IL Legislature passes anti everything bill

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • fishgutzy

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 25, 2022
    886
    AA County
    The antis keep asking words that cannot be found in Miller or Bruen.
    "for self defense" doesn't follow "in common use."
    Liberal side of SCOTUS did the same thing in KELO. They changed "public use" to "public benefit" to rationalize gov't taking private property from one party and giving it to another private party.


    Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,937
    Marylandstan

    King Chicken

    I identify as King/Emperor
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 24, 2022
    1,632
    Land Full of Marys - MoCo
    No threaded barrels or pistol grips. Registry... Somehow I missed this. So brazen.


    “There has to be a limit to the kinds of weapons that people can keep in their homes and we have lots that are available to people, lots of weapons to protect yourself, and those that are available for sporting use,” Pritzker said.

    1000003471.jpg
     

    Doctor_M

    Certified Mad Scientist
    MDS Supporter
    These guys will NEVER be satisfied. They truly want to ban every civilian firearm and even when they've done that, they will continue to nibble away at any right of self defense (throw a vase at a burglar, go to jail for assault).

    1702041818422.png


    Illinois Nazis.... I hate Illinois Nazis... and California ones, and New York ones, and D.C. ones, and Maryland ones too.
     

    Sundazes

    My brain hurts
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 13, 2006
    20,862
    Arkham
    These guys will NEVER be satisfied. They truly want to ban every civilian firearm and even when they've done that, they will continue to nibble away at any right of self defense (throw a vase at a burglar, go to jail for assault).

    View attachment 443826

    Illinois Nazis.... I hate Illinois Nazis... and California ones, and New York ones, and D.C. ones, and Maryland ones too.
    So true. I am concerned with the MGA this session. Hopefully they will attach the crime problem and not lawful citizens.
     

    Slackdaddy

    My pronouns: Iva/Bigun
    Jan 1, 2019
    5,667
    So true. I am concerned with the MGA this session. Hopefully they will attach the crime problem and not lawful citizens.
    Surely you joust ???
    The MGA tackle the crime problem?? The MGA IS the crime problem.
    Think about it, The MGA refuses to jail repeat violent felons,, hell 2 years ago within 1 hour they shot down a bill that would put violent felons in jail,, AND passed a bill to take firearms from lawful citizens
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,462
    So what are the chances that SCOTUS takes this? Trying to decide if this is good or bad news for us.
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,132
    MoCo
    SCOTUS refuses to issue injunction against enforcement. You may need to open in an incognito window to access this article.

     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,919
    Fulton, MD
    SCOTUS refuses to issue injunction against enforcement. You may need to open in an incognito window to access this article.

    The longer SCOTUS waits on 4CA decision in Bianchi, the worse these laws will become. Anti-2A states are emboldened by SCOTUS inaction.
     

    Steel Hunter

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2019
    537
    SCOTUS refuses to issue injunction against enforcement. You may need to open in an incognito window to access this article.

    It was an emergency request so not all is lost yet. There is no ruling on whether this is constitutional or not yet.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,391
    It was an emergency request so not all is lost yet. There is no ruling on whether this is constitutional or not yet.

    And there won’t be for many years, until we lose the majority at SCOTUS. Then a ruling will issue almost immediately and be upheld by SCOTUS.

    This also proves that SCOTUS is unconcerned with the “irreparable harm” that arises from infringements of the right to arms. If this had been a 1st Amendment case then the Court would have been all over it. This means that the Court doesn’t actually believe its own claim that Constitutional infringements constitute “irreparable harm”.

    Finally, it means that the Court isn’t actually serious when it claims that the 2nd Amendment has the same stature as the rest. It doesn’t, and the Court proves that by its own actions.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk UI
     
    Last edited:

    MattFinals718

    Active Member
    Nov 23, 2022
    333
    Arlington, VA
    And there won’t be for many years, until we lose the majority at SCOTUS. Then a ruling will issue almost immediately and be upheld by SCOTUS.

    This also proves that SCOTUS is unconcerned with the “irreparable harm” that arises from infringements of the right to arms. If this had been a 1st Amendment case then the Court would have been all over it. This means that the Court doesn’t actually believe its own claim that Constitutional infringements constitute “irreparable harm”.

    Finally, it means that the Court isn’t actually serious when it claims that the 2nd Amendment has the same stature as the rest. It doesn’t, and the Court proves that by its own actions.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk UI

    Before you go down that rabbit hole, I would watch/listen to this latest Washington Gun Law video first:



    You're not completely wrong, but I don't think this is that big of a setback. Yes, we expect SCOTUS to slow-roll proceedings, because what I think we've learned this year is that they're squeamish about offending both sides of the gun control debate. That’s manifesting itself in their refusal to intervene in any 2A cases that haven’t gone completely through all of the checkboxes at the lower courts. It sucks, but it’s also better for their credibility once the cases do reach them.

    I also think that you're over-estimating the effects of us losing a majority at SCOTUS (if that happens). It will not be enough for the composition of the court to change - they'd have to re-litigate both the Heller and Bruen decisions. I don't doubt that the strategy in the 4th Circuit and other anti-gun lower courts is to wait for a more anti-2A SCOTUS majority, but I think they're wrong in expecting that it will lead to a significant reversal of our gains.
     
    Last edited:

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,391
    You're not completely wrong, but I don't think this is that big of a setback. Yes, we expect SCOTUS to slow-roll proceedings, because what I think we've learned this year is that they're squeamish about offending both sides of the gun control debate. That’s manifesting itself in their refusal to intervene in any 2A cases that haven’t gone completely through all of the checkboxes at the lower courts. It sucks, but it’s also better for their credibility once the cases do reach them.

    Their “credibility”? With who? The people who oppose the right to arms are concerned only with outcomes and thus credibility is irrelevant to them. The people who support the right to arms want the right to be treated with the same respect as the rest. By doing this (treating the right to arms worse than the right to speech), the Court loses credibility with the only people who might care about that.

    I also think that you're over-estimating the effects of us losing a majority at SCOTUS (if that happens). It will not be enough for the composition of the court to change - they'd have to re-litigate both the Heller and Bruen decisions. I don't doubt that the strategy in the 4th Circuit and other anti-gun lower courts is to wait for a more anti-2A SCOTUS majority, but I think they're wrong in expecting that it will lead to a significant reversal of our gains.

    You need to examine the history of 2A litigation and what the anti-2A courts have done. What do you think the 9th Circuit would do if it were the Supreme Court? That is what will happen with a composition change like what I describe.

    Yes of course it will lead to a significant reversal. “Regulation” can always be done in such a way as to eliminate the right. The Court need only uphold that and that’ll be that for the right to arms.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,107
    Messages
    7,223,417
    Members
    33,160
    Latest member
    FullBackBob

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom