Illinois city bans assault weapons (any semi-auto), imposes fines up to $1,000 per day

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So you're telling me that his opinions on things like abortion and gay issues were not influenced by religion in any way shape or form? I don't buy that.

No, I am telling you that one need not be religious to hold those beliefs. I wasn't always a Christian, but I have always believed that a child should not be murdered for convenience. Just because he is a Christian does not automatically dictate his opinions. He is also a Supreme Court Justice, sworn (on a Bible) to uphold the Constitution in his decisions.

I kind of doubt Gorsuch would agree with that.

You're probably right. I wonder if that could have anything to do with his experience (or lack of such) with the plant?

Nah, couldn't be... has to be because he read a book.

Well, you certainly can use it as a generality.

True enough, but we're not talking about a generality; we are talking about one man. If we were discussing a group, then we might could predict the majority opinions of that group, but the smaller the sample size becomes, the less accurate and reliable those predictions become. Neil Gorsuch is the smallest sample size possible.

This man is not a libertarian. Maybe that's awesome for you but it's worrying for someone like me.

I have been described as a libertarian before, so don't assume I will oppose a libertarian decision. I generally don't seem to fit any stereotypes, sorry. I believe what I believe, and the basics of what I believe has not changed in almost 40 years. Smaller government, restricted to their duties as defined in the Constitution, with enforcement of reasonable laws irrelevant to who those laws are being enforced upon.

I cannot stand Gary Johnson, though.

If that makes me a libertarian in your mind, so be it. If it makes me a Christian conservative in your mind, so be it. Just don't expect me to follow those stereotypes.

TheRedneck

Well, all of this just to evade the fact that Trump's (and GWB's) SC picks could very well end up being a drastic departure from what we had with Scalia and the old court.

This exchange began with someone mentioning a SC decision that happened during the Bush administration. I pointed out this is not the same court as it was then. Regardless of what we think these newer justices are going to do, we won't know for sure that they aren't going to screw us until it's all said and done.

This entire thing with the gun issue is not looking good from any angle. And that's just my 3 cents.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Ah, when you said 'jus ruled' I thought it was something more recent.

Yes, I am aware of this one, it did take place however in another circuit court which is why I said the Cook County case, or maybe a state-level case against Illinois, is what's needed. A local municipality would still require someone to sue in each of those to get 40+ ordinances repealed.

a reply to: SailorJerry

It's not the laws, but how they are enforced that matters...

a reply to: SailorJerry

It's unfortunate how assault rifles are thought of as scary, but the total murders committed per year with all rifles combined is extremely low given the population size. It's typically less than 400 per year.

source: ucr.fbi.gov... rder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Xcathdra


Ah, when you said 'jus ruled' I thought it was something more recent.

Yes, I am aware of this one, it did take place however in another circuit court which is why I said the Cook County case, or maybe a state-level case against Illinois, is what's needed. A local municipality would still require someone to sue in each of those to get 40+ ordinances repealed.

The case I cited is from 2016 and is a US Supreme Court ruling.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The case I cited is from 2016 and is a US Supreme Court ruling.

I understand that, however it originated in another circuit which means a case from the Seventh Circuit Court will need to make its way up to the Supreme Court.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I remember that ruling, I also remember being somewhat stunned that she had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to finally get the verdict that should have been handed down in the first place.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The case I cited is from 2016 and is a US Supreme Court ruling.

I understand that, however it originated in another circuit which means a case from the Seventh Circuit Court will need to make its way up to the Supreme Court.

It is a US Supreme Court ruling. It applies to all states / territories and all court systems.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Xcathdra

I remember that ruling, I also remember being somewhat stunned that she had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to finally get the verdict that should have been handed down in the first place.

There is a saying in law enforcement.

You never want your actions to become negative case law.

Apparently prosecutors have a different view on that. But hey, if prosecutors are going to play stupid games they will win stupid prizes. Not to mention a Supreme Court ruling that removes latitude from activist judges.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

It is a US Supreme Court ruling. It applies to all states / territories and all court systems.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread the Supreme Court did not take the case of someone in a neighboring township and with their decision in the case you cited coming after their decision to not take the case it's a bit of a mixed signal. They let the 7th verdict stand while overturning another circuit court's decision. Something needs to go back up to them out of Illinois so they can comment on it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

It is a US Supreme Court ruling. It applies to all states / territories and all court systems.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread the Supreme Court did not take the case of someone in a neighboring township and with their decision in the case you cited coming after their decision to not take the case it's a bit of a mixed signal. They let the 7th verdict stand while overturning another circuit court's decision. Something needs to go back up to them out of Illinois so they can comment on it.

The Supreme Court ruling in Heller allowed for government the ability to regulate weapons up to a point. The case I referred to never dealt with gun restriction. Under Mass law they defined what a firearm is and is not. It was that approach that got the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional. The definition of firearm was defined by Scotus to mean any bearable arm.

In the case of Illinois law they fell into the same mindset Massachusetts did. Illinois defined what a firearm is with regards to an assault rifle.

Problem 1 - violation of Caetano ruling.

The ordinance defines the term assault weapon to include semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, or shotguns with a revolving cylinder. It also includes conversion kits and goes on to name specific rifles such as the Uzi, AK-47 and AR-15, among others.

problem 1 for Illinois - A firearm is any bearable arms.

Problem 2 - violation of Heller

The new ordinance says that because assault weapons have been used in numerous mass shootings, present unique dangers to law enforcement, and are not “reasonably necessary to protect an individual’s right to self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” those weapons will be banned from the village.

problem 2 for Illinois - Under the Heller ruling the 2nd amendment was defined as applying to the individual. It also states the right to bear arms by an individual is unconnected to a well regulated militia.

Finally the decision in McDonald was overturned by the court and remanded. The 7th circuit court of appeals had their ruling overturned.

Also - from McDonald where they defined how guns could lawfully be restricted to the individual.

Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "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"

This is not the first time Illinois / Chicago has had their laws / city ordinances on this topic have run into legal problems. Most of the gun control cases by the 7th and SCOTUS come directly from Illinois and Chicago. The last effort (Chicago) was to mandate people receive firearms training before being able to purchase/possess a firearm. Chicago then also banned shooting ranges from inside city limits. Chicago argued people could go to the suburbs to receive the training. That was declared unconstitutional and was equated by the court of banning freedom of speech inside a city and then arguing people could go to another city to speak their minds.

Based on the case law I see the laws / ordinances from Illinois/Chicago as being ruled unconstitutional and in violation of Heller / McDonald and Caetano.

Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Based on the case law I see the laws / ordinances from Illinois/Chicago as being ruled unconstitutional and in violation of Heller / McDonald and Caetano.

I agree, however they need a case to work it's way up the court system again which is what I said earlier.