comment: >
  
  Hope, can't you read?
context: I'm curious if by this time next year we will have another SCOTUS level decision on AWBs and maybe even magazine capacity bans.  Seems like after the Bruen ruling it's open season on gun control laws and the whole "history and tradition" thing is going to be what kills them if anything ever does since there is no history or tradition of arbitrarily banning guns based on removeable features or even those features.  IIRC the first actual ban on the type of gun you could legally own was in the 1960's when they banned importing certain "saturday night special" cheap guns and introduced the "sporting purposes" test for importing guns.  Federal background checks weren't required until the 1990s and the federal AWB then might have been the actual first flat out "You can't buy, import or sell these guns" regulation.  The 1934 NFA might have been the first actual federal level gun control law of any significance.  And that's not a ban just a tax and registration act so once an AWB has to stand up in court against the Bruen decision it will be interesting.
  You'd think that given the Bruen ruling states wouldn't waste time trying to pass what seems like obviously unconstitutional laws that will get struck down but anti abortion people did the same thing so who knows.  I think the next year will be a very interesting year for gun regulation one way or another. >
  
  Just to clarify for other readers the 1934 NFA was not a ban, but a tax. It was deemed only Constitutional because Congress has the authority to tax. Although the authority to tax a Constitutional right is clearly unconstitutional just as a $14,000 tax to vote would be in 1934 dollars. Regardless in 1986 Congress deemed that citizens couldn't pay the NFA tax to register a machine gun. So we now have a law that deems we must pay a tax, but then another law that says we can't pay that tax.  So now it's a defacto ban on certain firearms without any specific actual law banning them.
  The NFA itself has been well due for the chopping block by SCOTUS. It's only now that we finally have a court willing to possibly take it. >
  
  The kicker there being purchases in Wisconsin/Michigan/Indiana/Iowa, etc.
  Still, if 'found with x while committing a crime' adds 50 years to sentencing and $100,000 to any fees levied.. >
  
  Isn’t the problem in Illinois mostly with handguns though? >
  
  The problem everywhere is handguns. Always has been. It's why they were in the original drafts of the '34 NFA to regulate concealable weapons.  Problem is... it's also the solution. Which is why handguns were removed from NFA list of Class iii regulations in order for it to pass.
  To wit: the thing most effective for bad guys being bad is precisely the thing most effective for defense against said bad guy.
  And this is why gun control has always been a joke. And the idea that "no one wants to take your guns" is nothing more than gaslighting. >
  
  Sorry but if that’s true then that side should actually do SOMETHING. if the gun nuts don’t like the current solutions then come up with something other then “thoughts and prayers” and doing absolutely nothing cause that isn’t good enough >
  
  Why don't you come up with a solution that would actually help solve the problem not the symptoms? >
  
  Me thinks you know exactly why. They think they are helping at treating the root cause not the symptom but you feel otherwise. Rather then come up with alternatives based on the knowledge you have of the problem you attack me instead. Why is that?
  I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that when a six year old walks into a school and shoots his teacher, or when a white guy walks into a school with an AR and murders a ton of kids yes it’s sad but that’s life nothing you can actually do about that, cause bad guys will always get a gun so therefore you don’t actually want to do anything or engage in alternatives. This is the quiet part being said aloud though isn’t it? You can’t actually say there’s nothing we can do when our children are gunned down so you attack and posture instead 
  Some of just believe our children are sacred and need to be protected >
  
  Your first paragraph perfectly describes your initial reply.
  The cause is not the weapons we need to be focusing on mental illness and other social issues. Most people don't pick up a weapon and get the urge to kill. They get the desire to kill and find a weapon. These are the things we should be fixing. >
  
  Or you know a 6 year old shoots their teacher, obviously he had that urge. 
  If only the teacher was armed too, the little wipper snapper would think twice I bet. >
  
  Obviously he had the urge to harm his teacher. 
  
  If only the teacher was armed too, the little wipper snapper would think twice I bet.
  
  Is that what you think? If so that's a really strange idea. >
  
  Define assault rifle, can't be done by statute >
  
  Already being challenged and will hopefully be struck down >
  
  yeah gotta keep those 6 years old armed to deal with those killer teachers/ >
  
  That kid used a 9mm handgun. This bill would do nothing whatsoever to prevent that shooting. >
  
  Good. Every state should follow. >
  
  California has an AWB. Go to somewhere like sportsman's warehouse and search for CA Compliant AR-15's. Go Google the sales figures for AR-15's during the federal AWB. These bans are pointless, political lip-service. They create a new cottage industry around compliance with the new definition to ensure that rifles people want to use can still be bought but are now less safe to handle. >
  
  You do not have a right to own whatever weapon you want. >
  
  What rights do I deserve? >
  
  What right is being infringed?  You can't have an armed fighter jet, either. >
  
  You actually are allowed to own a jet and rocket launchers. Did you have a real point? >
  
  Yes, but not an armed one, as I said.  The point is your right to own any weapon you want is restricted.  No reason this gun cannot be. >
  
  Why should these weapons be banned? >
  
  Bc there isn't any use for them except killing people. >
  
  I've owned several and used them for things outside of killing people. Your statement isn't true in the slightest. Car crashes kill a similar amount of people as guns should cars be banned? >
  
  Like shooting animals? Man, you must be a really, really terrible shot in that case.  If its just for target practice, also not a reason for them to be available so folks can mow down kids at school. >
  
  No, shooting is a sport and there are competitions. It really doesn't matter my point was the majority of these guns are not used for killing people. Over half of the gun deaths in the US were suicides, what do you ban to prevent that? >
  
  good >
  
  But how will Americas celebrate  the second amendment by assaulting each other with weapons? >
  
  49 more to go. >
  
  
  49
  
  41. >
  
  sick. >
  
  Watch how absolutely nothing changes... >
  
  I'm curious if by this time next year we will have another SCOTUS level decision on AWBs and maybe even magazine capacity bans.  Seems like after the Bruen ruling it's open season on gun control laws and the whole "history and tradition" thing is going to be what kills them if anything ever does since there is no history or tradition of arbitrarily banning guns based on removeable features or even those features.  IIRC the first actual ban on the type of gun you could legally own was in the 1960's when they banned importing certain "saturday night special" cheap guns and introduced the "sporting purposes" test for importing guns.  Federal background checks weren't required until the 1990s and the federal AWB then might have been the actual first flat out "You can't buy, import or sell these guns" regulation.  The 1934 NFA might have been the first actual federal level gun control law of any significance.  And that's not a ban just a tax and registration act so once an AWB has to stand up in court against the Bruen decision it will be interesting.
  You'd think that given the Bruen ruling states wouldn't waste time trying to pass what seems like obviously unconstitutional laws that will get struck down but anti abortion people did the same thing so who knows.  I think the next year will be a very interesting year for gun regulation one way or another. >
  
  Just to clarify for other readers the 1934 NFA was not a ban, but a tax. It was deemed only Constitutional because Congress has the authority to tax. Although the authority to tax a Constitutional right is clearly unconstitutional just as a $14,000 tax to vote would be in 1934 dollars. Regardless in 1986 Congress deemed that citizens couldn't pay the NFA tax to register a machine gun. So we now have a law that deems we must pay a tax, but then another law that says we can't pay that tax.  So now it's a defacto ban on certain firearms without any specific actual law banning them.
  The NFA itself has been well due for the chopping block by SCOTUS. It's only now that we finally have a court willing to possibly take it. >
  
  Wait, isn’t there a tax on alcohol? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it determined to be a constitutional right to drink when prohibition was repealed? I am not a lawyer, but I would think that lifting a ban by making an amendment to the constitution would mean that drinking is a constitutional right. I’m confused by your statement that it’s like taxing the right to vote. Isn’t a gun a commodity just like alcohol? Which would imply that you should not be taxed for USING a gun but purchasing a gun and ammunition can be taxed. Again, not a lawyer, please correct me if I’m wrong, I’d be very interested in finding out the actual answer. >
  
  Its not a constitutional right for you to drink.. but its unconstitutional to ban you from drinking.  Splitting hairs,but so is the tax. >
  
  Isn’t the problem in Illinois mostly with handguns though? >
  
  The problem everywhere is handguns. Always has been. It's why they were in the original drafts of the '34 NFA to regulate concealable weapons.  Problem is... it's also the solution. Which is why handguns were removed from NFA list of Class iii regulations in order for it to pass.
  To wit: the thing most effective for bad guys being bad is precisely the thing most effective for defense against said bad guy.
  And this is why gun control has always been a joke. And the idea that "no one wants to take your guns" is nothing more than gaslighting. >
  
  Or you know a 6 year old shoots their teacher, obviously he had that urge. 
  If only the teacher was armed too, the little wipper snapper would think twice I bet. >
  
  No if the parents properly stored there firearm the incident would never have happened. >
  
  Maybe we should have some basic requirements for people to obtain guns. >
  
  I’m open to that, also support better red flag laws. And ontop of that we need to do somthing about the mental health crisis pledging America as well as the issue where people are being gas lited into hate filled rage. >
  
  The kicker there being purchases in Wisconsin/Michigan/Indiana/Iowa, etc.
  Still, if 'found with x while committing a crime' adds 50 years to sentencing and $100,000 to any fees levied.. >
  
  Illinois Residents are only allowed to purchase rifles and shotguns from states that actually border Illinois.  (So this excludes Michigan) 
  Illinois Residents can only purchase handguns from Illinois.
  Federal Law also prevents gun dealers from selling firearms to residents of state if it would violate that states laws.   So Illinois Residents won't be able to go to a surrounding state and purchase a long gun from a gun store if that gun ins't allowed in Illinois... >
  
  So that's covered as long as enforcement is on their toes. >
  
  Gun Dealers have to record every transaction they make, and the ATF reviews their books at least once a year.  They can be subject to stiff penalties if they don't follow the law. >
  
  Already being challenged and will hopefully be struck down >
  
  
  will hopefully be struck down
  
  based on what?