The US Supreme Court has declined to put a temporary hold on an Illinois law that bans the sale of assault-style weapons and a variety of other guns and accessories.
The law will require existing owners of the restricted items to register them by 1 January.
A gun rights group and the owner of a gun shop have sued to stop the implementation of the law.
Their case has consistently been rebuffed by lower courts.
The legislation took effect in January and sales of the restricted guns were stopped immediately.
I really wish gun-control advocates would not use terms like “assault-style weapons”. What is an assault-style weapon? It sounds like it might be something scary and associated with war, but it’s not a technical term. It’s not even a term that actually means anything specific. Saying it makes the speaker sound ignorant and inspires absolutely no confidence that whatever law is being proposed makes any reasonable distinctions between which weapons should be legal and which should be illegal.
Here’s how the law defines “assault weapons.”
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-1.9
I’m curious how this law as written would apply to one specific firearm off the top of my head, skimming through the specific firearms it names as assault weapons I noticed that it calls out “all Uzi types.”
At one point in, I think, the 90s some company, I want to say Mossberg but don’t quote me on that, was importing the IWI/IMI Jericho 941 (an otherwise pretty normal pistol that otherwise wouldn’t fall under the assault weapon category) and branding it as the “Uzi Eagle.” Does that make it an “Uzi type,” even though it has no real connection mechanicaly to other Uzis?
And if so, since the section uzis fall under is phrased as
What would that mean for when the same gun when it’s been imported branded as a Jericho or some other name? And since the Jericho is essentially a clone of the CZ-75, what would that mean for the CZ and other CZ clones?
If you think you can make an argument that having one import stamp/mark versus not having another would stand up in court, have fun.
But you would probably be better off using the flow chart (like in basically any situation). Where, from a quick glance at wikipedia, it looks like it is fine and doesn’t violate any rules. But if you start modding it to add a stock or an extended barrel to add a compensator or suppressor then you are playing with fire.
Which is similar to current gun laws. Assault rifle is fine so long as it is semiautomatic… until you make the barrel too short. That doesn’t mean that Fox Mulder is going to materialize in your shed and beat you to death. But it does mean that you are going to be prosecuted a LOT harder if you get caught committing a crime or if you piss off someone when you take your gun to the range… or a Wendy’s.
It’s illegal to make a machine gun now…all “assault rifles” are semi automatic… putting a shorter barrel on it requires NFA stamps and makes it a SBR. Doesn’t make it more deadly. These laws are written by ignorance and emotion.
I’ll put an attempted common sense definition out there as a straw man (fully aware of Cunningham’s law): it’s a rifle typically featuring a pistol grip and detachable magazine.
The definition needs to be intentionally vague to capture a myriad of existing designs (and the legal workarounds). I suspect there are “assault rifles” that don’t fit into this vague definition, and equally importantly: vice versa (e.g. the Barret 82A1 can’t realistically be considered an “assault rifle” by common sense).
And therein lies the problem: by being only reasonably specific, we provide too many opportunities for shenanigans (cf. Formula 1 in the 70s and 80s). But without a reasonably strict definition, we’re also creating a reasonably litigious atmosphere (“no sir, we intended this rifle for small to medium game hunting”).
I think you’re not wrong about what an assault rifle is, but assault weapons are not assault rifles, which were already effectively inaccessible to civilians nationwide before this law was passed. The specific law being discussed here classifies, among other things, a rifle with a pistol grip and a pistol with a threaded barrel (but of course not a pistol with a pistol grip) as assault weapons - what do the two have in common in terms of function or purpose other than looking scary to the general public.
This is a rhetorical trick. We do not need a technical definition of “assault weapon”. We need a legal one. The legal definition here was written by the Illinois legislature and seems to be upheld by the courts.
If someone asks you for a technical definition for a gun law, see if the relevant legal definition exists.
It was upheld, but it’s also theater, you need to understand. Without fail, every time a state legislature engages in “assault weapon” bans, without fail, they:
Ban a bunch of weapons that have never been used in a mass shooting.
Fail to ban a bunch of weapons that have been used in mass shootings.
Fail to future-proof the law in any way, so new firearms that will become popular in mass shootings are not banned.
The net result is new restrictions with no relation to actual gun violence. They could pass laws addressing the actual problems at hand, like lowering the bar for access to mental health care. They choose not to.
That’s because it’s not about public safety, it’s about disarmament.
Oh cool. Another rhetorical trick. The law isn’t perfect. So anyone that supports it looks foolish.
Bonus rhetorical trick. Let’s talk about mental health. Aka, change the topic and ignore that one too.
Just goes to show how big of a portion of gun control advocates don’t fully understand the thing they are trying to control.
I myself own firearms and am also a gun control supporter but so much of the attempts to control end up being quite ineffective and not impactful to what they are trying to stop/limit.
I get it though, at this point emotional decisions and motivations are unavoidable. Combine that with republicans actively trying to destroy gun control new and old, it’s no wonder people end up with a less informed but just as strong take in the opposite direction.
So like should we define them based on theoretical murders per minute they could achieve!
Possibly. The gun used in Las Vegas was a “semiautomatic”. Fitted with a bump stock it shoots like a fully automatic. So the fire rate could be a useful tool.
Maybe we could compare them to other deadly things like a car or a knife?
Cars and knives have many uses. As far as I can tell, guns have four and half of those involve either killing or threatening to kill someone. The other two are target shooting and hunting, both of which have resulted in people being killed.
Not exactly comparable to cars and knives.
Maybe swords then?
That would certainly be a fairer comparison, although I am guessing the number of people killed by swords in this country is far lower than the number killed by guns.
Well I would guess most people are only acquainted with the surface details of the issue. Certainly it’s easy to think “guns kill*, let’s have less of that please.” But of course the actual legal details are far more nuanced: The 2nd amendment, definitions of what exactly is a firearm, uppers/lowers/etc. *(I know guns don’t kill, people use them to kill)
I do wonder if some opposition to the term assault rifle stems from the “not one concession” interpretation of the 2nd amendment? The reaction to its use shuts down a thread or conversation.
Personally I am anti gun, but unless a new amendment is passed, I don’t see anything changing.
“Assault Weapon” has largely been a term since the early 90s during the first attempt at a Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It is a generic term that, at a high level, more or less lines up with “assault rifles, automatic weapons, and high capacity magazines”. But I hear you, obviously in good faith, ask
Good news. There is a handy dandy PDF that goes into great detail and even provides flow charts so you can figure out if a rifle or shotgun or whatever that is not explicitly listed in the guide still counts as an assault weapon
https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFiles/docs/Home/AssaultWeapons/PICA Identification Guide.pdf
I get it. There are so many bad faith gun nuts out there who just can’t help but spew the same tired propaganda from the 90s when the NRA and other lobbyists torpedo’d the FAWB (if you ever wondered why there were so many awkward cutouts that made it so ineffective…). But the good news is that law makers actually are aware of that and are providing not only specific weapon lists but also details on what makes them count as an “assault weapon” for the purpose of the law.
I realize that you, obviously acting in good faith, could have made a much better one liner. But cut the lawmakers trying to reduce the number of dead children some slack for not getting the marketing to your high standards. They have higher priorities. Like… fewer dead kids and mass shooting events.
I know what guns the law bans - I’m saying that there’s no common trait among those guns other than the fact that they’re scary-looking. Assault rifles and other automatic weapons were already extremely difficult to get and effectively inaccessible to civilians before this law was passed. The newly banned guns just look like assault rifles.
That’s the low-effort fear-mongering which leads to counterproductive bans on guns that look scary to the general public without actually being more dangerous than guns that remain legal.
Actually, there are some very common traits. Like pistol grips, threaded barrels, etc. I strongly suggest actually looking at the PDF rather than what you assume it says. It is a remarkably helpful PDF and, while I would prefer it to be stricter, this seems like a good law because it is very clear definitions for gun owners that (mostly) have the goal of reducing effectiveness in close quarters/“urban” environments (so preschools) and reducing ammo capacity. Like, I almost wish they hadn’t listed the specific examples and just done the “definitions” and “flow chart” sections.
And deepest apologies if my horror over the 306 school shootings in 2023 (as of November 10th) is too much “fearmongering” for you.
I read that specific PDF before making my original post, but I see why my post may have been unclear. I wasn’t saying that one rifle with a pistol grip has nothing in common with another rifle with a pistol grip - that’s not true because obviously they’re both rifles with pistol grips. What I was saying is that a rifle with a pistol grip and a pistol with a threaded barrel (but not a pistol with a pistol grip) have nothing in common beyond their association with the military.
Some of the banned features do make weapons easier to handle in close-quarters environments, but not more so than other weapons (semiautomatic pistols) which are legal and clearly protected by the second amendment as it is currently interpreted.
Pretty much everyone including me is horrified by school shootings, and the implication that I’m somehow insufficiently horrified by them would be offensive if it weren’t ridiculous. I’m still comfortable arguing against this law because I expect it to have no effect on how many school shootings take place or on how deadly each shooting is. (Maybe the limits on magazine size would help, and so I haven’t brought them up. Otherwise I think no gun control law much less strict than a ban on all semi-automatic weapons including pistols with no grandfather clause for weapons which people already own would do much at all.)
… Why do they need to have anything in common?
Threaded barrels allow for adding of suppressors of various varieties which make it harder for cops to find them (so that said cops can flee in the opposite direction…). As well as compensators which make rapid fire more viable (whether illegal automatic fire mod, bump stock, or just squeezing really fast).
Pistol grips allow for faster short/mid-range aiming and much better ergonomics.
And, because I am sure you are engaging in good faith: you’ll note that the pistol rules basically remove the “SBR” loophole that everyone and their mother loves. Because aiming with a pistol under stress is difficult and there is a reason that buttstocks are a thing.
But there is absolutely no reason those two have to be “linked”. Just like you can acknowledge that fire and poison are both bad without needing a link between smoking next to a bucket full of kerosene and drinking said kerosene (… ignore that I just made a link).
Currently, the Supreme Court does not agree with you. Whether they will change their mind if and when they do a full opinion is anyone’s guess. But if this were as clear cut as that, there would already be a halt.
Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter. But it clearly negates the “This is illegal so it is wrong” argument.
I’m getting a 404 from your link.
Worked for me