Posted on 11/03/2023 2:54:43 PM PDT by CFW
On the face of it, Friday’s decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an injunction against enforcement of Illinois’ recently enacted ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines doesn’t change circumstances on the ground. The three-judge panel that issued today’s decision had previously stayed U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s injunction while the state appealed, so the law has been in effect throughout litigation.
Still, the 2-1 decision does matter, both because it provides an opportunity for some or all of the plaintiffs to appeal on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court and because it will undoubtedly be cited by other anti-gun judges around the country, including those on the Ninth Circuit panel hearing the appeal of Judge Roger Benitez’s decision striking down California’s ban on “assault weapons.”
I won’t have a chance to do a deep dive into the opinion until this weekend, but one thing immediately stuck out to me as I was giving a quick look-over. The three-judge panel concluded that AR-15s (and presumably semi-automatic rifles in general) are not protected by the Second Amendment because they’re too close to machine guns:
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
Meanwhile,
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/11/03/self-defense-gun-sales-up-in-october-n76904
“Self-Defense Concerns Drive Gun Sales in October, 51 Straight Months of More Than 1-Million Transfers”
THIS is a legal argument?
Pritzker is too close to a whale but I don't hold THAT against him.
They always have a choice, and the California Miller v. Bonta case hasn't been through the 9th yet, so I think SCOTUS will wait until they overturn Judge Benitez (again) before consolidating both cases.
SCOTUS already remanded Miller v. Bonta once to the 9th with orders to reconsider in light of Bruen.
If the 9th comes up with the same conclusion 'in light of Bruen,' then SCOTUS will take it up and set a precedent for the nation.
“THIS is a legal argument?”
Yep. That’s their argument. Stupidity and ignorance! We are surrounded by it!
From the opinion:
“Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and militarygrade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude). Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun. The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways. Both weapons share the same core design, and both rely on the same patented operating system.”
Talk about just making up your own "facts". And they show their ignorance of all things firearms.
Sounds like a slippery slope to me. So the National Firearms Act of 1934 essential outlawed machine guns. Now they want to outlaw semiautomatic weapons. Next will be revolvers, followed by single shot firearms. Slippery slopes work two ways and should not be the basis of constitutional arguments. But I am fine with the slippery slope going the opposite direction. Let me buy a machine gun without the tax stamp. Then I want to buy TOW missiles. If I live long enough I want to be able to buy tactical nuclear weapons to clean up blue cities.
Yes. Of course they have a choice. And the Circuits with the progressive judges always take their sweet time in issuing their rulings so as to delay the case from making it to SCOTUS.
I don’t recall the constitution making an exception for “AR-15s” just that the right to bear arms shall be uninfringed.
https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1720548034839531760
One Excerpt:
Alright, a quick reaction thread. The majority first, written by Judge Woods and joined by Judge Easterbrook.His quotes from the opinion and his reactions are a multi-Tweet thread. Excellent reading.
Already off to a horrible start. What falls outside the Second Amendment's protected "arms" has nothing to do with a "military side". Plenty of firearms the military uses now or has used in the past are common among American civilians.
"Arms" refers to "weapons of offence, or armor of defence". There is no qualifications about exempting those arms used by soldiers.
The contempt for Heller and its progeny is palpable.
Remember that their "many years" is just from around the 1930s to 2008. In the 19th century, all major commentators agreed that the Second Amendment applied to an individual right.
Apparently the framers did not distinguish between ‘protected’ and ‘unprotected’ arms. I guess that is up to the tyrants in robes.
There are 24M of these type of guns in private hands in the US
COME AND GET THEM..........................
And we can't have simi auto because they are to much like military weapons...
What weapons are good for preserving a free state ...?
The 2nd is not about hunting or self protection.
No real difference between a Remington Model 8 made in 1906, a Winchester model 1903 or an AR-15. Just the looks.
“SCOTUS will have to take this case. They will have no choice.”
And the 2nd Amendment is so clear, I don’t see how they can do anything but rule correctly.
I like what the Georgia State Supreme Court ruled about firearms in 1846.
* Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
I bet the people of Israel wish they had a 2nd Amendment now. I remember a couple of years back when anti-communist protestors in Hong Kong held up a sign stating “WE NEED THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
Once again the rats prove they are the enemy of all real Americans.
They are still butthurt over the Roe vs Wade being overturned by using the actual law, the US Constitution they hate so much because it gets in the way of their Marxist takeover.
Where did these fags come up with that BS. From a USA Today Fart Checker?
However, 155mm howitzers are nowhere near a machinegun. Therefore, I want one those babies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.