Supreme Court rejects challenge to Illinois assault weapons ban

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined for now to block a new law in Illinois that bans assault-style weapons such as the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which has been used in multiple mass shootings.

The decision in a brief unsigned order means the Illinois law enacted in the wake of a July 4 shooting in the city of Highland Park last year that killed seven will remain in effect while legal challenges continue. In a separate case, a federal judge blocked the law, but the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has put that decision on hold. The Supreme Court in January declined to block new New York gun restrictions.

The two decisions taken together indicate the justices are willing to give lower courts time to consider the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling last summer that dramatically expanded gun rights. The appeals court also expedited consideration of five different cases challenging the new law. The Illinois Supreme Court is considering a similar case. A local gun ordinance in Naperville, Illinois, that bars assault-style weapons will also remain in effect as a result of the Supreme Court action.

The state law, enacted in January, bans what the state defines as "assault weapons," including the AR-15 rifle, as well as large capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a long gun or more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-illinois-assault-weapons-ban-rcna83326

[hibbing]

1. "used in multiple mass shootings"

Not like 90% of them? Whatever.

Peace

[MichMan]

33. Wrong; the vast majority are handguns

See post #8

[hibbing]

34. hmm..my bad, guess just the big ones that we hear about n/t

[onenote]

2. Remember this thread?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217902455

Turns out the folks who tried to explain that the tweet in the OP was misleading were right.

[Cheezoholic]

3. Indiana gun dealers are oh so very happy to hear this...

The smuggling of guns from Indiana into Illinois, especially Chicago, is a big multi million dollar business as Indiana continues basically removing any and all kinds of common sense gun regulations. And by IN still having draconian marijuana laws (rec pot is legal now in IL, IN doesn't even have sensible med marijuana laws) the long border between these 2 states is weirdly similar to the repuke US/Mexican border propaganda of gun and drug smuggling hysteria.

Maybe IL should bomb IN and vice versa (on Earth 2 they probably are)

[mopinko]

15. remember when tfg sent a mobile ballistics lab to chi?

he got pushed to do something after bashing us through the whole campaign. so he sent an fbi squad w a mobile lab. we were thrilled.
it was here for a couple months iirc, then it quietly moved on. dont recall any arrests or cases made. i also remember rahm and a bunch of suburban mayors making a big stink, and promises of increased enforcement from the fbi. yeah, nothing came of that either.
why, it’s like they dont mean what they say about guns. 🧐

[Novara]

4. Goddammit. The article does not say whether this is a ban on ownership or the sale of them

I'm guessing the sale of, since the article did state that it doesn't affect people who already have them, but come on, writers. Do better.

Banning the sale of them means people will get them from other states.

We need a nationwide ban. And confiscation. There is no goddamn reason a civilian needs an assault weapon.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Here is the ABC News version

Supreme Court declines to block Illinois' assault weapons ban

The court said it could be enforced while legal challenges continue.
By Devin Dwyer
May 17, 2023, 11:37 AM



The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday has declined to block Illinois' assault weapons ban from being enforced as a legal challenge continues, handing a win to gun safety advocates at a time when the nation is grappling with a surge of mass shootings and gun violence.

The single page order had no noted dissents.

After the 2022 Highland Park shooting, in which a gunman armed with an AR-15 and 30-round magazines killed seven people and wounded 48, the state and several cities enacted new restrictions against the sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery or importation of assault-style firearms and high-capacity magazines.

The laws immediately drew a legal challenge from gun owners and gun shops in the state.

(snip)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-declines-block-illinois-assault-weapons-ban/story?id=99393982

So if someone crosses state lines to bring them in to do a gun show or private sale, that would be forbidden (unless the weapons were already grandfathered in).

[Novara]

6. Thank you.

I hate it when articles are presented with incomplete information.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. You're welcome!

I guess they think the "readers" would be local to the state and would have been aware of the details.

[Zeitghost]

20. All interstate private sales are banned

for all firearms.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. I haven't done a search to see what the details are in the law

but apparently there are several suits still in progress.

[Zeitghost]

22. I'm saying

That all interstate private sales of any firearm is illegal under federal law and has been for sometime and that is not being challenged here or elsewhere.

It is illegal to sell a firearm across state lines (even at a gun show) in all 50 states. If the buyer and seller do not reside in the same state the sale has to go through a federally licensed dealer and the buyer must pass a background check.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. Well this part --

If the buyer and seller do not reside in the same state the sale has to go through a federally licensed dealer

would be assumed. But what complicates it is obviously internet sales where a less sophisticated trace might hit a VPN that is spoofing a location within that state (but is actually from another state or even another country), so there is no good "proof" that a border was crossed.

I think what some of these laws are also trying to do is thwart straw purchasers where someone might travel to a state with zero permits needed and little or regulation enforcement, and buy a pile of weapons at multiple dealers for a "personal collection", and then bring them home (in another state) to sell.

[Zeitghost]

24. A dealer

Can not legally sell a rifle or shotgun to an out of state resident if it does not comply with the laws of the buyers state. and handguns are completely banned for sale to out of state residents.

All interstate internet sales have to be shipped to an FFL.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. But then we're back to the gun show loophole

[Zeitghost]

26. The gun show loophole

Involves private sales, which as I noted are illegal between residents of two different states. Any licensed dealer, no matter where they sell guns, has to comply with federal background checks.

[BumRushDaShow]

27. Well that is why I noted that you have states

with full "Constitutional Carry" and basically have sold that idea as removing any barriers and hassles for their residents. So there is little or no enforcement of laws associated with firearms. Thus if no one plans on verifying residency of a buyer because "Constitutional, permitless carry" is the rule of the day and "we don't plan to hassle our (purported) lawful buyers", then no one is the wiser, and off someone goes with their precious purchase.

[Zeitghost]

28. Constitutional carry

Has nothing to do with private party sales.

People can break the law buying firearms out of state, but then they can also break laws buying firearms in state.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. My point is

that states that have adopted such laws have "declared" that they will pretty much stop enforcing any type of firearms sales or ownership restrictions/rules. I.e., they wouldn't even attempt to challenge residency, whereas other states might at least try to verify that.

[Zeitghost]

30. With interstate gun laws

The ATF is the agency tasked with enforcement.

Ask any FFL if the ATF is lax on rule enforcement...

[BumRushDaShow]

31. The only way to do that

is to put checkpoints at state borders (and some states do actually have some if they know gun-running is happening).

And that is because you have states that refuse to do their fucking job for residency checks, because "gun freedumb".

Here in Philly, you have people who routinely drive down to Delaware to get tax free liquor (and we have state stores here). And the cops are sitting right there in the liquor store parking lots looking for out-of-state plates. Similar happens to people from Philly rolling across the bridge into Jersey for liquor runs and getting pulled over at one of the bridges.

[radical noodle]

10. I cannot imagine how confiscation would work

There are approx. 15 million AR-style rifles in the US. Instead, maybe ban the sale of that style of rifle and also the sale of high-capacity magazines and drums?

[roamer65]

11. Ammunition control.

Highly restrict ALL ammunition sales.

[forgotmylogin]

14. I've always suggested that individual bullets should cost $20 or more.

Tax the crap out of ammo. If someone wants to go on a shooting-spree, they'd better save up or be able to take out a bank loan.

I know it's possible for people to make their own ammo, but that requires a bit more learning and knowledge and time and equipment than casual random mass-shooters usually want to put in.

[roamer65]

17. Make reloading a felony without proper licensure.

…and NO sales of the reloaded ammo.

[Novara]

13. It wouldn't work.

No one is going to give up their assault weapons willingly. They'd come out firing them before they'd hand them over. Even with buybacks or some other type of promotion, these motherfuckers aren't going to willingly give them up. I still wish they could be confiscated, though. No civilian needs an assault weapon.

We have far too many guns in circulation, period. And I have no idea what could be done about it. Even if you banned the sale of everything but muskets, there are still way too many killing machines already in circulation.

[Chainfire]

18. I think that you are wrong.

I know that is what they claim, but words are cheap and many of the owners are cowards. When a man had to decide to either give up, what amounts to a toy, or a fight to the death with law enforcement, most will comply and complain. The ones who are determined to go out in a blaze of glory should be granted their wishes. When other countries have highly restricted firearms it did not lead to civil war, but to a vast decline in gun deaths.

One day we will deal deal with the gun problems, but we don't have the will yet. We are still at the stage where we accept mass shootings rather than face the truth; that is bound to change. We did it with machine guns, we can do it with assault weapons.

[The Grand Illuminist]

32. For confiscation.....

It will most definitely take those guns to confiscate them.

[GenXer47]

8. handguns still far outnumber other guns in mass shootings

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

So while I applaud ANY step in the right direction, I'm not exactly thrilled here.
What it *may* signify though, is a softening of the hardcore rightwing stance. Did they finally get what they wanted, and now realize, they really don't want it?

[BumRushDaShow]

9. This isn't over yet

Apparently there are other cases still being litigated in the lower courts in IL that the SCOTUS is allowing to play out until any manage to get appealed to them later... But they are allowing the law to remain for now.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

19. Exactly

This isn't a ruling on the merits and should not be taken as a sign that SCOTUS is fine with this law. There are multiple cases working their way through multiple circuits right now. The 7th consolidated and expedited this case so SCOTUS is simply letting them work through the normal process.

Had the Illinois law been a full ban with requiring them to be turned in or destroyed, then a stay would have been far more likely. Since current owners can still keep them, no registration is required till next year, it was harder to show "irreparable harm" that is generally required for an injunction.

[forgotmylogin]

12. I think there's a line to walk.

While banning or restricting the AR-15 isn't going to ever end gun violence completely and there is no way to end random mass shootings forever, I do support the *spirit* of the 2nd amendment that people of sound mind should have access to personal firearms for protection and sport-shooting if they want them.

What I'd hope a "battlefield style" weapons ban/restriction would do is greatly reduce the casualty rate when shootings happen. While simple weapons like a shotgun or a handgun work great for protection against a single assailant, they're not as effective against crowds. Shotguns aren't long range. Low caliber handgun bullet wounds are much more survivable, especially at long range since they tend to be stopped in a body and don't always tear through leaving an exit wound (the difference between getting stabbed with an icepick and a running chainsaw). A hunting rifle without an extended magazine has to be reloaded.

Hopefully the messaging can pivot to "we don't want to take away your guns; we want to limit access to weapons with the high-power capacity to quickly massacre crowds of people that have no place in non-battlefield settings and are not useful for hunting or skill-shooting"

[NullTuples]

16. Bouncing cases back til the right one comes along is a LOT OF WORK