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’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.
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.
That’s because it’s not about public safety, it’s about disarmament.