Summary

A federal judge in Illinois ruled the state’s ban on semiautomatic weapons unconstitutional, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that reinforce Second Amendment rights.

Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a permanent injunction against the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, but delayed its enforcement for 30 days to allow for appeal.

The law, enacted after a 2022 mass shooting in Highland Park, faced opposition from gun rights advocates and some local sheriffs.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul promptly appealed the ruling, with Gov. J.B. Pritzker expressing confidence the ban will ultimately be upheld.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      Banning arms in common use is unconstitutional. Like it or not, these arms are in common use.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          It’s not a ban on ownership

          According to the AP, it is most certainly a ban on ownership. “Illinois banned the sale or possession of semiautomatic weapons”. This is the core reason the law was overturned, it’s unconstitutional to ban arms in common use.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If they are banned, then they won’t be in common use, so it would be constitutional.

        If you think my logic is flawed then you understand exactly why the supreme Court’s ruling is flawed.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why don’t you provide everyone from as early as the age of 5 with a rocket launcher to protect themselves with. Then everyone will be safe.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    He’s not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear some kinds of arms”, it just says “keep and bear arms”.

    It also says “a well-regulated militia”, but that’s a separate issue. The Heller decision’s torture of the text was absurd. Limiting the rights of the people unconnected with a militia does not inhibit a well-regulated militia.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I have read arguments that in the language of the day “well regulated” meant “in good working order.”