If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Opinion here: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2012/Summaries/112026s.htm
I haven't read it yet, but it looks like they reversed the dismissal and remanded for trial.
Yes. And they also rejected the lame equal protection argument and the vagueness argument which means this is now a straight up 2A fight.
Yes. And they also rejected the lame equal protection argument and the vagueness argument which means this is now a straight up 2A fight.
At this early stage of the litigation, in the procedural posture of this case, it cannot be said conclusively whether “assault weapons” as defined by the ordinance fall within or outside the scope of the rights protected by the second amendment. This question requires an empirical inquiry that goes beyond the scope of both the record in the current litigation and judicial notice.
If I am recalling the right judges, it will also be interesting to see how badly their "more killy" arguments fail when the judges take the stance that even if a balancing were done, they cannot show the so-called "assault weapons" are a significant factor in violent crime (0.25% typical rate per year according to the FBI).It will be interesting to hear how Illinois argues that an "assault weapon" is more "killy" than any other semi-auto rifle and therefore falls outside the 2A. (If I'm reading the decision correctly)
It will be interesting to hear how Illinois argues that an "assault weapon" is more "killy" than any other semi-auto rifle and therefore falls outside the 2A. (If I'm reading the decision correctly)
Yet Miller said in the '30's that guns needed to have a military use. Isn't this the opposite of that?
Of course it is...
The waiting for the court system begins. [sad2] Unfortunately, it took us 50 years to get here, it is going to take a few to dig out of this hole.So then what?