comment: >
  
  Those sheriffs who refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws are so brave.
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. >
  
  There are a very large number of AR-15s, M4s and similar rifles currently used by a plethora of federal agencies and law enforcement (outside of DoD). To include select fire (ie full auto capable machine gun) variants. Not to mention flash hiders, collapsible stocks, fore grips, suppressors and other banned features.
  Given that all those agencies have explicit policies that their employees can only use deadly force to defend against threats to their life or the life of another - which is the exact same standard for when any civilian is allowed to use deadly force - I think there is pretty good evidence that such weapons ARE appropriate for defensive purposes and the "weapons of war'" rhetoric is false. The alternative, if the government wants to claim they are in fact "weapons of war'" only appropriate for military use, is that the executive branch has created a standing army not subject to the 2 yr approval of Congress in violation of the Constitution. (I do not believe the later is the case.) >
  
  You seem confused by the difference between government agencies and citizens. No citizen needs any of those capabilities. >
  
  Civilian is a civilian is a civilian. That's why it's fucked that cops can buy guns on the no pistol buy list in CA and freely resell them. >
  
  Oh, I agree. Cops are not soldiers, no matter how much they like to think they are. That’s a big part of the problem. Half the time they’re LARPing GI Joe FFS >
  
  So are you defending that law enforcement should still have access to weapons banned to non law enforcement citizens? Or are you arguing that all government agencies outside of DoD should only have access to the exact same weapons that are allowed to the entire citizenry? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Turning a bunch of gun owners into felons if they don’t comply and carving out exemptions for police sure seems like a strange “win” >
  
  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. >
  
  Absolute pieces of shit who should be immediately removed from their position. They took an oath to uphold the law. Not just the ones they agree with. These are the seditionists >
  
  This is the worst place for this to happen.  Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws.   Coincidentally they have some of the highest gun crime stats in the nation. >
  
  So, do nothing then? >
  
  No no of course just do pointless things to pat ourselves on the back. >
  
  Oh well, time to switch to, .458 SOCOM. Can buy plenty of 10-round mags for those... >
  
  The 3d printer has ended gun control as a concept. >
  
  Now only the rich can have them >
  
  Or anyone with a tank a gas who can just go to most of IL where this won’t be enforced.  That is already what people in Chicago or Lake county where they already had bans were already doing. >
  
  Despite the bluster from various counties, I doubt most FFL's will put their licenses on the line, nor will suppliers and distributors. Will be interesting to see if they do and what actions the state or suppliers actually take. >
  
  What those FFLs will do is sell IL-complaint ARs on one side of the store and on the far wall will be the accessory aisle that sells all those naughty things Lord Pritzker thinks are bad. >
  
  Exactly >
  
  I’m in Illinois right now, been shooting for a long time, I think that there’s a ton that can be done to stem gun violence, much of which is socio-economic, and some of which directly pertains to gun ownership and how we decide who is sufficiently responsible to own a gun. I even agree with most of the measures that passed alongside the assault weapons ban like prosecuting straw purchasers of firearms, improving our background check system, and refining our licensing system. That said, I think that the ever persistent idea that liberals have to ban certain categories of firearms is absurd and will do literally nothing to stem gun violence. I’ve shot basically every kind of gun you could imagine and I’ve more or less come to the conclusion that any given gun can sling high velocity lead about as well as any other. I say as a democrat voter in a deep blue city that this proposal only serves to assuage the anxieties of wealthy liberals who are so alienated from the root causes of gun violence that they don’t even understand why or how it happens, and every establishment politician left and right would rather engage in this kind of political showmanship than actually address why people shoot up each other’s houses or schools. >
  
  So is it a ban of the sale of new AR type rifles, or does it ban the ownership of existing rifles?  And can those existing rifles be bought or sold?
  No one seems to be addressing this, but you look like you might know. >
  
  The law says that all existing examples are grandfathered in but must be registered with the state police. Not sure whether you’re allowed to transfer ownership but I’m looking into it as we speak >
  
  ….and the cops aren’t going to obey the laws…………what’s new? >
  
  They did, it includes most semi auto pistols.
  Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
  All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
  All AK types, including the following:
  Centurion 39 AK pistol.
  CZ Scorpion pistol.
  Draco AK–47 pistol.
  HCR AK–47 pistol.
  IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol.
  Krinkov pistol.
  Mini Draco AK–47 pistol.
  PAP M92 pistol.
  Yugo Krebs Krink pistol.
  All AR types, including the following:
  American Spirit AR–15 pistol.
  Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol.
  Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II.
  CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol.
  Daniel Defense MK18 pistol.
  DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol.
  DPMS AR–15 pistol.
  Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol.
  Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol.
  Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol.
  POF USA AR pistols.
  Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol.
  Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol.
  Calico pistols.
  DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol.
  Encom MP–9 and MP–45.
  Heckler & Koch model SP–89 pistol.
  Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9.
  IWI Galil Ace pistol, UZI PRO pistol.
  Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol.
  All MAC types, including the following:
  MAC–10.
  MAC–11.
  Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.
  Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11.
  Velocity Arms VMAC.
  Sig Sauer P556 pistol.
  Sites Spectre.
  All Thompson types, including the following:
  Thompson TA510D.
  Thompson TA5.
  All UZI types, including Micro-UZI. >
  
  None of these are commonly found in the hands of criminals. They're SMGs or modified rifles. Not built for purpose handguns.
  The "AR-15 Pistol" for example is just a shorter AR-15 without the foregrip and the stock >
  
  Grabs popcorn. Waits for all the “outrage” and “scary gun” replies.