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
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 个月前

    … 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.