comment: >
  
  It will be over turned as AR-15s are in common use also the law was very very poorly written and ended up banning a very wide variety of guns that are not “assault” weapons.
context: I'm not sure giving the Supreme Court a new gun case to rule on is actually a win for gun control advocates. >
  
  With Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh catching a GVR from SCOTUS, I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block. IL is just working on their SCOTUS speedruns. Have to compete against NY, NJ and CA after all. >
  
  
  I think we can safely assume “assault weapon” bans are on the chopping block.
  
  Assault weapon bans were on the chopping block before Bruen decision. It actually got more time because of the decision. There was a case that got knocked down the the lower courts again after Bruen that was against California's ban. Assault Weapon bans will fall because of the Heller decision as they are extremely common use now. Also if you use democrat's words against them with them being "weapons of war" then it would also fail because of Miller decision. Remember that the 94 AWB was never challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds and since it's ending they have become one of the popular styles of guns in the country. >
  
  From what I understand in talking to some of the older guys, the 94 AWB basically made the AR platform what it is today. Prior to that, it was kind of a niche market. I HATE everything the SCOTUS has done recently, but I hope they smack the shit out of IL for this (and other states). As I see discussed in this thread, and others like this, AWB doesn't actually have any impact on crime. >
  
  The DOJ’s own analysis after the expiration of the 94 AWB said that it “had no significant effect” on gun violence.  Frankly, that should have been expected—and should still be the expected outcome—for a number of reasons, notably that “assault weapons” are rarely used in crime, there’s numerous obstacles to enforcing an AWB to any effective degree, and AWBs completely ignore the actual causes of gun violence.
  Either these politicians are oblivious to both crime stats and all the research showing how to reduce violent crime, which is hard to believe since this is basically part of their job, or they’re more interested in lobbyist money and votes than reducing crime and saving lives. >
  
  Theyre reducing the ability of citizens to threaten their power >
  
  Yes...let's go overthrow the government with our weapons...that is definitely the hallmark of the most civil society on the planet...that is why the US is the most free. /s >
  
  Unfortunately the major push of feature bans fails to address root causes of gun violence, and as a result has limited impact on gun deaths. Predisposition to violence is one of the greatest indicators to using a gun in a violent crime, not whether the gun has a barrel shroud or adjustable stock. When America decides to implement universal Healthcare and provide economic opportunity to communities via co-operative business investment, allowing for communities to strengthen via collaboration vs competition, it gives these frustrated young men hope and opportunity vs joining a gang or randomly killing innocent people. >
  
  What.  The reason we have so many gun deaths is simply because of easy access to guns.  Full stop. >
  
  The reason we have obesity is easy access to forks. >
  
  Do you think you'd eat as much food if you didn't have a single fork in your house >
  
  Have you never heard of a spoon? Chopsticks? >
  
  I didn't say "you would starve to death without a fork" >
  
  
  Do you think you'd eat as much food if you didn't have a single fork in your house
  
  Do you not get how you would just use a spoon/chopsticks to eat as much food?
  But this does explain why people can't get why assault weapons bans wouldn't solve gun violence. >
  
  
  could 
  
  "Could" is not the same as "will". >
  
  Legislators to citizens: You can't have these guns, they exist only to kill people as weapons of war and we will protect you  
  Legislators to police: Here is more money, you can keep buying all the military weaponry you want, please shoot the plebs if they get out of line. >
  
  Not just police departmentas but the officers themselves. Even if they quit or retire they get a special exemption from the law.
  This exemption has never ever made sense to me. If you want to make the department exempt fine but not the individual. Once you leave the agency you're not a cop anymore so you have "no need" for such items. >
  
  Ban on paper. Won’t be enforced. >
  
  It won't be enforced. There's already numerous sheriffs departments and local police departments that are releasing written statements saying they won't enforce it. >
  
  By numerous, you mean practically the entire state, right? Over 70 counties now saying they won’t enforce the ban. The new law is unjust and unconstitutional. Those lawmakers need to be thrown into jail and put on trial for treason for violating our second amendment. >
  
  You gonna go shoot them? >
  
  This ban will have very little effect on violent crime because almost all violent crimes with firearms are carried out with handguns that you can conceal in a waistband, a holster or a pocket. I also think it is immoral to go after peaceful people (which includes a 30% people of color community) who have these types of weapons by sending armed law enforcement after them, with these types of weapons. >
  
  I recall reading a stat that the majority of gun crimes committed in Illinois are committed with handguns purchased from Indiana. Don't have it at hand so it could be malarkey. >
  
  ATF trace data shows the top five states where guns recovered in Illinois were originally purchased:  
  1) Illinois (49.8%)  
  2) Indiana (16.7%)  
  3) Missouri (5.4%)  
  4) Wisconsin (3.9%)  
  5) Kentucky (2.6%)    
  With 21.6% unable to be traced.
  So a sixth of those guns can be traced to Indiana. >
  
  Only going to hurt law abiding citizens. It won’t slow gun violence in that state.  POINTLESS