IL Legislature passes anti everything bill

[fishgutzy]

The antis keep asking words that cannot be found in Miller or Bruen.
"for self defense" doesn't follow "in common use."
Liberal side of SCOTUS did the same thing in KELO. They changed "public use" to "public benefit" to rationalize gov't taking private property from one party and giving it to another private party.


Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

[pcfixer]

Here’s the petition for rehearing en banc

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1700262891/2023.11.17_141_En_Banc_Petition.pdf?1700262891

quoted

In short, the panel opinion thumbs its nose at Supreme Court precedent at every turn, in service of largely nullifying a fundamental constitutional right. That more than suffices to justify review by the full Court.

 

[Bob A]

Here’s the petition for rehearing en banc

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1700262891/2023.11.17_141_En_Banc_Petition.pdf?1700262891

An easy and satisfying read. Thanks for posting.

 

[King Chicken]

No threaded barrels or pistol grips. Registry... Somehow I missed this. So brazen.

ISP unveils proposed changes to assault weapons ban rules

There is more clarity now on how police plan to enforce the state’s assault weapons ban and registry.

www.wgem.com

“There has to be a limit to the kinds of weapons that people can keep in their homes and we have lots that are available to people, lots of weapons to protect yourself, and those that are available for sporting use,” Pritzker said.

 

[Doctor_M]

These guys will NEVER be satisfied. They truly want to ban every civilian firearm and even when they've done that, they will continue to nibble away at any right of self defense (throw a vase at a burglar, go to jail for assault).

Illinois Nazis.... I hate Illinois Nazis... and California ones, and New York ones, and D.C. ones, and Maryland ones too.

 

[Sundazes]

These guys will NEVER be satisfied. They truly want to ban every civilian firearm and even when they've done that, they will continue to nibble away at any right of self defense (throw a vase at a burglar, go to jail for assault).

View attachment 443826

Illinois Nazis.... I hate Illinois Nazis... and California ones, and New York ones, and D.C. ones, and Maryland ones too.

So true. I am concerned with the MGA this session. Hopefully they will attach the crime problem and not lawful citizens.

 

[jc1240]

So true. I am concerned with the MGA this session. Hopefully they will attach the crime problem and not lawful citizens.

Hahhaa....you hitting the spiked egg nog this morning?

 

[Sundazes]

Hahhaa....you hitting the spiked egg nog this morning?

OK, so you caught me.

 

[Slackdaddy]

So true. I am concerned with the MGA this session. Hopefully they will attach the crime problem and not lawful citizens.

Surely you joust ???
The MGA tackle the crime problem?? The MGA IS the crime problem.
Think about it, The MGA refuses to jail repeat violent felons,, hell 2 years ago within 1 hour they shot down a bill that would put violent felons in jail,, AND passed a bill to take firearms from lawful citizens

 

[krucam]

The Petition for rehearing en banc was denied.

Next up One First…

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1702310785/Herrera_-_2023.12.11_139_ORDER_Denying_En_Banc.pdf?1702310785

 

[SWO Daddy]

So what are the chances that SCOTUS takes this? Trying to decide if this is good or bad news for us.

 

[krucam]

If they take it, it would be good news. They have already GVR’d a very similar case with Bianchi.

 

[JohnnyE]

SCOTUS refuses to issue injunction against enforcement. You may need to open in an incognito window to access this article.

U.S. Supreme Court again refuses to block Illinois’ assault weapons ban

The high court had been asked to issue an injunction that would have blocked the year-old law, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

chicago.suntimes.com

 

[Growler215]

So true. I am concerned with the MGA this session. Hopefully they will attach the crime problem and not lawful citizens.

Guess again. The criminals are their favored constituents.

 

[Uncle Duke]

Guess again. The criminals are their favored constituents.

Pathetic, but absolutely true. They're hug a thug central in the MGA.

 

[whistlersmother]

SCOTUS refuses to issue injunction against enforcement. You may need to open in an incognito window to access this article.

U.S. Supreme Court again refuses to block Illinois’ assault weapons ban

The high court had been asked to issue an injunction that would have blocked the year-old law, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

chicago.suntimes.com

The longer SCOTUS waits on 4CA decision in Bianchi, the worse these laws will become. Anti-2A states are emboldened by SCOTUS inaction.

 

[Steel Hunter]

SCOTUS refuses to issue injunction against enforcement. You may need to open in an incognito window to access this article.

U.S. Supreme Court again refuses to block Illinois’ assault weapons ban

The high court had been asked to issue an injunction that would have blocked the year-old law, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

chicago.suntimes.com

It was an emergency request so not all is lost yet. There is no ruling on whether this is constitutional or not yet.

 

[kcbrown]

It was an emergency request so not all is lost yet. There is no ruling on whether this is constitutional or not yet.

And there won’t be for many years, until we lose the majority at SCOTUS. Then a ruling will issue almost immediately and be upheld by SCOTUS.

This also proves that SCOTUS is unconcerned with the “irreparable harm” that arises from infringements of the right to arms. If this had been a 1st Amendment case then the Court would have been all over it. This means that the Court doesn’t actually believe its own claim that Constitutional infringements constitute “irreparable harm”.

Finally, it means that the Court isn’t actually serious when it claims that the 2nd Amendment has the same stature as the rest. It doesn’t, and the Court proves that by its own actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk UI

 

[MattFinals718]

And there won’t be for many years, until we lose the majority at SCOTUS. Then a ruling will issue almost immediately and be upheld by SCOTUS.

This also proves that SCOTUS is unconcerned with the “irreparable harm” that arises from infringements of the right to arms. If this had been a 1st Amendment case then the Court would have been all over it. This means that the Court doesn’t actually believe its own claim that Constitutional infringements constitute “irreparable harm”.

Finally, it means that the Court isn’t actually serious when it claims that the 2nd Amendment has the same stature as the rest. It doesn’t, and the Court proves that by its own actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk UI

Before you go down that rabbit hole, I would watch/listen to this latest Washington Gun Law video first:



You're not completely wrong, but I don't think this is that big of a setback. Yes, we expect SCOTUS to slow-roll proceedings, because what I think we've learned this year is that they're squeamish about offending both sides of the gun control debate. That’s manifesting itself in their refusal to intervene in any 2A cases that haven’t gone completely through all of the checkboxes at the lower courts. It sucks, but it’s also better for their credibility once the cases do reach them.

I also think that you're over-estimating the effects of us losing a majority at SCOTUS (if that happens). It will not be enough for the composition of the court to change - they'd have to re-litigate both the Heller and Bruen decisions. I don't doubt that the strategy in the 4th Circuit and other anti-gun lower courts is to wait for a more anti-2A SCOTUS majority, but I think they're wrong in expecting that it will lead to a significant reversal of our gains.

 

[kcbrown]

You're not completely wrong, but I don't think this is that big of a setback. Yes, we expect SCOTUS to slow-roll proceedings, because what I think we've learned this year is that they're squeamish about offending both sides of the gun control debate. That’s manifesting itself in their refusal to intervene in any 2A cases that haven’t gone completely through all of the checkboxes at the lower courts. It sucks, but it’s also better for their credibility once the cases do reach them.

Their “credibility”? With who? The people who oppose the right to arms are concerned only with outcomes and thus credibility is irrelevant to them. The people who support the right to arms want the right to be treated with the same respect as the rest. By doing this (treating the right to arms worse than the right to speech), the Court loses credibility with the only people who might care about that.

I also think that you're over-estimating the effects of us losing a majority at SCOTUS (if that happens). It will not be enough for the composition of the court to change - they'd have to re-litigate both the Heller and Bruen decisions. I don't doubt that the strategy in the 4th Circuit and other anti-gun lower courts is to wait for a more anti-2A SCOTUS majority, but I think they're wrong in expecting that it will lead to a significant reversal of our gains.

You need to examine the history of 2A litigation and what the anti-2A courts have done. What do you think the 9th Circuit would do if it were the Supreme Court? That is what will happen with a composition change like what I describe.

Yes of course it will lead to a significant reversal. “Regulation” can always be done in such a way as to eliminate the right. The Court need only uphold that and that’ll be that for the right to arms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk