Why Illinois’ new assault weapons ban might not hold up in court

Chicago S-T ^ | 14 jan2023 | Frank Main and Tina Sfondeles

[rellimpank]

Illinois’ new assault weapons ban is only days old, but it’s already on uncertain legal footing.

Republican lawmakers and gun shop owners say so. But so do constitutional law scholars.

Illinois Democrats who crafted the legislation — which took effect Tuesday and was enacted in response to the Highland Park Fourth of July parade mass shooting in which seven people were killed — say they’ve balanced safety concerns with Second Amendment arguments over individuals’ right to bear arms.

But a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year could upend the new law and other gun restrictions elsewhere, legal scholars say.

In that ruling, justices said lower-court judges no longer can decide on the constitutionality of gun laws on the basis of modern concerns about public safety.

“The Supreme Court has completely transformed the way Second Amendment cases get litigated,” said Eric Ruben, a Southern Methodist University assistant law professor who focuses on gun issues.

Illinois is the ninth state to have passed a law banning assault weapons.

Legal challenges to bans in California and Maryland are pending before federal appeals courts and would be the most likely ones to be heard by the Supreme Court, according to Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.

[rellimpank]

--maybe (in a few years)

[rellimpank]

—and—

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/2a-groups-brace-to-fight-atf-register-or-surrender-demand-on-40m-guns/ar-AA16luqH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b68354e87d89441482251aeb3bf6bb7a

[muir_redwoods]

I think a gun ban of any sort is problematic, SCOTUS has applied a test that gun laws must be consistent with limits in place at the time of the inclusion of the second amendment into the constitution.

I am unaware of any bans on types of firearms at that time.

[SunkenCiv]

• Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Says Crime Plan 'Working' While Major Crime Rises 41% in 2022 [01/12/2023]
• Democrat Gov. Signs Illinois' Ban on Commonly Owned Semiautomatic Rifles, Magazines [01/12/2023]
• County Sheriffs in Illinois refusing to enforce new gun law [01/12/2023]
• District of Columbia: Homeowner who shot and killed 13-year-old boy at 4am after seeing him acting suspiciously around cars is a black government employee with a concealed carry permit, mayor reveals after outraged locals demanded to [01/12/2023]
• GOP lawmakers, NRA slam ATF rule to regulate pistol braces: 'Unconstitutional overreach' [01/14/2023]
• Most Progressives Hate America and Most are Racists [01/13/2023]
• The warning signs are everywhere, we ignore them at our peril [01/13/2023]
• Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot says political outreach email to teachers was a 'mistake,' blames staffer [01/13/2023]

[ping jockey]

well cause it’s gainst the law.

[gundog]

SCOTUS has applied a test that gun laws must be consistent with limits in place at the time of the inclusion of the second amendment into the constitution.

That opens the door to antis-, who will then argue that the Second should only protect weapons which existed at that time. The unthinking public will lap up that argument.

[Let's Roll]

I saw an article yesterday that said several Illinois sheriffs were not going to enforce the ban.

[rellimpank]

—and—

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illinois-governor-sheriffs-spar-over-semiautomatic-gun-law/ar-AA16jQde?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b68354e87d89441482251aeb3bf6bb7a

[traderrob6]

“In that ruling, justices said lower-court judges no longer can decide on the constitutionality of gun laws on the basis of modern concerns about public safety.”

As if it were EVER valid to do so. If that was or is such a major concern then pass an amendment to the constitution.

[faithhopecharity]

1. 99 percent will ignore it
2. it is just another patently unconstitutional effort to disarm American citizens like their were living in Germany of 1938
3. it is as stupid as a day-old moose turd, anyway

[DownInFlames]

17 and counting.

[Wonder Warthog]

"That opens the door to antis-, who will then argue that the Second should only protect weapons which existed at that time. The unthinking public will lap up that argument."

Already been thrown against the wall...multiple times...hasn't stuck yet.

[hanamizu]

I am unaware of any bans on types of firearms at that time.

---

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon...” —Joe Biden, top of his class at law school.

/s

[rickomatic]

SCOTUS has applied a test that gun laws must be consistent with limits in place at the time of the inclusion of the second amendment into the constitution. That opens the door to antis-, who will then argue that the Second should only protect weapons which existed at that time. The unthinking public will lap up that argument.

Nope. The Supreme Court has already addressed that in rulings. The 2nd Amendment applies to "guns in common use". Even the ATF has stated that in some of their rulings.

[moovova]

When does SCOTUS get fed up with Illinois’s crap and just slap on a restraining order banning them from ever instituting a new gun law unless it’s been cleared thru SCOTUS first!

[gundog]

So, we play lawfare. Oregon has petition initiative referenda, which allows for direct democracy. We currently have a draconian gun law pending.

[CurlyDave]

That opens the door to antis-, who will then argue that the Second should only protect weapons which existed at that time. The unthinking public will lap up that argument.

The Supremes have already considered that argument, and it has failed. Modern weapons are covered by the 2A.

[gundog]

With 10 round magazines, in many cases.

[M1903A1]

They’ve already tried making that claim. In which case the First Amendment applies only to quill pens and manual printing presses.

[Ancesthntr]

“That opens the door to antis-, who will then argue that the Second should only protect weapons which existed at that time. The unthinking public will lap up that argument. ”
——————
The public can lap it up all they want, it doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court has already stated that such limitations are unconstitutional, and that the 2nd Amendment protects any firearm in common use. Such an argument would allow the government to censor any form of communication other than primitive printing presses, and that is clearly not the case. For that matter, the government could regulate or ban any religion not in existence in 1791, and that is also clearly not permitted.