Illinois bans sales and possession of semi-automatic firearms

[butters]

of course, it will now get taken to the courts but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me; people can still buy and own hand guns with a capacity to hold 15 rounds, rifles 10, with those currently owning the semis to need to register them with the police.

Illinois banned the sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons this week, becoming the ninth state, along with Washington D.C., to enact such a ban. More than two dozen sheriffs say they refuse to enforce it because it’s unconstitutional. Governor J.B. Pritzker says state police will enforce it or they won’t have a job.

Under the law no rifle will be allowed to accommodate more than 10 rounds, and handguns will have a 15-round limit. People who already own such guns will have to register them with the state police. The measure comes in response to the mass shooting last year at the Highland Park Fourth of July parade. The suspect allegedly fired 70 rounds into the crowd. Seven people were killed and dozens more were wounded. Authorities said the rifle used in the shooting was similar to an AR-15 and was legally purchased.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...sedgntp&cvid=51457d01ab664e23bd026c143f2affd9

 

[BluesDriver66]

It's no more unreasonable than banning flame throwers or grenade launchers. How much kill power does one person need? I've yet to hear of an instance where a private citizen came under sustained attack and needed to defend themselves using high capcity, combat zone styled weapons.

 

[HisArpy]

The gov and legislature of Illinois are going to find out that there's an entire world of difference between passing/signing a law and enforcing it.

Right now most of the sheriff's in Illinois are in revolt over this law calling it blatantly unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are void ab initio and don't have to be obeyed or enforced.

 

[HisArpy]

It's no more unreasonable than banning flame throwers or grenades launchers. How much kill power does one person need? I've yet to hear of an instance where a private citizen came under sustained attack and needed to defend themselves using high capcity, combat zone styled weapons.

It's not the Bill of Needs...

 

[BluesDriver66]

The gov and legislature of Illinois are going to find out that there's an entire world of difference between passing/signing a law and enforcing it.

Right now most of the sheriff's in Illinois are in revolt over this law calling it blatantly unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are void ab initio and don't have to be obeyed or enforced.

Last time I checked judges decide what laws are constitutional. Not some Sheriff with little to no legal training.

 

[KeithD]

Good for Illinois. Let's keep chipping away at this uniquely American idiocy.

 

[BluesDriver66]

It's not the Bill of Needs...

"Well regulated militia" mean anything to you? It's right there in the Constitution. Plain as day.

U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[YDB95]

"Well regulated militia" mean anything to you? It's right there in the Constitution. Plain as day.

U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I have HisArpy on ignore, but the gun nuts do have a response to that at the ready. I think it amounts to "in the 18th century that meant the general population" or some such.

 

[HisArpy]

"Well regulated militia" mean anything to you? It's right there in the Constitution. Plain as day.

U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Lol.

DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). You should read it before you show off that pet ignoramus you keep in your pocket any further.

There's even a wiki page on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

For those too lazy to click:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia...

 

[HisArpy]

I have HisArpy on ignore, but the gun nuts do have a response to that at the ready. I think it amounts to "in the 18th century that meant the general population" or some such.

Lookie, someone else who is an owner of an ignoramus pocket pet.

 

[HisArpy]

Last time I checked judges decide what laws are constitutional. Not some Sheriff with little to no legal training.

Yet those exact same Sheriff's are the ones you expect to enforce "the law."

I wonder how they can do that with what you say is "little to no legal training." Could it be that you speak out of both sides of your mouth on this? And that the reason you do it is because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but you know that you disagree with my position on principle, so you just "wing it" and say the opposite of whatever I say?


By the way, as of this morning, 80 Illinois county Sheriff's are refusing to enforce the law at issue. It's pretty sad when law enforcement officials refuse to obey official edicts which trample on the rights of the citizens and those who made or support those edicts refuse to understand where they fucked up.

 

[Bray123]

Yup, if you can pick and choose bits of the Bible there's nothing wrong with doing the same to the constitution. How is a redneck supposed to feel important without a lethal gun in his pocket?

 

[phrodeau]

Weapons pour into Illinois from Indiana and Missouri.

 

[HisArpy]

Yup, if you can pick and choose bits of the Bible there's nothing wrong with doing the same to the constitution. How is a redneck supposed to feel important without a lethal gun in his pocket?

This statements shows a gigantic misunderstanding of rednecks in general. They don't feel important because they have a gun, they feel comforted because they know the bible. They need the gun to protect themselves from idjits like you who want to take away both their bible and their guns.

 

[Bray123]

It's always good when the Sheriff can decide which laws are 'unconstitutional' and thus not bother with them - or enforce the opposite. They can say that an election was 'unconstitutional' when their side loses. Or that equal rights to education or voting is. Then we get officers lined up outside schools in Alabama or outside voting stations in Georgia deciding who goes inside.

 

[Bray123]

They need the gun to protect themselves from idjits like you who want to take away both their bible and their guns.

Exactly. Poor little snowflakes. There there, have a pat on the head and you'll feel better.

 

[HisArpy]

Exactly. Poor little snowflakes. There there, have a pat on the head and you'll feel better.

So you admit that your plan is to dispossess the people of their rights under the law and Constitution?

Putting that out there so everyone can see it and understand what a scumbag you turned out to be is probably not your best idea, but then neither are the other brainless thoughts you seem to be fond of.

 

[HisArpy]

It's always good when the Sheriff can decide which laws are 'unconstitutional' and thus not bother with them - or enforce the opposite. They can say that an election was 'unconstitutional' when their side loses. Or that equal rights to education or voting is. Then we get officers lined up outside schools in Alabama or outside voting stations in Georgia deciding who goes inside.

Lol, you know who is charged with enforcing the law? Law enforcement. Those Sheriff's and police officers you want to defund yet have handy in case the unwashed masses show up at your door with pitchforks and torches.

Newsflash you brainless idiot; the cops are the ones who enforce the law. Not the popular laws you want enforce, ALL of the law. That includes the laws which prohibit things like new laws which declare that a person doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms.

When your new law violates the old law, which is supreme to your new law, then the sheriff has a choice. He can refuse to enforce the new ILLEGAL law, or he can arrest you for violating the old law (and maybe 1 or 2 other laws like Sec 1983).

Now let's talk about how States have sovereign immunity and legislative immunity and see if you can find anything which shields anyone from a felony committed with or through the power and authority of their government status.

 

[Rightguide]

of course, it will now get taken to the courts but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me; people can still buy and own hand guns with a capacity to hold 15 rounds, rifles 10, with those currently owning the semis to need to register them with the police.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...sedgntp&cvid=51457d01ab664e23bd026c143f2affd9

The law is unconstitutional and will be reversed, period.

 

[HisArpy]

The law is unconstitutional and will be reversed, period.

It's void ab initio. The judicial ruling will only underscore that.

Personally I'd like to see one of those 80 Sheriff's and their DA grow a pair and arrest and prosecute some people over it. They might not win, but they'd show the government officials involved that they aren't free to do whatever they want, they answer to the people and are subject to the laws themselves.

 

[Bray123]

So you admit that your plan is to dispossess the people of their rights under the law and Constitution?

Putting that out there so everyone can see it and understand what a scumbag you turned out to be is probably not your best idea, but then neither are the other brainless thoughts you seem to be fond of.

I have no such plans. The snowflakes are afraid of the thought, pushed by the MAGAs. But every time the gun manufacturers want to boost sales they manufacture a story that the CommieLibs want to take their killing sticks, so they rush out and buy more machine guns. Just to own the CommieLibs.

This week we have the extremist right wing politicians sniggering about how they've pushed the poorly educated into buying more guns, while complaining about the price of eggs.

 

[Bray123]

Lol, you know who is charged with enforcing the law? Law enforcement. Those Sheriff's and police officers you want to defund yet have handy in case the unwashed masses show up at your door with pitchforks and torches.

Newsflash you brainless idiot; the cops are the ones who enforce the law. Not the popular laws you want enforce, ALL of the law. That includes the laws which prohibit things like new laws which declare that a person doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms.

When your new law violates the old law, which is supreme to your new law, then the sheriff has a choice. He can refuse to enforce the new ILLEGAL law, or he can arrest you for violating the old law (and maybe 1 or 2 other laws like Sec 1983).

Now let's talk about how States have sovereign immunity and legislative immunity and see if you can find anything which shields anyone from a felony committed with or through the power and authority of their government status.

Law Enforcement was charged with enforcing the 18th amendment and the 21st. The sheriff can / must decide which one is constitutional. but the only ones going round with pitchforks and torches are the snowflake rednecks.

 

[HisArpy]

I have no such plans. The snowflakes are afraid of the thought, pushed by the MAGAs. But every time the gun manufacturers want to boost sales they manufacture a story that the CommieLibs want to take their killing sticks, so they rush out and buy more machine guns. Just to own the CommieLibs.

This week we have the extremist right wing politicians sniggering about how they've pushed the poorly educated into buying more guns, while complaining about the price of eggs.

So, you're saying that Illinois didn't just enact a gun registry/gun ban and that the story is nothing but a marketing campaign by the gun lobby to sell more guns?


Lol.

 

[Bray123]

So, you're saying that Illinois didn't just enact a gun registry/gun ban and that the story is nothing but a marketing campaign by the gun lobby to sell more guns?


Lol.

No.
For a 'lawyer' you have poor reading and comprehension skills.

 

[Rightguide]

It's void ab initio. The judicial ruling will only underscore that.

Personally I'd like to see one of those 80 Sheriff's and their DA grow a pair and arrest and prosecute some people over it. They might not win, but they'd show the government officials involved that they aren't free to do whatever they want, they answer to the people and are subject to the laws themselves.

I'd love to see that as well. Those officials are violating their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. As it stands right now the Governor, the legislature of Illinois and any civil officer enforcing this law are in defiance of the SCOTUS.