The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the ruling, which was 4-3, Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote, “First, we hold that the exemptions neither deny equal protection nor constitute special legislation because plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that they are similarly situated to and treated differently from the exempt classes. Second, plaintiffs expressly waived in the circuit court any independent claim that the restrictions impermissibly infringe the second amendment. Third, plaintiffs’ failure to cross-appeal is a jurisdictional bar to renewing their three-readings claim.”

  • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What do you guys think of an “USA-News” sub?

    Always those “US court decides X over weird US law, Court 2 decides Y, Court 3 decides both are idiots” littering the news.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Either way, us news is still going to be posted to news because it is news. It makes no specification on location and there seems to be far more US users than anywhere else. If you want to see other news, post it.

      It’s probably be a better option to make a “non-us news” community.

  • doomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure all of the people you don’t want having assault weapons in states like Illinois already have them.

    I’m not so sure the ones those people dream of targeting have yet acquired reciprocal defenses.

    Happy to see less guns around, but I do worry about the pre-existing distribution of them.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      yes but everyone who wanted to smoke in the 80s and everyone who wants to smoke today does- but there are only less smokers and less smoke inside nowadays because it was legislated.

      change can only come through attempting change

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      First, you have to start somewhere. If one person legally purchased a nuclear bomb, I don’t think they shouldn’t pass a law preventing anyone else from purchasing a nuclear bomb.

      Second, you’re not going to be carrying around any long gun. Those will be for home defence at most, likely just a range toy (and also to be shown during a protest to make sure other people know your people are armed). Maybe it’ll be useful if we end up in a civil war or something, idk. A handgun is nearly as good at killing people and can be carried around easily. If you want protection from these people then you want a handgun.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A rifle won’t protect those people either.

          A handgun has almost as much killing power as a rifle. Most rifles people have are fire 5.56x45mm rounds. The penetrative power of those are reasonably low. Now, 7.62 will probably punch through any body armor they’re wearing, but that’s fairly uncommon I’m the US. With the NGSW we’ll see more larger rounds, but until then your handgun will kill about as well as their rifle, assuming your close enough which a self defence situation would imply.

          A longer gun is better for longer ranges. If you’re at longer range, probably just get out of the way instead of thinking you’ll fight back. Most likely you’ll just make the situation more confusing and no one will be able to identify the “good guy with a gun” and you’ll get shot, by police or otherwise.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the big problem. There are a bunch of gun stores in East Chicago, because it’s in Indiana. People just cross over state lines, buy guns, and go back to Chicago proper.

      • BootyCreekCheekFreak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well if you’re a resident of Illinois you can’t go to another state and buy a gun from a licensed dealer. You’d have to have it shipped to an FFL in your state. Since this rule is in effect then the FFL in Illinois wouldn’t sell it to you.

        The only way you can go to another state and get a gun is if it’s a private sale.

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    The obsession of guns in the USA is insane.

    • Sandy Hook massacre of 2011 did not change anything.
    • Las Vegas massacre of 2017 did not change anything.
    • High school massacre of 2018 in Santa Fe, TX did not change anything
    • Grocery store massacre of 2019 in El Paso did not change anything
    • Robb Elementary massacre of 2022 in Uvalde did not change anything.
    • Outlet mall massacre of 2023 in Allen, TX did not change anything

    (yes there are many more mass shooting prior to 2011 and in between. These are just the ones I can recall as of writing this post)

    American Exceptionalism at its best

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Each state has a Supreme Court of the state, and then there the Supreme Court of the United States for matters that regard the federation of the states. If it’s only a state matter, it won’t go to the SCotUS. The SC of the state is the highest court where the state law is applicable.

      • baatliwala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah no my point was just about the name given to it, where I’m from (India) we have a similar system just that the highest state level court is called “High Court” and not State Supreme Court. There’s only one Supreme Court and that does the federal level stuff. Wouldn’t seem very supreme if every state had one did it :P

    • delicious_tvarog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The intention is that each state has full self-determination as long as it doesn’t run counter to federal law. Each state has its own legislature, executive, and judiciary.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you’d be okay if some crazy killed you and everyone around you because they had their own personal nuclear weapon to do it with? Really?

    • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      And you are the reason these restrictions exist. 2nd Am. is a very important right and the real reason the fight against it is so successful is because of immaturity from the gun rights supporters.