Summary

A federal judge in Illinois ruled the state’s ban on semiautomatic weapons unconstitutional, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that reinforce Second Amendment rights.

Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a permanent injunction against the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, but delayed its enforcement for 30 days to allow for appeal.

The law, enacted after a 2022 mass shooting in Highland Park, faced opposition from gun rights advocates and some local sheriffs.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul promptly appealed the ruling, with Gov. J.B. Pritzker expressing confidence the ban will ultimately be upheld.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 days ago

    He’s not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear some kinds of arms”, it just says “keep and bear arms”.

    It also says “a well-regulated militia”, but that’s a separate issue. The Heller decision’s torture of the text was absurd. Limiting the rights of the people unconnected with a militia does not inhibit a well-regulated militia.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I have read arguments that in the language of the day “well regulated” meant “in good working order.”

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      I get sick of relitigating the this argument, but there is a lot of flowery and outdated language in the founding documents, and in the context it is used there “well regulated” means “in good functioning order” or “of uniform quality”. It has nothing to do with government regulation as we might understand it today. Moreover if you read the Federalist Papers and other supporting documents it is clear that a government-regulated militia would be entirely contrary to the stated purpose, and makes no logical sense.

      The framers wanted dispersed concentrations of local armed groups, with near force parity with any federal infantry or potential foreign adversary. They were extremely suspicious of standing armies.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        The type of militia is not really relevant. Heller disregarded the part about the militia entirely. Regardless of equipment or whether it was organized at the federal, state, or city level, or even independently organized, it’s still mentioned.

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 days ago

      He’s not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear some kinds of arms”, it just says “keep and bear arms”.

      It’s kind of vague though. If a kid asks, “Can I have ice cream,” and their parents say, “Yes, you can have ice cream,” it doesn’t mean the kid can have whatever ice cream them want and in whatever quantities they want.

      As a non-American, I always find it funny how some people revere the framers as having future vision and somehow infallible.

      • can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        People don’t revere the framers, they treat our founding mythos similarly to religion. They embrace what they like and what reinforces their beliefs while ignoring things that they find inconvenient. Primarily they ignore that very little was universally agreed upon by our framers and that the Constitution is the result of significant compromise. When someone says, “The framers believed…” they are almost always wrong and actually only framing what they believe in a way that they think gives it more credibility.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      The second amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear some kinds of arms”, it just says “keep and bear arms”.

      Yeah, but it was also written at a time when the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles. The idea that civilians could own and fire 1000+ round-per-minute machine guns in their backyard was unimaginable back then.

      2A needs to be updated. The times have changed. Arms have changed.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles

        At the time, individuals owned top-of-the-class warships complete with cannons. It’s what made up a good portion of the continental navy.

        The Lewis and Clark Expedition even used the Girandoni rifle, complete with a 21 round magazine.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Yeah, but it was also written at a time when the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles.

        Actually, according to Wikipedia, “The first bolt-action rifle was produced in 1824” so that’s decades after the second amendment was ratified.

        • Chozo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          Dang, I didn’t wanna say “musket” because I thought that was too old, but maybe those were still in use at the time. So even a BAR is more modern than what Madison could’ve had in mind.

          • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            Smoothbore musket was the standard issue firearm during that period, with a smattering of rifled muzzleloaders as well.