comment: >
  
  Did you really just quote Boebert
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. >
  
  Those sheriffs who refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws are so brave. >
  
  those sheriffs probably don't have the educational background to review constitutionality. >
  
  I guarantee you those sheriffs have at least a bachelors. >
  
  Bachelors in what? >
  
  Does it matter? >
  
  OP believes you have to have a law degree to refuse unconstitutional orders. >
  
  I bet if sheriffs were refusing to enforce abortion bans OP would be singing a much different tune. >
  
  
  I bet if sheriffs were refusing to enforce abortion bans OP would be singing a much different tune.
  
  How do you know the authoritarian principles are only held for guns? >
  
  Sorry, not sure what you’re asking. >
  
  I'm asking how you know that OP won't be as authoritarian about abortion as guns. >
  
  There was a map floating around here yesterday about how many counties would actually be enforcing it, and then I was less optimistic. >
  
  Link to the map. Sort by controversial for the same arguments that will happen in this thread before long >
  
  This is only a temporary win it will eventually be overturned and then back to square one again >
  
  Back in the 90s and early 00s there was a very similar ban at the federal level. It was challenged many times, but the SC refused to take it up because it was upheld by lower courts.
  Probably going to be a different story this time around due to Republicans efforts to install conservative judges over the past few years. >
  
  What was the actual reasoning the lower courts used to uphold the assault weapons ban? I think the quality and type of argument they used should be presented in this argument since you seem to be implying that those rulings were the correct ones as opposed to the later Supreme Court rulings. >
  
  What makes the later Supreme Court rulings any more valid than the earlier rulings lol >
  
  
  What makes the later Supreme Court rulings any more valid than the earlier rulings lol
  
  That's why I am asking about the quality and type of arguments they made. . . That would help me and others to determine if those courts were actually making compelling arguments or not.
  It's not like lower courts have come to very bad conclusions before or the Supreme Court for that matter. >
  
  They were fine argument based on hundreds of years of legal precedent. The courts have always found that there was no individual right to guns in the constitution. It was only when the conservative Supreme Court completely changed the precedent in Heller did it come up. >
  
  
  They were fine argument based on hundreds of years of legal precedent.
  
  What was the hundreds of year old Supreme Court precedent you are referring to? Whenever people make the "hundreds of years of precedent argument" they are suspiciously short on details like names of the supreme court cases that got overturned. Or what that precedent reasoning or legal implications were. >
  
  
  What was the hundreds of year old Supreme Court precedent you are referring to? Whenever people make the "hundreds of years of precedent argument" they are suspiciously short on details like names of the supreme court cases that got overturned. Or what that precedent reasoning or legal implications were.
  
  Whatever misinformation program this is coming from seems to be working, since we see the same lie repeated over and over. >
  
  Good job to the liberal gun owners! You have no one but yourselves to blame for this >
  
  This is like slapping a bandaid on a car crash victim that just got flung out of a windshield. America is fucked. >
  
  Yay now the next school shooting in Illinois will only have 2 or 3 casualties instead of 10 or 20. I wish I were feigning enthusiasm but this is a big step forward. >
  
  
  Yay now the next school shooting in Illinois will only have 2 or 3 casualties instead of 10 or 20. 
  
  Based on what? >
  
  Based on the idea that people who are interested in killing others will, for some reason, comply with a law telling them the weapon they want to use to do so is illegal. >
  
  Why make things illegal? People will do what they want to do. A criminal justice system will only stop people after the fact, what is the point? /s
  I’m sorry, but this line of reasoning is so poor it actually hurts my spirit. You can find the faults of it by casually breathing and applying it to damn near anything. >
  
  You do know just because you block the person doesn’t mean we can’t still see their very well put response? >
  
  A quick glance at the legislation it looks a lot like the California restrictions i.e. guns can't have a grip, detachable mags, accept more then 10 rounds, etc. They also apply these restrictions to pistols and shotguns so it could actually have some minor benefits to the crime issue in bigger cities 
  Good luck on this surviving a challenge in the current supreme court unfortunately. When it will absolutely get sued over the howler monkey contigent of the court will be frothing at the mouth to overturn more gun regulations >
  
  As you've figured out, this doesn't really ban anything. It just means sales of fin-grips or maglocks.
  Politicians just want to be able to hail it as a victory for their side and move on. They aren't really trying to get into the messy and difficult  business of reducing gun deaths. They just hope that everybody who wants a ban will think one exists now so they'll shut up and just keep donating. >
  
  Am I wrong in it not actually including language about them coming to get anything? It just says the serial numbers need to be registered for the guns people already have, doesn’t it? >
  
  For a lot of people, registration is the slippery slope to confiscation. The magazine capacity limit amounts to confiscation though, they are not grandfathered in. Possession of rifle magazines with capacity greater than 10 becomes a felony. This happened as soon as the law went into effect so there's likely a whole lot of people in IL technically committing felonies. >
  
  gary, indiana has entered the chat >
  
  Only going to hurt law abiding citizens. It won’t slow gun violence in that state.  POINTLESS >
  
  Oh the Christian Nationalists will be so upset! They almost have enough weapons to attack the infidels. >
  
  Or if you read reddit comments "a terrible, no good thing to do, and you can trust me, I'm a leftist". >
  
  That's a lot more credible than the "This law will ensure that weapons of war are only carried on the street by police, which are trustworthy and will not unfairly persecute minorities with this law, and you can trust me, I'm a leftist" >
  
  I don't find it credible at all. And if they are actually leftists I question the value of being a leftist if it means doing nothing in the face these mass shootings. If it means a middle of the road democrat is doing more.
  Also, it's complete bullshit to try and act like these weapons are a break against police abuse, where have they been all this time? That's only ever been true when the Black Panthers did it and look at what happened?
  The VAST majority of people arguing to keep these weapons have a hard on for police violence anyway. I am ope to being proved wrong though, have them show up to police arrests armed and with cameras rolling.
  If the goal is to not get shot in a spree killing then people shouldn't have these weapons. Fucking period.
  If you want to talk about demilitarizing the police and holding them accountable that is a separate issue. >
  
  
  And if they are actually leftists I question the value of being a leftist if it means doing nothing in the face these mass shootings. If it means a middle of the road democrat is doing more.
  
  False, a middle of the road democrat is doing less by supporting these useless laws while the leftist is supporting social programs that address the causes of mass shooting such as mental health access.
  
  Also, it's complete bullshit to try and act like these weapons are a break against police abuse, where have they been all this time? That's only ever been true when the Black Panthers did it and look at what happened?
  
  When the Black Panthers did it, the middle of the road democrats went racist and increased gun control. Yet another way they are harming society.
  They prevent police abuse, and the lack of police brutality on the armed BLM protesters compared to the unarmed ones is proof of that. >
  
  
  the causes of mass shooting such as mental health access.
  
  These people that shoot up supermarkets and parades aren't usually suffering from mental problems, they're assholes. And in either case making it harder for them to get guns and walk around with them reduces the amount of damage they can do.
  
  the middle of the road democrats went racist and increased gun control. Yet another way they are harming society
  
  You realize you're talking about 1960's Republicans? Reagan signed the Mulford Act.
  You're blaming current Democrats for what Republicans did 60 years ago. >
  
  
  I'm not going to take your word on this.
  
  Hahaha, but I should take yours? There's no point in us talking anymore. >
  
  
  Hahaha, but I should take yours?
  
  You don't have to. Mine is supported by citations, while yours is just your word. >
  
  It's a state law from 60 years ago during a red administration, named after a Republican and you're trying to use it against current Democrats who weren't even born at the time this was passed.
  It would be like blaming AOC's grandkid for something Sinema did.
  
  Mine is supported by citations
  
  This is where I could be an asshole and demand citations for every Democrat that voted for this actually being middle of the road Democrat at the time, and how those positions compare to what the current, middle of the road Democrat is like.
  And all of this to argue to do nothing. To not even fight. >
  
  
  It's a state law from 60 years ago during a red administration, named after a Republican and you're trying to use it against current Democrats who weren't even born at the time this was passed.
  
  Those current democrats are keeping the racist law in place. They can change it, but they choose to perpetuate it. If AOC's grandkid perpetuates something Sinema did, then they keep the blame for it.
  But we all know you don't want to fight to fix the problem, but only fight for gun control. >
  
  "If you take weapons away from non-law-abiding shooters, then you are left with targets." - Lauren Boebert.