “in common use” not just weapons in common use for self-defense as Defendants’ argued.

Even if there was a requirement that the “common use” of an “arm” be self-defense, AR-15 style rifles would meet such a test considering that 34.6% of owners utilize these rifles for self-defense outside of their home and 61.9% utilize them for self-defense at home.
-------
Handguns, many of which are limited under PICA, are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” It is also uncontroverted that many of the banned modifiers, including but not limited to pistol grips, protruding grips, flash suppressors, and shrouds, have legitimate purposes that assist law-abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves. The other side is less clear – there is no evidence as to how PICA will actually help Illinois Communities. It is also not lost on this Court that the Illinois Sheriff’s Association and some Illinois States Attorneys believe PICA unconstitutional and cannot, in good conscience, enforce the law as written and honor their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.

Federal judge grants injunction against Illinois "assault weapons" and magazine ban

bearingarms.com

 

[Kilroy2]

I am afraid not. You submitted a link that did not support your position. The Supreme court refused to hear the case. Scalia and Clarence wanted to hear the case . They lost.

The Illinois state ban is the latest hot issues with federal judges contradicting each other. The issue is that the Supreme court created this with their vague rulings.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

That sounds pretty clear to me when unlimited is used. So this case will boil down to is that they are only trying to ban AR 15 rifles. they are not banning other weapons.

The supreme court will need to clarify this issue as they have created this mess

 

[2aguy]

I am afraid not. You submitted a link that did not support your position. The Supreme court refused to hear the case. Scalia and Clarence wanted to hear the case . They lost.

The Illinois state ban is the latest hot issues with federal judges contradicting each other. The issue is that the Supreme court created this with their vague rulings.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

That sounds pretty clear to me when unlimited is used. So this case will boil down to is that they are only trying to ban AR 15 rifles. they are not banning other weapons.

No...you are wrong...

It doesn't matter that the court didn't hear the case, Scalia wrote his dissenting opinion and elaborated on what he stated in Heller, the opinion that already governs on this issue.....

Scalia.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
He can't be any more clear than that.....
Oh, yes he can....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

 

[M14 Shooter]

Under a law passed on January 10, 2023, Illinois has defined certain firearms as assault weapons. It is illegal to manufacture, deliver, sell, or purchase an assault weapon. Any assault weapons that are already owned by residents are legal to possess if registered with the state police by January 1, 2024.
They regulate and what was okay before now has been limited to what is already own.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling years ago
Now I do not know what other states have done but this is an issues that is waiting for the next mass shooting event.

The 10 states with laws restricting assault weapons after Washington enacted ban

Assault weapons have been linked to some of the deadliest mass shootings in the the U.S in the past decade.

www.axios.com

10 states have already banned it. It does appear that those who have the weapon are grandfather in.
Biden wants to ban them and I guess that is making some upset. All well, get them while you can. They are quite expensive but hey if you got the cash.

"All bearable arms".
- USSC

 

[ralfy]

5 dead in Texas 'execution-style' shooting, suspect armed with AR-15 is on the loose

Five people are dead, including an 8-year-old boy, after being shot in a Texas home by a suspect armed with AR-15 style rifle, police say.

abcnews.go.com

 

[2aguy]

I am afraid not. You submitted a link that did not support your position. The Supreme court refused to hear the case. Scalia and Clarence wanted to hear the case . They lost.

The Illinois state ban is the latest hot issues with federal judges contradicting each other. The issue is that the Supreme court created this with their vague rulings.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

That sounds pretty clear to me when unlimited is used. So this case will boil down to is that they are only trying to ban AR 15 rifles. they are not banning other weapons.

The supreme court will need to clarify this issue as they have created this mess

In 6 years the governments of Europe murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children...these were not war dead, from collateral damage...these were people rounded up and marched into forests and camps and murdered.......

Meanwhile, in the U.S....gun murder for our entire 246 year history?

About 2,460,000

And the vast majority of those victims are not innocent men, women and children, they are criminals engaged in crime and gang activity, and the friends and family of criminals hit in the crossfire........

So...you guys never include the 15 million murdered by governments....because they first took guns away from those people.......with the same arguments you are using today............

15 million vs 2,460,000

Can you tell which number is bigger.....?

Can you tell us how many years it will take us to catch up to the murder capitols of Europe?

Meanwhile, in the United States......our citizens, with their legal guns, use those guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.......from rape, robbery, murder, beatings, stabbings and mass public shootings........according to the Centers for Disease Control.....

1.5 million if you go by the Department of Justice numbers......

How many of those victims would be dead.....or raped.....without their legal guns?

You guys want to ignore the facts.......you just want to ban guns no matter how many lives are at stake...

 

[Kilroy2]

In 6 years the governments of Europe murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children...these were not war dead, from collateral damage...these were people rounded up and marched into forests and camps and murdered......

What happens in Europe is not a legal argument in a US court.

 

[2aguy]

What happens in Europe is not a legal argument in a US court.

Didn't say it was....but it is an excellent example of why we will keep our guns......because governments tend to murder their own people when only the government has guns....

 

[ralfy]

"8 killed and 7 wounded in Texas mall shooting. The gunman is also dead"

Eight people were killed in a shooting at an outlet mall near Dallas, and seven victims are being treated at trauma facilities, officials said Saturday night. The gunman, who authorities believe was acting alone, is also dead.

...

In a photo obtained by CNN, the body of what appears to be the gunman is seen on the ground outside a restaurant location at the mall. The gunman, with an AR-15 style weapon nearby, appears to be wearing body armor with several extra magazines attached to chest gear.

 

[Concerned American]

"8 killed and 7 wounded in Texas mall shooting. The gunman is also dead"

Ooooo, an "AR-15 style weapon" Is that democrat speak for big, scary, black gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What happens in Europe is not a legal argument in a US court.

What happens in Europe is not a sound argument for US law.

 

[ralfy]

Ooooo, an "AR-15 style weapon" Is that democrat speak for big, scary, black gun?

I think it was mentioned by the cops.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ooooo, an "AR-15 style weapon" Is that democrat speak for big, scary, black gun?

The media jumped the gun and/or just plain got it wrong enough , it was forced to change its style sheet.

"Weapon of war", I believe, is till the talking point.
I wonder what term they will use next.

 

[2aguy]

The media jumped the gun and/or just plain got it wrong enough , it was forced to change its style sheet.

"Weapon of war", I believe, is till the talking point.
I wonder what term they will use next.

They like weapon of war because they know later, if they can get the AR-15 banned, they can also use "weapon of war," for shotguns and bolt action rifles....actual weapons of war in current use by militaries around the world.....