The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    What exact situation do you expect to get into where a shotgun, handgun, and/or hunting rifle is insufficient for the task? This isn’t a movie.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Intermediate .22 caliber semiautomatic rifles excel in home defense applications.

      They are softer to fire shotguns or bolt action rifles and can be fired more accurately with less training than pistols as you have a stock to stabilize them.

      And their cartridges are designed for high velocity low weight projectiles which have a lesser capacity to penetrate walls and injury those beyond them than it’s alternatives.

      It’s not a matter of which options could be sufficient. It’s a matter of which options are best.

          • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Who ruled on the constitutionality of a law passed by elected members of government. It’s not like they made it up. Is “they” the people who elected the politicians who voted for the law? Seems like a lot of “theys.” Are you sure you don’t just hold an extremist belief about guns that most people in Illinois seem to want legislation to protect themselves from?

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you read the article the court didn’t rule that the actual law was constitutional. The court’s ruling was that there was no constitutional issue with the law particularly as it related to the equal protection clause. This ruling doesn’t mean that there isn’t any other constitutional issues that arise from it, such as 2a or 4a violations.

              • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not “unconstitutional until proven constitutional” lol

                You clearly think this law is unconstitutional and hasn’t been shown to be constitutional yet but that’s just not how laws work.

                • FireTower@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t believe this law Would survive the Bruen test. I’m not suggesting that every law must be proven to be constitutional in court before it may be employed. I was stating that the question at had in the court wasn’t if it was constitutional or not it was whether it violated the Equal Protections Clause. Which the court found it didn’t violate.

                  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Where is the equal protection clause written

                    Edit: cause you keep replying and deleting or Lemmy is being weird I’ll just answer my own rhetorical question. The 14th amendment of the constitution. It’s a ruling that the law doesn’t violate the 14th amendment of the Constitution. there are parts of the constitution other than the second amendment - hard to believe I know, but they are also in there. And rulings on those grounds are just as constitutional.

            • Torvum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Pritzker then also passed a bill that lawsuits regarding this anti-gun bill (among others) could only be tried in the courts of Chicago and Springfield, the only two courts willing to allow this dogshit. Right, it was really a fair trial.

              I’m from Illinois, every county outside those has stated their dislike and contempt for this law enough that sheriffs have made mention they will not zealously enforce this. It is overwhelmingly a hated bill and there are piles upon piles of lawsuits in the lower courts that are now invalidated thanks to Pritzker’s bullshit. They will be up for federal review and hearings on why the upper courts have made this faulty judgement despite the contempt, citing those lawsuits.

              I’m sure it was also a coincidence that right after it was passed, the Pritzker family made notice they would be building a giant megaplex gun range and firearm museum directly on the border in Wisconsin where the banned items would be available for rent.

              • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So most of the people in the state support the law, but the land outside of those cities doesn’t? Sounds like voting worked.

                I’ll be waiting with bated breath for the giant scandal coming out of Illinois. Sounds like these Pritzkers have subverted the entire state court system, what a big scandal. Any day now that very real and not at all made up scandal is gonna come to light. Aaaaaany day