Illinois bans sales and possession of semi-automatic firearms

[Bray123]

Not even half of the story.

Pena is a convicted felon who was neither endorsed nor supported by the republican party.

Obviously Google and Bing are so biased. All their links show that Pena was a Republican candidate, not an independent.
Which search engine are you using? Or are you going straight to Trope Social.

https://www.ibtimes.com/who-solomon...-shootings-new-mexico-democrats-homes-3657723

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Obviously Google and Bing are so biased. All their links show that Pena was a Republican candidate, not an independent.
Which search engine are you using? Or are you going straight to Trope Social.

https://www.ibtimes.com/who-solomon...-shootings-new-mexico-democrats-homes-3657723

Chubby's often wrong....just about always.

 

[Chobham]

Obviously Google and Bing are so biased. All their links show that Pena was a Republican candidate, not an independent.
Which search engine are you using? Or are you going straight to Trope Social.

https://www.ibtimes.com/who-solomon...-shootings-new-mexico-democrats-homes-3657723

That's right SFB. He registered and ran as a republican, anyone can in this state. Go to the clerks office and pay your fee. He was neither endorsed nor supported by the republican party of New Mexico. Why in the hell do you suppose he lost by 45 points?

 

[Emerson40]

Because the election was rigged! Duh!






Cyber Ninjas, unite!

 

[Chobham]

Here's the full story.

Pena

The local joke is that if it weren't for the criminals in that district he wouldn't have received any votes at all.

 

[HisArpy]

Fucked up decisions from the hard core right wing Scalia Court are neither rare or surprising. Changing the definitions of words is standard operating procedures in reactionary right wing circles. Everything from "Pro Life" and "Religious Freedom" to "Alternative Facts" and "Creation Science". The framers of the Constitution use words like "militia" because they meant "militia", regardless of opinions of corrupt Supreme Court Justices.

Dissenting opinions​

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Justice Stevens's dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

Lol, there's always someone who disagrees. That doesn't make them right, it makes them disagreeable.

What I appreciate is the hubris that your vaunted Left wing "Democracy" talking point requires that you adhere to the will of the majority. Or are you actually pro-democracy in name only?

 

[HisArpy]

Plenty of democratic, free nations have enacted tight gun control legislation, and have seen school and mass shootings drop drastically, and even go away altogether.

And people can still legally own guns.

And all the mean baddies and criminals who, according to derpy, are always lurking just around the corner, just waiting for gun legislation to come along and make it easy to storm your home, steal your DVD player and rape the wimmenz… well they never showed up.

The real issue is that the US has an insecure white male (i.e., the likes of derpy and vetteman) population, groomed by the likes of the NRA, with relatively easy access to guns, who clutch fervently to an outdated section of an old document from a bygone era, that could use updating, more than vetteman’s iPhone 5s.

Until that gets fixed, the US will remain behind while the rest of the world advances and evolves, and the blood of school kids will just continue to be the price payed for ‘murikans to own more pew-pew penis substitutes than can comfortably fit into a gun safe, under the guise of free-dum. Ain’t no gubmint gonna tell me what I can and can’t do!

Lol, leave it to the internet puppet account to FAIL to understand that in the US we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

BTW, the US isn't a "democracy" it's a "republic." So, whatever you're spewing when it comes to the US, it's constitution, and the RKBA, you're wrong.

That's mostly because you're a fucktard in general, and a dimwit on top of that.

 

[rainsol]

It's no more unreasonable than banning flame throwers or grenade launchers. How much kill power does one person need? I've yet to hear of an instance where a private citizen came under sustained attack and needed to defend themselves using high capcity, combat zone styled weapons.

 

[ll74]

Lol, leave it to the internet puppet account to FAIL to understand that in the US we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

BTW, the US isn't a "democracy" it's a "republic." So, whatever you're spewing when it comes to the US, it's constitution, and the RKBA, you're wrong.

That's mostly because you're a fucktard in general, and a dimwit on top of that.

A republic is a type of democracy.

 

[rainsol]

Im sure the bangers in the hood will turn in their illegal firearms that are doing all the killing

 

[Emerson40]

A republic is a type of democracy.

You beat me to it.

Anyone with half a brain would know this.
But that is still half a brain more that our favourite jack-leg lawyer possesses.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

BTW, the US isn't a "democracy" it's a "republic."

*chuckles* No it is a democracy, that is in the form of a Republic. Now seriously, do you wish to die on this hill? Others have, and if you do, just let me know and I'll save a lot of time by just digging up the thread.....

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representative

 

[TrailerHitch]

The intent of the law may have come from a place of sincerely hoping to curb gun violence, but sadly it is completely off base. You can't expect criminals who most often obtain weapons illegally to follow this law because they don't follow the law to begin with. Every gun law is misguided in the belief that passing a law restricting or banning a type of weapon will end criminal behavior. It won't and never has. All it does is infringe on the rights of those that follow the law and are of no threat to anyone with their firearms unless they are attacked.

I have been a gun owner for 46 years and never, not one time ever, have I pointed a gun at anyone, let alone shot at anyone. I follow the law, I have my required permits, and I see no reason at all to continue to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in some charade that solves nothing.

 

[Emerson40]

Lol, leave it to the internet puppet account to FAIL to understand that in the US we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

BTW, the US isn't a "democracy" it's a "republic." So, whatever you're spewing when it comes to the US, it's constitution, and the RKBA, you're wrong.

That's mostly because you're a fucktard in general, and a dimwit on top of that.

Leave it to the jack-leg lawyer to FAIL to comprehend that nowhere in my post did I suggest Americans would not be able to keep and bear arms.

Alarmist much? Or just an NRA zealot?

I’ll just point and laugh, and leave you flailing on your democracy boner.

derpy, your male insecurity and reading comprehension challenges are showing.

 

[HisArpy]

Leave it to the jack-leg lawyer to FAIL to comprehend that nowhere in my post did I suggest Americans would not be able to keep and bear arms.

Alarmist much? Or just an NRA zealot?

I’ll just point and laugh, and leave you flailing on your democracy boner.

derpy, your male insecurity and reading comprehension challenges are showing.

Lol, the sock puppet telling the rest of us that we're the one with comprehension issues.

It's like you're fucking stupid or something.

 

[Emerson40]

Lol, the sock puppet telling the rest of us that we're the one with comprehension issues.

It's like you're fucking stupid or something.

“The rest of us”?

BWAH-Hahahahah-Haaaaa!

Let the derpy games begin!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

“The rest of us”?

BWAH-Hahahahah-Haaaaa!

Let the derpy games begin!

There will never be another derpy game that exceeds this little gem ....

What's not to understand? It's just 2 molecules of a volatile carbon based organic bonded with an oxydizer and maintained at a temperature which keeps it in a liquid state.

Or don't you know that?

 

[Emerson40]

There will never be another derpy game that exceeds this little gem ....

That was a classic, made all the better when ol’ derpy, never one to recognize his own stupidity or mistakes, doubled down on his idiocy, called everyone names, and dragged out his “sorry you can’t keep up with the rest of the class” derp defence … instead of just taking a break, calming down, and maybe having a cool, refreshing glass of carbon.

 

[HisArpy]

“The rest of us”?

BWAH-Hahahahah-Haaaaa!

Let the derpy games begin!

Yup, I called it. All you've ever done is underscore it.

 

[HisArpy]

There will never be another derpy game that exceeds this little gem ....

Ba da dut dut dah...

 

[Rightguide]

80 counties in Illinois now say they will not enforce the new state assault weapon ban on constitutional grounds.

 

[HisArpy]

80 counties in Illinois now say they will not enforce the new state assault weapon ban on constitutional grounds.

Government of the people, for the people, by the people, for the win.

 

[Emerson40]

Actually, they stated they won’t actively enforce the law. Which essentially means they won’t go and knock on doors to see if there are banned weapons, and check if they are registered.

Interesting that these Sheriffs feel they can be selective in the laws they enforce. And you wonder why folks want to defund and are critical of the police….

Regardless, their decision puts their deputies and the public at risk, and if they are not up to the task (can’t do their job), other policing agencies such as the Illinois State Police can, and likely will.

Also, this is not an outright ban. If you own or purchased one of the weapons they are banning in the state, you’re grandfathered in and the weapons just need to be registered before the end of the year. What’s the problem with that? It’s ruffling some folk’s feathers but there shouldn’t be a problem with registering a firearm if you’re a responsible gun owner.

80 counties in Illinois now say they will not enforce the new state assault weapon ban on constitutional grounds.

Several lawsuits have sprung up and all will be tested in the courts. The lawmakers seem pretty confident things will hold up in the courts as they modelled their semiautomatic weapon ban on those in eight other states and Washington DC which, to the chagrin of gun lobbyists and the NRA, were found to not be in violation of the Constitution.

Until then, keep catastrophizing and worry about the unseen boogeymen you need a semiautomatic weapon to protect yourself from. You don’t seem batshit crazy at all, really.

 

[Rightguide]

Actually, they stated they won’t actively enforce the law. Which essentially means they won’t go and knock on doors to see if there are banned weapons, and check if they are registered.

Interesting that these Sheriffs feel they can be selective in the laws they enforce. And you wonder why folks want to defund and are critical of the police….

Regardless, their decision puts their deputies and the public at risk, and if they are not up to the task (can’t do their job), other policing agencies such as the Illinois State Police can, and likely will.

Also, this is not an outright ban. If you own or purchased one of the weapons they are banning in the state, you’re grandfathered in and the weapons just need to be registered before the end of the year. What’s the problem with that? It’s ruffling some folk’s feathers but there shouldn’t be a problem with registering a firearm if you’re a responsible gun owner.



Several lawsuits have sprung up and all will be tested in the courts. The lawmakers seem pretty confident things will hold up in the courts as they modelled their semiautomatic weapon ban on those in eight other states and Washington DC which, to the chagrin of gun lobbyists and the NRA, were found to not be in violation of the Constitution.

Until then, keep catastrophizing and worry about the unseen boogeymen you need a semiautomatic weapon to protect yourself from. You don’t seem batshit crazy at all, really.

The simple truth is the SCOTUS has already ruled that weapons in common use cannot be banned. You should have paid attention to DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago, and New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen which explain why you're uninformed. Sheriffs take an oath to uphold the Constitution, the Chicago law on its face is unconstitutional.

 

[ll74]

The simple truth is the SCOTUS has already ruled that weapons in common use cannot be banned. You should have paid attention to DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago, and New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen which explain why you're uninformed. Sheriffs take an oath to uphold the Constitution, the Chicago law on its face is unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the current SCOTUS has basically decided that precedent doesn't matter.