The US Supreme Court has declined to put a temporary hold on an Illinois law that bans the sale of assault-style weapons and a variety of other guns and accessories.

The law will require existing owners of the restricted items to register them by 1 January.

A gun rights group and the owner of a gun shop have sued to stop the implementation of the law.

Their case has consistently been rebuffed by lower courts.

The legislation took effect in January and sales of the restricted guns were stopped immediately.

  • NuXCOM_90Percent
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Actually, there are some very common traits. Like pistol grips, threaded barrels, etc. I strongly suggest actually looking at the PDF rather than what you assume it says. It is a remarkably helpful PDF and, while I would prefer it to be stricter, this seems like a good law because it is very clear definitions for gun owners that (mostly) have the goal of reducing effectiveness in close quarters/“urban” environments (so preschools) and reducing ammo capacity. Like, I almost wish they hadn’t listed the specific examples and just done the “definitions” and “flow chart” sections.

    And deepest apologies if my horror over the 306 school shootings in 2023 (as of November 10th) is too much “fearmongering” for you.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I read that specific PDF before making my original post, but I see why my post may have been unclear. I wasn’t saying that one rifle with a pistol grip has nothing in common with another rifle with a pistol grip - that’s not true because obviously they’re both rifles with pistol grips. What I was saying is that a rifle with a pistol grip and a pistol with a threaded barrel (but not a pistol with a pistol grip) have nothing in common beyond their association with the military.

      Some of the banned features do make weapons easier to handle in close-quarters environments, but not more so than other weapons (semiautomatic pistols) which are legal and clearly protected by the second amendment as it is currently interpreted.

      Pretty much everyone including me is horrified by school shootings, and the implication that I’m somehow insufficiently horrified by them would be offensive if it weren’t ridiculous. I’m still comfortable arguing against this law because I expect it to have no effect on how many school shootings take place or on how deadly each shooting is. (Maybe the limits on magazine size would help, and so I haven’t brought them up. Otherwise I think no gun control law much less strict than a ban on all semi-automatic weapons including pistols with no grandfather clause for weapons which people already own would do much at all.)

      • NuXCOM_90Percent
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        … Why do they need to have anything in common?

        Threaded barrels allow for adding of suppressors of various varieties which make it harder for cops to find them (so that said cops can flee in the opposite direction…). As well as compensators which make rapid fire more viable (whether illegal automatic fire mod, bump stock, or just squeezing really fast).

        Pistol grips allow for faster short/mid-range aiming and much better ergonomics.

        And, because I am sure you are engaging in good faith: you’ll note that the pistol rules basically remove the “SBR” loophole that everyone and their mother loves. Because aiming with a pistol under stress is difficult and there is a reason that buttstocks are a thing.

        But there is absolutely no reason those two have to be “linked”. Just like you can acknowledge that fire and poison are both bad without needing a link between smoking next to a bucket full of kerosene and drinking said kerosene (… ignore that I just made a link).

        , but not more so than other weapons (semiautomatic pistols) which are legal and clearly protected by the second amendment as it is currently interpreted.

        Currently, the Supreme Court does not agree with you. Whether they will change their mind if and when they do a full opinion is anyone’s guess. But if this were as clear cut as that, there would already be a halt.

        Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter. But it clearly negates the “This is illegal so it is wrong” argument.