Supreme Court says Illinois may ban sale of rapid-fire assault weapons for now

Guno צְבִי

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a 2nd Amendment appeal from gun owners and let stand for now an Illinois law banning the sale of the rapid-fire assault weapons that have been used to carry out mass shootings across the country.

In an unsigned order with no dissents, the justices rejected an emergency appeal that asked them to block a local ordinance and the state ban from taking effect.

While the court's action is not a ruling on the broader constitutional issue, it is a good sign for California and the eight other states that also ban the sale of assault weapons.

Usually, justices would block a new law from taking effect if they believe it is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...B?cvid=c83f5b26bbcd46bea41629eb48c2e69e&ei=31
 
guno said:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a 2nd Amendment appeal from gun owners and let stand for now an Illinois law banning the sale of the rapid-fire assault weapons that have been used to carry out mass shootings across the country.

In an unsigned order with no dissents, the justices rejected an emergency appeal that asked them to block a local ordinance and the state ban from taking effect.

While the court's action is not a ruling on the broader constitutional issue, it is a good sign for California and the eight other states that also ban the sale of assault weapons.

Usually, justices would block a new law from taking effect if they believe it is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...B?cvid=c83f5b26bbcd46bea41629eb48c2e69e&ei=31
Click to expand...

Banning further sales of assault weapons is a very insufficient measure.
The existing ones should be confiscated with Draconian consequences imposed for failure to cooperate.

The tax payers would unfortunately have to bear the burden of funding at least some monetary compensation
but that's our own fault for allowing the distribution of those weapons in the first place.
 
They just kicked it down the road, knowing eventually, perhaps when they aren’t under the limelight so much, it will return to them

Hard to even imagine that eventually the Robert’s Court won’t will do away with all gun regulation.

Given they were so shameless and overtly partisan in basing their Bruen decision on the stupid sophomoric majority opinion Thomas offered proves they don’t give a rat’s ass about public safety nor common sense in their quest to force America to conform to their own political and cultural ideology.

The big one will be when they tell us that individual gun rights in one State can be transferred across State lines, that the gun toting Texan gunslinger can walk around NYC wearing his semiautomatic weapon over his shoulder.
 
guno said:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a 2nd Amendment appeal from gun owners and let stand for now an Illinois law banning the sale of the rapid-fire assault weapons that have been used to carry out mass shootings across the country.

In an unsigned order with no dissents, the justices rejected an emergency appeal that asked them to block a local ordinance and the state ban from taking effect.

While the court's action is not a ruling on the broader constitutional issue, it is a good sign for California and the eight other states that also ban the sale of assault weapons.

Usually, justices would block a new law from taking effect if they believe it is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...B?cvid=c83f5b26bbcd46bea41629eb48c2e69e&ei=31
Click to expand...

typical of someone who can't understand the judicial process. you should remain silent and just be thought a fool instead of posting and showing that you are a fool.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Banning further sales of assault weapons is a very insufficient measure.
The existing ones should be confiscated with Draconian consequences imposed for failure to cooperate.

The tax payers would unfortunately have to bear the burden of funding at least some monetary compensation
but that's our own fault for allowing the distribution of those weapons in the first place.
Click to expand...

please proceed with that course of action. I would love to see the look on your ridiculous mug when it backfires on you
 
SmarterthanYou said:
typical of someone who can't understand the judicial process. you should remain silent and just be thought a fool instead of posting and showing that you are a fool.
Click to expand...

Poor oaf keeper

Usually, justices would block a new law from taking effect if they believe it is unconstitutional.
 
archives said:
They just kicked it down the road, knowing eventually, perhaps when they aren’t under the limelight so much, it will return to them

Hard to even imagine that eventually the Robert’s Court won’t will do away with all gun regulation.

Given they were so shameless and overtly partisan in basing their Bruen decision on the stupid sophomoric majority opinion Thomas offered proves they don’t give a rat’s ass about public safety nor common sense in their quest to force America to conform to their own political and cultural ideology.

The big one will be when they tell us that individual gun rights in one State can be transferred across State lines, that the gun toting Texan gunslinger can walk around NYC wearing his semiautomatic weapon over his shoulder.
Click to expand...

have you hated the constitution all your life? or only when it doesn't work for you?
 
guno said:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a 2nd Amendment appeal from gun owners and let stand for now an Illinois law banning the sale of the rapid-fire assault weapons that have been used to carry out mass shootings across the country.

In an unsigned order with no dissents, the justices rejected an emergency appeal that asked them to block a local ordinance and the state ban from taking effect.

While the court's action is not a ruling on the broader constitutional issue, it is a good sign for California and the eight other states that also ban the sale of assault weapons.

Usually, justices would block a new law from taking effect if they believe it is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...B?cvid=c83f5b26bbcd46bea41629eb48c2e69e&ei=31
Click to expand...

Won't do much good. Gun nuts will just buy their killing machines next door in Indiana.
 
guno said:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a 2nd Amendment appeal from gun owners and let stand for now an Illinois law banning the sale of the rapid-fire assault weapons that have been used to carry out mass shootings across the country.

In an unsigned order with no dissents, the justices rejected an emergency appeal that asked them to block a local ordinance and the state ban from taking effect.

While the court's action is not a ruling on the broader constitutional issue, it is a good sign for California and the eight other states that also ban the sale of assault weapons.

Usually, justices would block a new law from taking effect if they believe it is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...B?cvid=c83f5b26bbcd46bea41629eb48c2e69e&ei=31
Click to expand...

What was the basis for their ruling?
 
guno said:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a 2nd Amendment appeal from gun owners and let stand for now an Illinois law banning
Click to expand...

Is English your second language? That doesn't tell me the basis for the decision. Good lord. What was their reasoning for their decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top