US Court of Appeals Upholds Chicago’s Assault Weapons Ban

chicago assault weapons ban

Bigstock

Just as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban in 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has now upheld Chicago’s prohibition on certain scary-looking black rifles.

This is just the latest example of a lower court thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court’s Heller decision which specifically protects firearms in “common use.” The AR-15 is, of course, the most popular rifle in America with estimates of civilian owned AR platform ranging from about 15 million upwards. And that doesn’t include other covered guns such as AK’s and more.

Here’s the AP’s story . . .

By Michael Tarm

A U.S. appeals court Thursday upheld an assault weapons ban that covers Chicago and the rest of Cook County, Illinois, saying guns rights advocates provided no compelling reason why it should diverge from a previous ruling upholding a similar ban in a Chicago suburb.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments from gun rights lawyers that the ban passed by the Cook County Board of Commissioners should be assessed differently than the ban in the suburb of Highland Park because crime is worse in Cook County, where residents might conclude they required more firepower to defend themselves.

The same Chicago-based court ruled in 2015 that Highland Park’s assault weapons ordinance didn’t run afoul of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, including because its residents could still obtain handguns and other types of firearms for their self-defense.

Thursday’s unanimous, 17-page decision describes the Highland Park ruling as guiding precedent for states within the 7th Circuit that includes the states of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, saying, “We have stated repeatedly, and recently, that, absent a compelling reason, we will not overturn circuit precedent.”

The 2-1 decision in the Highland Park case four years ago found municipalities ought to have leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms.

“If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the 12-page majority opinion said.

The dissenting 7th Circuit judge in the Highland Park case, Daniel Manion, said there were no grounds for prohibiting an entire class of guns.

“The right to self-defense is largely meaningless if it does not include the right to choose the most effective means of defending oneself,” he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to hear the Highland Park case, effectively letting the 7th Circuit ruling stand. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by then-Justice Antonin Scalia, said the 7th Circuit ruling “flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents.”

The nation’s highest court had repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions since two landmark decisions that spelled out the right to a handgun to defend one’s own home.

But the director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, whose lawyers represented two residents who sued Cook County, said its attorneys will likely ask the Supreme Court to reverse Thursday’s 7th Circuit ruling. Richard Pearson said the nation’s high court now leans more conservative following appointments by President Donald Trump and so chances are better it’ll hear an appeal.

All three judges on the 7th Circuit panel signed on to Thursday’s ruling. It included one judge appointed by Trump, Amy St. Eve, and one named to the bench by Ronald Reagan, Kenneth Ripple. The third judge, David Hamilton, was a Bill Clinton appointee.

comments

  1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    No surprise.

    1. avatar Indy Jones says:

      it’s a surprise that the decision was from a majority “conservative” panel

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Conservative is as conservative does.

        1. avatar Araso! says:

          How can AR proponents argue both that the so-called assault rifle is no more dangerous than a wood stocked semi auto ranch rifle yet denying someone an AR is preventing them from choosing the most effective self defense gun.

          Dudes, you cannot have it both ways. Pick a side and stand your ground.

        2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Araso! Back in the ’80s there was a shooting in Palm Bay, FL as well as the FBI/Platt, Matix shootout in Miami. Both involved a Mini-14. There a hue and cry to ban the Mini-14. Then certain versions of the Mini-14 were prohibited by the Slick Willie ban based on nothing but how they looked. Mini-14s would also be banned under every proposed “assault rifle” ban I’ve read. Sir, your argument is moot. Troll elsewhere.

        3. avatar Bob says:

          Araso!,

          It’s matters of degrees. “Assault weapons” tend to be slightly more ergonomic, but not in a way that would significantly increase lethality in mass shooting events (wherein the intent is hitting as many targets as possible). Instead, features like pistol grips, muzzle devices etc. at best make it slightly easier to line up an intentional shot at a single target.

          Put it this way, a miss in a mass shooter event means relatively little- there’s another shot for the devil to take and there’s no specified target. A miss in a home defense situation means everything- even the life of your neighbor or family.

          So while “assault weapon” bans will have a negligible effect on lethality of mass shooters (and here I use AWB as distinct from semi-auto or mag-cap bans, but those are other topics), they may have a more significant effect on the effectiveness of those rifles in home defense.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” “Assault weapons” tend to be slightly more ergonomic, but not in a way that would significantly increase lethality in mass shooting events (wherein the intent is hitting as many targets as possible).”

          You may only be stating that which is possibly correct or persuasive in the minds of experienced gun owners/2A defenders. To the anti-gun crowd, it is the opposite. Those people look at pistol grips as providing the ability to keep hold of a semi-auto during rapid fire (accurate or not). Behind that notion is the idea that a straight stock semi-auto rifle cannot be held at the hip while spraying the target zone. It is the same logic behind the “barrel shroud”, which the anti-gun mob considers an unacceptable accessory that protects the support hand from being burned during rapid fire, where as a non-shrouded barrel (fore stock) will deter a mass shooting for fear of burning the shooter’s hand.

          And of course, having both a pistol grip at the rear of the receiver, and a second, vertical grip under the barrel shroud produces even more controllability during rapid fire.

        5. avatar CarlosT says:

          What difference does control make in a mass shooting? It’s not like those a-holes are aiming.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What difference does control make in a mass shooting? It’s not like those a-holes are aiming.”

          If the attacker doesn’t have adequate control, more bullets will completely miss hitting anyone. That results in fewer injuries and death.

          Aiming isn’t the intent for mass shooters, high death toll is.These weapons of war that fire 100 rounds a second allow loading large capacity clipazines, too. These guns already have a thingy in the back that goes up, as a measure of retaining control of rapid fire. Pistol grips and such enhance the control over what would be possible with out the attachments and pistol grips. Banning attachments to improve rapid fire will reduce the number of school shootings because the shooter won’t be able to produce the body count possible with accessories that improve control over the gun.

          Trying to explain the idiocy of the anti-gun mafia can really hurt your head.

        7. avatar Baseplate says:

          Friggen hogwash CarIos. Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook school shooter carefully aimed his bushmaster AR15 and Glock 20sf at his targets. That’s why 26 people were killed and only two injuries.

        8. avatar Someone says:

          More effective self defense gun doesn’t mean more dangerous gun. Second amendment protects ownership and carry of “arms” without any exceptions for dangerous ones. Military style rifles are also well suited for defense of security of free state.

          They should stop the BS about our right not being infringed as long as we can buy and own some other kind of gun. Is my first amendment right to free speech intact if Chicago (where I currently write this) forbids me to talk about certain ideas, as long as there are other things I can talk about? What about religion? Yahweh is banned, but our 1st amendment rights are not infringed – there is still Baal and Moloch!

  2. avatar Draven says:

    of course they did

  3. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “with estimates of civilian owned AR platform ranging from about 15 million upwards.”

    And they’re not going anywhere…

  4. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    “Absent compelling reason” is a way to conduct law? And to ignore the standards the country was founded upon and has lived by until the “progressives” started meddling. I guess it is if you’re a positivist who doesn’t believe in any metaphysical or a standard in law that is more than the garbage man makes up. They don’t believe in any kind of God higher universal standard such as the 10 commandments or the U.S. Constitution for that matter.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      One not need be religious to understand philosophy and ethics.

      The problem with Progressives has little to do with agnostic or atheist beliefs on divinity and a lot to do with an utter lack of disciplined thinking. They were taught that their feelz are the most important thing. Anyone who believes that feelz are the the pinnacle of urgency will come to adopt a “the ends justify the means so there should be a LAW” attitude.

      You can see exactly that attitude in this ruling. They openly say that better feelz are a “substantial benefit”. The concept of letting people do things that make you uncomfortable or with which you disagree goes out the window when your goal is feeling-centric. As does the notion of doing things that actually make things better.

      If things actually get worse, but people “feel better” then there’s still a “substantial benefit” to society. Sounds like a Mel Brooks movie, but it’s Progrssive doctrine, and has been for ~170 years.

      1. avatar RA-15 says:

        Well put STRYCH9 !!

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Yes, arguing that civil liberties can be stripped for the SUBJECTIVE benefit of some renders all laws which protect individual rights meaningless. Rule of individual officials rather than rule of law, and in a very real sense we are back to the pre-enlightenment era when almost all people lived under one kind of tyranny or another. Welcome to the new feudalism, fellow serfs. Shut up, do what you are told, and you damn well better pay your taxes on time.

      3. avatar Someone says:

        Well said. Let’s not forget why ban of some guns make people feel safer. Unending anti gun propaganda campaign of mainstream media, just as Eric Holded envisioned when he called for brainwashing the populace. That’s very powerful weapon in battle for minds and hearts.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yes, the ‘intermediate scrutiny’ that the court made up so that it could ignore the 2nd Amendment.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      My parents survived the Holocaust, my father had illegal gun which was given to him by a Polish policeman prior to World War II. My father used the gun when the Nazis came, killed one, took his machine gun and wiped out the SS unit. He survived the war linking up with other armed Partisans in the woods and his entire group, hundreds survived the Holocaust. The gun control crowd lies period. The agenda of mass murder and total control of the masses has existed since the dawn of creation. America, you are the last hope for humanity because of your bill of rights. Remember my mother’s words…
      http://amgathering.org/2006/05/1330/2g-ralph-rubinek-a-mothers-day-tribute/

  5. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    Scary looking militia weapons are protected.
    307 US 174 (1939)

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      US v. Miller
      Sorry for the omission

    2. avatar Gman says:

      Exactly. The common use test is absolute bull crapola. The introductory statement in the 2nd Amendment was unanimously cited by the court in Miller as to specifically protect arms of efficacy to the military and hence the People. Just because no one represented Miller the court ruled sawed off shotguns had no efficacy, which would be news to our special forces. The Miller ruling effectively overrules the entire NFA, it simply has never been challenged.

      1. avatar TommyJay says:

        Not just special forces either. US Navy vessels commonly have/had short barrel shotguns for repelling invaders.

  6. avatar Truckman says:

    the judges bank accounts need to be checked

  7. avatar barnbwt says:

    Meh, if that “local criminal firepower” argument was actually the reasoning used in court to strike down the ban (somehow I think that is not an accurate assessment of the arguments; call me crazy), I can see why courts ruled similarly-wrongly to how they had earlier, because that’s a stupid argument.

    Common usage/possession/access by criminals due to the inability of state/local laws to stop the influx of banned weapons from arriving in the first place, as well as ubiquitous usage by police, is a much, much stronger argument, with both Heller and especially Caetano providing very strong support.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      BarnBWT,

      I was thinking the same. The legal argument should have been plain and simple: because it is our right to possess semi-automatic rifles and no “need” is necessary to exercise a fundamental right.

      I don’t “need” to stand on a public sidewalk and hold a sign that says, “The sky is falling.” Does that mean government can prohibit me from doing it — because it makes the community feel safer?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        While I tend to agree with both of you on this there is a problem. The problem is that the “rights” argument doesn’t work. We know this. It’s been tried. A lot.

        I was just reading through a textbook on Comparative Political Economy earlier this week, it’s not one I’d seen before and it summed things up in a pretty decent, if basic, way IMHO. One of the more interesting sections is a comparison of the various schools of thought on political economy. They compare a bunch of schools of thought but the one that jumps out at you is the one they list under “Social Democrats”.

        The jist of it is that Classical Liberals accept the idea that there will always be inequality because people have various natural talents and seek to improve different sets of skills that interest them. Social Democrats seek to smooth out that inequality by declaring certain “necessary” things to be “social goods”. That is a good/product/service “owned” by the society and therefore “nationalized” or “socialized” under the idea of being “for the benefit of all”. Those things that are a “social good” have some declared intrinsic value to everyone and they are considered “rightly” removed from “private ownership”, particularly the means of producing that good. See socialized medicine for an example: the state controls the means of “production” and delivery… for the good of all, supposedly. Now for most people here that’s probably a recap, but…

        One of the more interesting things they point out is that ~20-30 years ago a serious debate erupted among the Social Democrats as to whether or not “safety” should be considered a “social good” just like “healthcare”. I would note that those who argued in the affirmative seem to have won out 15-20 years ago.

        I think that’s part of what you see in a case like this. The “social good” of “safety”, or specifically “feeling safe” is now considered by many in Progressive circles to be understood. As such, there isn’t any “private right” to safety, but there particularly isn’t a private right to the means of producing safety. The means of production can and should be, at very minimum, heavily regulated by the State. When you look at the arguments made for treating “gun violence” as a “social disease” this actually starts to make perfect sense viewed through this lens, because they can just roll it into healthcare at that point and… well everyone knows that’s a public good, right?

        So, when you argue that guns make people safer/stop bad guys/whatever they can just ignore that argument in terms of private ownershipeven if the argument is true, and in fact especially if it’s true because if guns produce some measure of safety then that safety is a “public good” to which you have no “right” to private ownership/means of production. In fact, as many Progressive argue, you have no right to a gun at all because guns produce a public good which the state can and should nationalize the means of production for.

        Progressives would say, er wait… they DO say that if they let you keep any guns they should be registered/licensed/heavily regulated and you should be grateful for being extended the courtesy of being allowed to have some small part of private ownership. They just don’t bother with the end of that sentence which is “…private ownership in what is a public good”.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Great analysis. Living here in Seattle, I definitely experience the “we know how to live your life for you” mentality.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          OR the opinions of marxists are irrelevant.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…the opinions of marxists are irrelevant.”

          If that were the case, we wouldn’t be having these conversations, would we?

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          strych9,

          I was stating our righteous legal principle. Unfortunately our courts have been rejecting righteous legal principles (such as the quaint notion of individual rights) for the last 120+ years.

          Your commentary sounds legit and, sadly, does not surprise me: Marxist proponents want CONTROL over other people’s lives and they do not want any personal responsibility.

        5. avatar Biatec says:

          It’s a fight between positive and negative liberties. sadly even lots of people on the right fall into the positive side.

        6. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

          Excellent, sir

        7. avatar barnbwt says:

          Exactly; which is why instead of ‘rights’ you go for ‘common use’ –it really gets the courts’ dicks hard when you use their own bullshit to persuade them, makes ’em feel even more important & justified.

        8. avatar Ing says:

          Excellent work, Strych9. I’ve never seen the the progressive/socialist logic laid out so clearly.

          Now the question is, knowing that this is the bedrock assumption that underlies everything they do, how do we undermine it in the court of public opinion and break its logic in courts of law?

          I don’t have any good answers, but maybe better minds than mine could come up with some if more people were thinking along these lines.

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          uncommon:

          I know what you were doing. I’m just pointing out that you have to have a judge who’s a serious Classical Liberal for that argument to work. Those are few and far between these days so another approach is needed in presenting arguments before a court. Otherwise we’re as right as the day is long and still lose nearly every time. IMHO, this is part of why so many people say “We can’t trust the courts”. Because they don’t know how to present a winning argument to them. The argument presented in this case was… honestly, fucking stupid.

          barn:

          I would tend to agree.

          Ing:

          So that I don’t have to type out a book here: I’d start by looking at the logic behind the privatization of France’s nationalized industries in the past few years.

          I’d couple that with an argument that regardless of if safety is a “public good” or not private ownership of firearms relieves a burden on the State to provide such a good and that therefore IF the government is going to consider this “public good” then private citizens should be encouraged to “help the state” by contributing to the production of safety. To prevent inequality in this arena, the government should subsidize the “production of safety” in the private arena to ensure equal and unfettered access to high-quality, low-cost firearms and training. Just like “healthcare”.

          Democratic Socialists LOVE public-private co-ops. Well, here’s one right here. A public good assisted in being equally delivered by a public-private partnership.

          At the very least so anti’s heads will explode and we won’t have to deal with them after that.

  8. avatar John Boch says:

    ISRA/Illinois Carry’s attorney David Sigale was the attorney on this.

    Listen to his performance in orals and tell me if you’re surprised that he lost.

    https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/62702/matthew-wilson-v-cook-county/

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Yeesh. I mean, I know it’s not a jury trial where you need a grandstanding orator and expert analysis is more highly valued here, but…yeesh. A modicum of charisma, please.

  9. avatar S.Crock says:

    The courts are not our friends. The left fell into a trap of relying on the courts. We must not fall into the same trap of relying on the courts despite how many judges Trump appoints. His nomination of good or “better than the alternative” judges must not excuse any compromises the administration makes.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    AND yet my AR & magazines are legal in my southern Cook county burb. Home rule. No one bats an eye when I shoot at Point Blank Mokena. Or Merrillville,IN. Chiraq yeah but I see homie is packing all kinds of “illegal”. Oh well…

    1. avatar Gatman says:

      Well, that cuts no ice with us stuck in the people’s republic of California, land of the neutered “Franken-Rifle” (have you seen some of these?. They will make your eyes pour bitter tears to see what monstrosities they force upon us under threat of prison and loss of gun rights)…

      1. avatar Baba Ganooush says:

        Be thankful you don’t live in Mashthe2shitts like I do. We had a statehouse hearing this week where 68 new “gun” bills were introduced. Should have moved north 30 yrs. ago. Greetings from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts sadly the home of Lieawatha Warren.

  11. avatar Dude says:

    “If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” How is this not blatant advocacy? Is there always such a high priority on perception and feels?

    1. avatar TFred says:

      That quip from the ruling has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a very long time.

      Unbelievable. And these folks are “judges?”

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      That panel of judges should all be disbarred for penning such unprofessional bullcrap. Unbelievable, they literally state that perceptions are substance.

      At least we can count on District overturning this one; they *really* won’t want it going to SCOTUS, so I see them meeting us halfway before it gets to that point.

      Granted, that’s assuming ISRA appeals. It almost seems like they threw this cases, so who knows if they’ll bother.

      1. avatar Cary B says:

        Their ruling could actually be a THREAT to public safety. If there is a false perceived feeling of safety and security due a bogus ruling by the courts, and people go on with their lives with this false sense of security, what happens when the real world turns all of that feel-good upside down? I mean it may be too late for those unfortunate victims, but will there be any repercussions for those in power who created this fake utopia? For those who decided “Let us decide for you what level of protection you need, we will make society safe for you and there will be no need for self-defense except what we deem necessary”. I have said it time and time again, until we start focusing on the root causes of what makes a person want to go out and take other human lives, no amount of legislation, bans, a thiusand more gun laws, window stickers, gun-free zones, NONE of this will ever be effective in stopping a CRIMINALLY-MINDED person from doing criminally-minded things. The act of murder itself is already the highest of crimes with the most severe of penalties, this is not enough to deter some from commiting it–so I have been asking and asking how any of these rulings would prevent that, and no one has been able to answer that question so far. People bent on committing Felony1 are not going to be concerned about violating F4 and F5.. As we know and sing the same song over and over, the ONLY group of people this legislation will ever affect is the law-abiding gun owners, who never intend to use their firearms to murder another human being. And for those select few legal gun owners who have gone out and committed these heinous crimes, well they became criminals and were no longer legal gun owners the second they picked up their weapons to inflict harm on others.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Shut up, man! You’re gonna get gun free zones struck down talking about that sort of thing!

  12. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    This is one of those if it makes you feel safer type deals.
    My AR isn’t ever going any place no matter what is said of them.
    The Supremes should hear a case sooner or later sooner being better.
    Giving these lower courts an ass kicking.
    Lord knows they deserve one.
    If lower courts can disobey the upper courts directives.
    Then Id have to disobey the lower courts too.

  13. avatar D Dunbar says:

    While I absolutely am disgusted that this was tossed aside by a supposedly conservative court……. The reasoning the pro 2nd amendment attorney was using was absurd.

    It should be considered because one area is more dangerous than the other?!? That would never fly in any serious court. Weak ass case from the get go.

  14. avatar OBOB says:

    “”””“If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the 12-page majority opinion said.”””

    “””public feel safer”””” But not actually BE safer???

    So ‘FEELZ’ are more important than rights?

    So If I ‘FEELZ’ like doing something illegal–I can do it???
    That is the bases for that opinion!

    1. avatar TFred says:

      And you left out **perceived** risk!

      This has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a very long time.

      Unbelievable. And these folks are “judges?”

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      I’m not a legal scholar, but the words “feel” and “perceived” shocked me. I guess that’s why an index finger pointed at someone is now a “threat of violence”. Feelings trump facts. Great campaign slogan!

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Because Second Amendment cases give the SC justices the vapors, and because of “compelling interest” precedent (tradition and history), regardless of the NYC case, this ruling could be game, set match for anti-gunners. The lower courts (as noted in the posting) know the SC has no means to enforce its rulings, and the SC knows the lower courts know this, I see Heller remaining untouched for at least a generation, while the lower courts conspire to displace the national jurisdiction of the SC.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Second Amendment jurisprudence has shown the Supreme Court to be a laughingstock. What do they matter, if they can be so blithely ignored.

  16. avatar Darkman says:

    Unelected bureaucrats and judges are the biggest danger to Civil Rights as protected by the Bill of Rights. A way to curb their Orwellian agenda must be dealt with. Before it becomes a By Any Means solution. Keep Your Powder Dry

  17. avatar George Washington says:

    This BS “LAW SPEAK” of these lawyers and courts is enough to make a normal man wanna SCREAM!!!!
    This MUMBO JUMBO is the realm of the elite EDUCATED IDIOT CLASS…
    I want EVERYONE to understand, it’s these people who are infringing on the rights of the common Man….
    It’s time the common Man takes control from the power “elite” that form these CORRUPT courts….
    These people are responsible for all the CLOWN WORLD crap you shake your head at everyday…
    Not to mention the sickening corruption and the debasing of the whole system by the types of people working in the legal system…
    Just go to any major city and take a look at the majority of the people working there…. It’s pretty easy to see the low IQ “PROBLEM”….

    These people attempt to use their MUMBO JUMBO to sound more intelligent than they really are…… It’s fkn PATHETIC and it needs to be STOPPED!!!!!! AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!

  18. avatar SurfGW says:

    And here is an argument about NEED determining that assault rifles can be banned because previous cases allowed pistols and that is all that’s needed for self defense.
    NEED is a terrible slope to go down.

  19. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Again, this is the result of the long game. Spoiler alert… tyranny wins in the end. Liberty is typically restored by the short game. Bite off chunks; don’t nibble. If a man is deprived his liberty for a lifetime, what kind of freedom is that? Each generation must decide to stand and fight or accept it and remain in servitude. It’s our turn.

  20. avatar Randy Jones says:

    People often just concern themselves with the Supreme court justices, but the assignment of lower court judges is also critical, but seldom mentioned in the news. When these lower court judges rule against earlier rulings or the Supreme court rulings, they should get booted.

  21. avatar CNS says:

    ““If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the 12-page majority opinion said.”

    Nice to see the court prioritizes feelings over rights….

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Nice to see the court prioritizes feelings over rights….”

      What seems to be overlooked is that the ruling introduces a new level of judicial scrutiny regarding constitutionally protected rights – “substantial benefit”. No different from “compelling government interest”. If the SC allows such justification to stand, this new level of scrutiny topples the constitution, entirely.

  22. avatar GS650G says:

    I’m sure this will end much oif the carnage in Chicago. Yup, right away.

  23. avatar matt says:

    Look, just so long as people “perceive” that they are safer, that’s good enough to take away a right?

    That’s how we’ve gotten TSA, taking off shoes, invasive searches and all of that security theater. Because we “feel” safer.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      Yep, feelings don’t care about your facts. 🙁

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Yep, feelings don’t care about your facts. 😦”

        We believe truth over facts” (as in there are three genders)
        – Joe Biden
        https://youtu.be/1f4P0cI7M9U

  24. avatar bryan1980 says:

    In the words of Ron White, “Well f********ck you!”.

  25. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    quote——————But the director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, whose lawyers represented two residents who sued Cook County, said its attorneys will likely ask the Supreme Court to reverse Thursday’s 7th Circuit ruling.————-quote

    The Supreme Court will refuse to rule on the case and let the lower anti-gun ruling stand. This has been standard procedure for decades so the Supreme Court can duck a very controversial issue and let the lower Courts take the heat. The Supreme Court knows damn well they would not be on the Supreme Court very long if they go against public opinion which is now as anti-assault rifle as you can get.

    1. avatar the more you know says:

      18-280 will be hear in October. If that isn’t successfully used as a vehicle to apply ‘strict scrutiny’ to the second then the case they are holding that has not be granted writ or been rejected (it is very rare for the supreme court to hold a case, they only do this when they are awaiting the outcome of another case already in the works..18-280) If that second case they are holding doesn’t work there are plenty coming up from the lower courts that the court WILL elect to hear now that the liberal slant that has been present from the 60s is gone. Time for the power to shift Vlad and I don’t know whether you just can’t admit to yourself you’ve already lost or you actually don’t realize it. I do hope it is the latter so you can have an aneurysm when the ruling comes down.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Ha your a gas. You do not live in the real world. The corrupt Supreme Court has no intention of hearing any anti gun cases, not know and not for decades if they ever do again.

        1. avatar Vlad's dad says:

          The boy does have an extensive history with courtroom appearances on juvenile delinquency charges. He thinks that makes him an expert on all legal matters.

        2. avatar Vlad II Dracul says:

          Vlad troll needs more English and grammar classes.

  26. avatar Nelson says:

    This, is WHY the gunnies MUST go on the legal offensive, and NOT constantly REACT to every other case: either MOVE to ENTIRELY ABOLISH & REPEAL ALL GUN CONTROL at ALL GOVT LEVELS or GTFO.

    The ONLY proper PRO-gun position is to ABOLISH the ATF and ALL ITS functions in govt in other agencies as well.

    REPEAL ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS at FED & STATE levels, PERIOD, starting with NFA, GCA, FOPA, Brady/NICS, and ALL remnants of the previous AWB.

    Otherwise, this shit ain’t gonna go anywhere. Those fuckers sue for AWB? Move to repeal NFA as response. They talk of mag ban? Move to repeal NFA. etc, etc, etc. etc.

  27. avatar do the panty twist says:

    These stupid little laws will not matter once the supreme courts applies ‘strict scurtiny’ to the second. It is not a question of if, but when. Don’t get your panties in a twist…..it is time for the antis to have twisted panties….permanently.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “These stupid little laws will not matter once the supreme courts applies ‘strict scurtiny’ to the second.”

      Upon what do you base your opinion? The lower courts already ignore Heller and McDonald. What is to prevent the same outcome regarding “strict scrutiny”?

      Part of the “social contract” among the people of the republic is that we honor court rulings that do not favor our position. Once the lower courts decide to defy the SC, what law should ever be honored when some constituency doesn’t like a particular law?

  28. avatar BusyBeef says:

    Appeal this to our Supreme Court who belive AR15s are firearms in common use.

  29. avatar grumpster says:

    Well that is not good news. This will embolden the democrats here in Illinois to try again to ban magazines over 10 rounds and semi automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. I expect we will see this as law before the year is out in Illinois, damn.

  30. avatar 2aguy says:

    This is a rogue court…..the rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller, and Scalia specifically stating in his opinion in Friedman v Highland park that AR-15 rifles and other rifles like them are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment show that this court thinks Roberts is a Squish and won’t hear this case…… nothing in this ruling is following actual Supreme Court rulings….they just made it up……

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

    That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

    Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

    The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

    Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      You conveniently forgot to mention that in Scalia’s own words he stated the Court had the right to “regulate” firearms. Double speak meaning ban weapons and that was his letting the Court have an option to follow public opinion if they felt they needed this to stay in power and considering the mass hysteria over assault rifles these days they will put that option to good use guaranteed.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        The prefatory clause to which the justice refers, (Scalia) of course, is the one about “a well-regulated militia.” The AR-15, used in San Bernardino, is an M-16 knockoff.

        So rather than saying “assault weapons,” in the future perhaps we should say “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.”

  31. avatar FT says:

    The 2nd Amendment is is a death spiral and so are our rights under the Constitution in many ways and areas. Its just a matter of time. Keep voting Democrats in office so they can finish us all off and take away every gun we legally own.

  32. avatar Kyle says:

    I hope you guys are right, but I think you’re drinking something if you think the supremes will reverse this.

    NO government wants its citizens armed….ever.

  33. avatar SkorpionFan says:

    By the judges’ reasoning a total ban on news reporting on any gang violence, shootings, and murder in Chicago and the rest of Cook County would not violate the First Ammendment because such a ban “reduces the perceived risk from gang violence, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”

  34. avatar Jack says:

    So called armchair ‘experts’ don’t even know what an actual assault weapon is! I am sick and tired of people incorrectly calling AR-15’s et al, assault weapons! THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS, BOZOS! Assault weapons aka full autos, select fire weapons were banned in 1985. Only full auto/select fire weapons made before that date can be classified as assault weapons! Only asinine and ignorant gun grabbers and their supporters call semi-auto rifles ‘assault weapons’. They do that to politicize and exaggerate the issue! At least educate yourselves about what true assault weapons are instead of going with the gruber Dem semantic garbage and the idiots in the MSM who are deliberately stupid and ignorant!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I am sick and tired of people incorrectly calling AR-15’s et al, assault weapons! THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS”

      IIRC, the anti-gun crowd made-up the word “assault gun/weapon”, so they can define it any way they like. Even semi-auto pistols are “assault weapons” in some legislation I have seen. Indeed, any semi-auto firearm.

      To the leftists, facts are irrelevant…
      “”I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right,”
      – Alexandria Occasionally Coherent

  35. avatar SpeedBump says:

    Probably best that it happened.

    Those people are entirely too stupid to own ANY type weapon..

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email