Supreme Court Ruling To End All Nationwide “Assault Weapon” & Magazine Bans Put In Motion

MSN ^ | 04/27/2024 | Mercedes Kelly

[Lazamataz]

In a recent development, multiple cases challenging state bans on so-called assault weapons are now appealing for immediate Supreme Court review. A recent YouTube video shared that these legal battles, with implications far beyond their state boundaries, have taken a pivotal step forward, driven by what many are calling a critical mistake by the state of Illinois in response to these lawsuits. Here’s the full story.

The State of Illinois, like many others, has faced legal challenges to its bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. However, in a strategic move, supporters of the Second Amendment have leveraged these disputes to seek direct intervention from the nation’s highest court. The focus is now on six cases from Illinois, each petitioning for urgent Supreme Court review.

The cases in question include NAGR v. Naperville, Harrell v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul, GOA v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and Herrera v. Raoul. These cases collectively represent a concerted effort to challenge Illinois’ stringent gun laws, which have long been a point of disagreement among gun rights advocates.

Anthony Miranda from Armed Scholar shared that in response to these petitions, the State of Illinois made a critical error that could shape the course of these legal battles. The state argued that rifles like the AR-15 are not arms under the Second Amendment’s text, thereby justifying their restrictions. Miranda added that this bold assertion has sparked outrage among Second Amendment defenders and legal experts alike.

[MtnClimber]

Is it in the Bill of Rights or not?

[Ciaphas Cain]

The state’s rationale is, to use a word occasionally employed in such matters, specious. To a wild degree.

[Alas Babylon!]

The state argued that rifles like the AR-15 are not arms under the Second Amendment’s text...

Idiots!

They are absolutely arms. Scary arms they want to ban, maybe, but still arms in the legal definition of things that are carried, aimed, fired and go boom!

Oxford dictionary:

arms
[ärmz]
noun
weapons and ammunition; armaments:
"arms exports" · "they were subjugated by force of arms"
Similar:
weaponry
firearms
guns
ordnance
cannon
artillery

[William of Barsoom]

(I use vernacular for efficiency. Split hairs later, please.)

If an “Ar-15” isn’t a GUN, just what IS it?

[freepersup]

I’m in juxtaposition with regards to a high capacity ammunition magazine ban “in a related situation” in California, where the statwide ban is currently under the court’s review in CA... Duncan v. Bonta is being decided en banc by the CA Supreme Court. I’m not Duncan nor Bonta, just an interested third party needing to retrieve some things from a particular municipal police department.

In related news, Washington State’s Supreme Court just ruled against high capacity ammunition magazine possession by the citizens.

[Fai Mao]

“If an “Ar-15” isn’t a GUN, just what IS it?”

A liberal elimination device

[V_TWIN]

“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” MEANS EXACTLY THAT

https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2022/06/23/shall-not-be-infringed-means-exactly-that/

However the Obiden regime has sent a message when they have essentially ignored the decision that student loan debt cannot be forgiven.

And that message is EFF YOU SCOTUS

[lurk]

Next step, completely ignoring SCOTUS.

[Disambiguator]

AR-15s are scary because they’re not scary.

They are:

Ergonomic
Easy to train on
Lightweight (until you accessorize the crap out them)
Easily adjustable for different size shooters
When chambered in 5.56, unintimidating to shoot
Modular
Easy to maintain
Inexpensive
Blessed with a large aftermarket so you can build one just how you like it

From a civilian perspective, what’s not to like?

Leftist totalitarians hate them for these reasons.

[faithhopecharity]

“.....shall not be infringed...”

there is no other particular kind of personal property that is Constitutionally protected
and
there is no other Constitutionally-recognized individual liberty that is so emphatically protected as “shall not be infringed”

---

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

[hanamizu]

“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” MEANS EXACTLY THAT”

---

I like the way the Hawaii Supreme Court handled it. “We read the words differently.”
/s

[MeganC]

“Next step, completely ignoring SCOTUS.”

Hawaii is doing exactly that. They say their gun control is based on the “Aloha spirit” which trumps the Constitution.

[Reno89519]

Need reaffirmation of Bill of Rights for all citizens in all states. No abborgation upon crossing state lines.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

A medical device.
Syringe for leadicillin.

[CFW]

“2A Groups Make Final Pitch for SCOTUS to Address Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban”

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/04/27/2a-groups-make-final-pitch-for-scotus-to-address-illinois-assault-weapons-ban-n1224675

“San Antonio Police Sgt. Says Defensive Gun Uses are Becoming More Common”

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/04/26/san-antonio-police-sgt-says-defensive-gun-uses-are-becoming-more-common-n1224670

[frank ballenger]

How many times has “shall not be infringed” been stepped on, trampled and ground down?

Need for registration, concealed carry restrictions, fees for applications, background checks must be completed before a gun is purchased, new attacks recently made on gun manufacturers and on sales at gun shows, bans on “dangerous” and “unusual” weapons, restrictions on guns in various places like schools and government buildings, 1994-2004 “assault weapons ban”, and more.

One state even tried to have people prove they were members of a well-regulated militia.
Time Magazine: In 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller the Court essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”

It did not however nullify other gun control provisions.

[kawhill]

Here is my right to keep and bear arms per the 4th Amendment to the Kansas Constitution. The verbiage doesn’t include anything about magazine size or the type of arm I can own, be it a blackpowder flintlock rifle or an M240. I think it should become an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

§ 4. Individual right to bear arms; armies. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

[MileHi]

District of Columbia v. Heller the Court essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939.

Heller corrected 70 years of lower courts lying about what Miller decided.

[frank ballenger]

Thanks.