comment: >
  
  The court found that possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. AR-15s are not necessary to fight tyranny. If the people who argue from your standpoint still believe that this little militia could defeat the US military, that is a delusional idea. 
  It's for the court to decide eventually, but the chance of the feds or some local tyrants attacking somebody is lower than the chance of the AR-15 being used to murder people. The militia is also not truly defined by the Supreme Court, so arguing that it's a force to fight tyranny is just as valid as saying that it's a force for tyranny.
  Nowhere in the amendment does it mention an AR-15.
context: This is a non issue equivalent to the gays in bathroom or covid.
  Nothing will happen and dems will say we tried. Republicans will win because of 2nd amendment. People stay occupied with a non issue. >
  
  
  Nothing will happen and dems will say we tried. Republicans will win because of 2nd amendment. People stay occupied with a non issue.
  
  This is the most likely outcome. The law has already been enjoined statewide. With the post Bruen legal landscape I doubt it's going to survive.
  Democrats will get to say that they tried.
  However, it won't necessarily end there. Democrats absolutely loath Bruen, and many elected Democrats have never met a gun control law that they didn't like, so I expect there to be a multi-year effort of massive resistance where Illinois Democrats try to be creative to get around the 2nd Amendment. >
  
  
  expect there to be a multi-year effort of massive resistance where Illinois Democrats try to be creative to get around the 2nd Amendment
  
  And not just in Illinois either, California and New York are also edging towards finding a way to get around the 2nd Amendment. >
  
  There is no functional or procedural process for the US to become 'separated America'. Unfortunately I fear that the growing polarization and unwillingness to listen and compromise with each other may lead us to a point of open violence. 
  I earnestly hope that doesn't happen though. >
  
  Not having a process doesn't mean we can't easily make one. >
  
  The southern states tried to make one...didn't turn out well for them. Expecting a civil dissolution of the US into separate entities is naive and exceptionally unlikely. >
  
  "It didnt happen when it was tried that one time 150 years ago, so it won't happen now" isn't a very good rebuttal. >
  
  Ok, fair. Let me try it another way then. 
  In the 1860s, when this was last tried, the country very much was effectively a close association of states rather than one fully unified nation. Most Americans identified by their state vs as Americans and most never traveled far from home. The Civil War was the catalyst that changed that, and after the war it very much became a more unified nation. Obviously there were still plenty of issues and there still are.
  The country as a whole therefore has grown and developed interdependently and the states actually rely on each other a great deal. For one state to want to leave, or a group of them, it would cause negative impacts on the remaining states which would incentivize an attempt to keep them from leaving through the use of force. That is essentially true regardless of what state is being discussed or the reason for leaving.
  Now, add to that most states are not even uniformly culturally aligned anymore and there are stark political differences even within each state and the complexities of the US separating peacefully become unlikely. It would effectively have to happen at the county level (or lower) and trying to codify boundaries would almost certainly compel the use of force somewhere. >
  
  
  most states are not even uniformly culturally aligned anymore and there are stark political differences even within each state
  
  This is really important.  California, for example, sent more votes to Trump than most every other state, blue or red.
  Where I live in rural Washington state (but still on the coast) we have a pretty even mix of ideologies. >
  
  The way to solve this is to cut state and federal funding to counties that refuse to enforce the law. Why are we spending millions of dollars on a militarized police force if they aren't doing their job? >
  
  Should we start with leftist states and counties who declared they would not enforce the law on immigration? >
  
  Okay, but that doesn't actually do anything. States and cities aren't required to enforce federal laws for the federal government. That's why there is a federal law enforcement apparatus.
  However state law enforcement are absolutely required to enforce state laws for the state, it's kinda in the name 'state law enforcement.' >
  
  But the Sheriff is elected at the county level. If the state legislature passes a law and the governor signs into law a bill that is beyond hated in a certain county are you saying the Sheriff of that county has to ignore the voters they answer to? >
  
  Counties are not separate legal entities from the state. They are just a part of the state. The state can dissolve counties if it so chooses.
  The feds cannot dissolve a state.
  Yes, sheriffs are beholden to the state legislature and governor and the laws they pass, and must enforce those laws. >
  
  Yes, counties are part of the state, but technically, they are separate government entity. A lot of political power exists at the county level.
  Some simple examples include:
  -School districts are ran at the county level
  - County DA's office
  - Waste management 
  - Sheriff's Department 
  It may be possible in some state for the legislature to dissolve a county. I can not speak to 50 state constitutions. I only know in my state that it is not possible. 
  The Sheriff of my county is supposed to enforce the laws of the state, but again, in every county, the Sheriff has a wide latitude in choosing how they do that. If they choose not to enforce a state law in several states, there is not a lot the governor or legislature can do about it except send in state police to enforce the law. >
  
  Local governments only have the power that the state legislature allows them. All of that power has been delegated by the state and can be taken back.
  They can either dissolve a county or de facto dissolve a county by reclaiming its powers. >
  
  Depends on if the legislature has that power in its state constitution. 
  If such a power is not specifically granted to a state legislature in its state constitution, that is a textbook power grab. >
  
  No, it’s the opposite.
  The state legislature is the governing body that defines the law of the land.
  Unless the constitution Limits its powers- it has that power already. Full stop.
  It’s not a “power grab”, that is wrong. >
  
  Eliminating those who disagree with you is not a power grab? >
  
  Personally think it’s awesome the sheriffs aren’t enforcing that assault weapons ban (blatantly unconstitutional since “assault weapon” can mean literally any gun) and if the amount of counties that refuse to enforce it means anything, the chances of the state government forcing them into doing most likely won’t happen (if you get rid of the sheriffs, what’s stopping people from just voting for another one who won’t enforce it?) >
  
  The assault weapons ban is not unconstitutional. >
  
  It is based on the shall not infringe part as well as the recent Supreme Court ruling of DC V Heller. Which ruled that any firearm that is commonly used is protected by the second amendment. Now ar 15s are americas most popular rife so they definitely fall into that category making the law unconstitutional. >
  
  DC v Heller ruled that firearms are legal in defense of hearth and home. The court emphasized the home and self defense justifications for having handguns in the city. It did not rule on any basis of "common use." 
  The United States v Miller ruling still stands that regulation of certain firearms and firearm types does not intrude on the infringement clause. 
  The militia clause also keeps being stepped over for some reason. >
  
  “Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the second ammendment.” 
  Couldn’t that logic also be applied to ar-15s because they are common place and used for home defense. As well as semi auto rifles due to how popular they are.
  Couldn’t getting rid of a weapon like the ar-15 infringe upon the well regulated part of the second amendment. Due to that meaning well trained, well armed, and well disciplined in that time period.
  [ok last edit] the miller case states that they ruled the sawed off shotgun was not related to the efficiency or preservation of a well regulated milita. With the assault weapons ban getting rid of an entire class of rifle that undoubtedly effects the efficiency of a well regulated milita. >
  
  No, the whole point is that the handguns are commonly  used for protection. The idea that someone needs an AR-15 for home defense or self defense has never been supported by the Supreme Court. Ar-15s aren't as effective as shotguns for home defense and aren't as easy to carry as handguns. AR-15s only serve as target-shooters or people-shooters. They work better than handguns or shotguns at mass shooting people. They just aren't necessary. >
  
  I’d say I disagree with how you view the ar but even if you are correct the assault weapons ban would still be unconstitutional because it violates the well regulated part of the second amendment. The second amendments main purpose as proved in the Supreme Court is to allow the people to fight back against tyranny. Getting rid of a gun that as you put it is a people shooter would effect a militias ability to defend itself against tyranny and the miller ruling stated the milita means any able bodied man(I think it said man maybe it said individual but anyways).