Illinois bans sales and possession of semi-automatic firearms

[icanhelp1]

It isn't necessarily more guns or less guns, what it is is who posses the guns. If it is law abiding citizens then the danger is low, if it is criminals then the danger is high. Law abiding citizens already jump through hoops to buys guns legally. Both state and federal background checks and some places a waiting period before you can pickup your gun purchase. Obviously illegally purchased, or stolen, guns most often used by criminals do not have those hoops so laws do nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

My response to this is far too often plea bargaining and probation destroy any real punishment deterrent especially if the perpetrator is under the age of 18.

Mental health and punishing criminals is the answer. Looking to block the pipeline of illegal guns is another. But heck when you had a past administration running illegal guns that were involved in the deaths of police officers there really is little hope for the government to take gun running seriously.

Unfortunately the trends are ass backwards. States like WA, OR, CAL, VT, ME have decriminalized all drugs, most are democrat leaning states with high homeless numbers while some having the strictest gun laws in the country. The irony is making drugs legal while trying to make possession of firearms almost impossible for law abiding citizens (criminalizing firearms while decriminalizing drugs is an oxymoron). As drug addiction permeates our society like a plague so doesn't the violence. Now, pure libertarians are all for legalizing drugs regardless of the impact on society. Who wants to live nearby to a drug infested homeless camp without the ability to protect oneself.

Lax border security both impacts drug and weapons smuggling and both impact our safety. Our justice system's failure to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law possession and use of illegal firearms does nothing more than promote recidivism. Major reform on how we handle drug abuse and homelessness is critical as well as enforcing gun laws that are already on the books. It doesn't start with picking apart the 2nd amendment, It starts at the town level, voting in people with realistic views on drug rehab and law enforcement. Lot's of shit broken and it hurts the little guy/gal not the powerful rich bureaucrats who live in gated communities. We need real virtue not virtue signalling. Addicts and homeless need mental health care, judges and prosecutors need to do their job. All states are different and therefor should regulate gun laws in accordance to their needs, to ban AR-15s in big sky country is stupid, feds should stay out of state business. IMHO

 

[HisArpy]

Why, yes, a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment belies all that the gun nuts in the United States hold that it covers. It doesn't cover civilians outside of a government-control military force and it doesn't cover automatic weapons. The gun nuts are insisting on their interpretation purely because they are rotten people who don't care that other folks' right to live is being violated.

The answer has come down to the gun nuts need to experience this insanity directly and personally until they understand what needs to be done.

Lost in the fantasy of your own illogic again I see.

 

[HisArpy]

Well you should know that feeling well!

I believe that if you took a truthful random sampling, you'd probably find that 100% of the respondents know how it feels too.

 

[jomar]

Unfortunately the trends are ass backwards. States like WA, OR, CAL, VT, ME have decriminalized all drugs

Largely in the sense that small amounts for personal use is no longer a felony.

most are democrat leaning states

Don’t kid yourself, all states are gearing up for federal weed legalization. Problem there is the insane and confusing and differing regulation and taxation among states results in an ongoing healthy black market.

ETA: And other issues.

The irony is making drugs legal while trying to make possession of firearms almost impossible for law abiding citizens (criminalizing firearms while decriminalizing drugs is an oxymoron).

Nobody‘s making possession or getting a gun almost impossible.

As drug addiction permeates our society like a plague so doesn't the violence.

Same as it ever was.

Now, pure libertarians are all for legalizing drugs regardless of the impact on society. Who wants to live nearby to a drug infested homeless camp without the ability to protect oneself.

When was the last time you were accosted by a stoner or a wino just wanting to be left alone? Selling fear is the rights way of business.

Our justice system's failure to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law possession and use of illegal firearms does nothing more than promote recidivism.

Severity of punishment doesn’t seem to be all that much of a deterrent. But maybe worth a shot with illegal firearms?

Major reform on how we handle drug abuse and homelessness is critical

There are some experiments in this country where giving tiny dwellings to homeless and addicted is powerful mojo getting them back on their feet. And is more than cost effective since cops and EMTs are not repeatedly called out to deal with them.

Consider seeing Portugal as a study on moving drugs to a health issue, not a criminal issue.
https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

 

[icanhelp1]

Largely in the sense that small amounts for personal use is no longer a felony.

There’s no such thing as small amounts of addictive drugs for personal use. It never stops there. Making drugs legal is not the answer. Prosecuting addicts isn’t either but prosecuting pushers and dealers with extreme criminal punishment would help. If you decriminalize then it decriminalized for all. I think that’s how the statutes can be interpreted, I maybe wrong.

Don’t kid yourself, all states are gearing up for federal weed legalization. Problem there is the insane and confusing and differing regulation and taxation among states results in an ongoing healthy black market.

I know libertarians want weed legalized but there is enough evidence that weed does cause medical issues but I’m not talking about weed.

ETA: And other issues.


Nobody‘s making possession or getting a gun almost impossible.

Come on, DC was slammed by the high courts for attempting to criminalize possession of firearms and violating 2nd amendment rights and had they won state after state would have followed suit.

Same as it ever was.


When was the last time you were accosted by a stoner or a wino just wanting to be left alone? Selling fear is the rights way of business.

Were not talking about winos and stoners.

Severity of punishment doesn’t seem to be all that much of a deterrent. But maybe worth a shot with illegal firearms?

Just prosecute according to the statute and stop the cashless bail. If a criminal commits a felony using or in possession of an illegal firearm they need to spend some time behind bars not allowing them back on the streets the next day. That’s just common sense.

There are some experiments in this country where giving tiny dwellings to homeless and addicted is powerful mojo getting them back on their feet. And is more than cost effective since cops and EMTs are not repeatedly called out to deal with them.

I agree, some have addiction problems and some have mental health problems and some suffer from both. It’s going to take tough love to deal with it, tax payers shouldn’t have to step over needles, feces, garbage in their towns, sidewalks blocked off with tents cities.

Consider seeing Portugal as a study on moving drugs to a health issue, not a criminal issue.
https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

I believe drug addiction should be both statutory and medical but we as a country need to build an infrastructure to treat addiction. Maybe bring back mental health hospitals and drug rehab centers. No easy answers but if addicts are pushing needles in plain sight then you need an enforcement side as well as medical mental health side.

On topic banning all semi-automatic firearms is against the 2nd A, enforcing the law is a start.

 

[coati]

Hey, right-on to Illinois for starting the process of keeping semi automatic weapons out the hands of idiots.

At some point, the makeup of the Supreme Court will change, and sanity will return. 2A will eventually be applied to a "well-regulated militia" and not to arming every man, woman, and child in the USA with high capacity semi-automatic weapons.

 

[icanhelp1]

If Illinois wants to make semiautomatics illegal, so be it. When the citizens of Illinois start to feel their rights are being violated then they can vote the shmucks out of office.

 

[jaF0]

I believe we need to be taking a hard look at Judges hearing these cases. Do they have a history of leaning one way or the other? Do they have connections, financial or otherwise to advocacy groups for either side?

We need Judges to be wholly impartial and unbiased and free from influence, but also who aren't afraid to challenge past rulings and laws that are not in the greater public interest.

 

[jaF0]

There needs to be a middle of the road approach. The letter or even intent of words written 200 years ago or more may not be the best for society now. Things have changed dramatically. If the forefathers could see automatic weapons that can kill 20 or 30 people in a few seconds, how would they write the rules?

There must be limits, but we need legislators that are willing to write them into law and Judges that are willing to uphold them.

 

[KeithD]

Honest strict constructionists would know and accept that the Constitution wasn't talking about just any civilian when it specified an organized militia and never intended that the weapons involved be any more lethal than single-fire muskets. But the gun nuts we have running around terrorizing the nation now are not honest about that.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Tickets just went on sale for our local Sherriff departments annual Spring Gun Bash!

$50 gets you a ticket for a chance to win one of 50 guns. A few ARs of various calibers. The grand finale prize is a Barrett 50 cal. - just in case a tank comes rolling down your street!

All the counties in my area are "Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties" What a great place to live!

 

[jomar]

There’s no such thing as small amounts of addictive drugs for personal use. It never stops there.

Alcohol is addictive. But sure, some drugs grab on harder. It’s all a continuum.

but prosecuting pushers and dealers with extreme criminal punishment would help.

No problem with that.

If you decriminalize then it decriminalized for all. I think that’s how the statutes can be interpreted, I maybe wrong.

Possession of small amounts for personal use gets decriminalized, meaning they don’t get arrested and get a criminal record that works against them, but instead it becomes an administrative issue with possible fines or community service…at least that’s how Portugal does it. Selling drugs could remain a crime.

I know libertarians want weed legalized but there is enough evidence that weed does cause medical issues

Yes, like alcohol weed is not for the immature brain. Weed products also help with medical issues.

but I’m not talking about weed.

Neither is Portugal and other countries.

Come on, DC was slammed by the high courts for attempting to criminalize possession of firearms and violating 2nd amendment rights and had they won state after state would have followed suit.

Yes, DC did the following: District of Columbia law “bans” handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

The then murder capital of the USA tried a twisty way to address the murder problem they had. Thing is, DC lost and SCOTUS said so, so rest easy.

Just prosecute according to the statute and stop the cashless bail. If a criminal commits a felony using or in possession of an illegal firearm they need to spend some time behind bars not allowing them back on the streets the next day. That’s just common sense.

I got no problem with that.

I agree, some have addiction problems and some have mental health problems and some suffer from both. It’s going to take tough love to deal with it,

Not sure what you mean by that.

tax payers shouldn’t have to step over needles, feces, garbage in their towns, sidewalks blocked off with tents cities.

Yep.

I believe drug addiction should be both statutory and medical but we as a country need to build an infrastructure to treat addiction.

Well, drunk driving does hold a statutory penalty. Models exist. Cost effective, even.

Maybe bring back mental health hospitals and drug rehab centers.

They still exit, but unless you get lucky with a scholarship in many cases only the 1%ers can afford to stay long enough for treatment to hold, providing they go to an actual treatment facility and not a “treatment retreat.”

No easy answers but if addicts are pushing needles in plain sight then you need an enforcement side as well as medical mental health side.

That could get back to the tiny home thing.

On topic banning all semi-automatic firearms is against the 2nd A, enforcing the law is a start.

Yeah, guess we’ll see where the chips fall on this take.

 

[LeeKee]

Yup, sure needed a gun to deal with it. A good door did the job. Didn’t need a flame thrower… just a door.

You seem to have never had your life threatened or lived in a crime ridden area or been in a combat zone. No plan survives initial contact. Sheeple.

 

[KeithD]

No plan survives initial contact. Sheeple.

Including the plan of having a semiautomatic weapon somewhere around and truly being prepared to effectively use it in the rare circumstance you'd have to--rather than all of the horrendous circumstances in which that could go wrong. (And don't give me any shit on how well trained and macho you think you are.)

 

[dkovic77]

You seem to have never had your life threatened or lived in a crime ridden area or been in a combat zone. No plan survives initial contact. Sheeple.

No, don’t usually like the home values in combat zones- plus a three bedroom becomes a cabana easily there.

As far as living (and working) in areas with high crime, I have done both and still hadn’t needed military grade anything to survive. Paying attention to what’s around me works well.

Only life threatening things out there so far are people who can’t drive well (thankfully I’m a very active driver), trees falling on structures, and weather events. All of those a gun doesn’t seem to help me at all.

Unless you think firing into a tornado is a good idea? Sounds like that just gets redirected and hurts someone else.

And going back to this situation, the locked door sure was a great plan. I guess your door doesn’t lock well.

 

[dkovic77]

Including the plan of having a semiautomatic weapon somewhere around and truly being prepared to effectively use it in the rare circumstance you'd have to--rather than all of the horrendous circumstances in which that could go wrong. (And don't give me any shit on how well trained and macho you think you are.)

So well trained, playing GTA most likely.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I believe that if you took a truthful random sampling, you'd probably find that 100% of the respondents know how it feels too.

True, but you know it "well!!"

 

[HisArpy]

True, but you know it "well!!"

That's because I can recognize truth when I see it. Unlike some...

 

[oggbashan]

That's because I can recognize truth when I see it. Unlike some...

That's because you can never recognise truth even when it is pointed out to you multiple times, carbon water lover.

 

[Rightguide]

A militia in the US would be state national guard units that come under the authority of the governor unless ordered to active duty by the CiC (TITLE 10 usc ). Some Air national guard units do have NUCLEAR missions, 131st bomb wing flying B-2 bombers. State militias usually mirror their active component TOEs *table of organization and equipment* designated as (MTOEs) modified table of organization and equipment.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:​

The above refers to the organized and unorganized militia. The left goes off the rails when they think the Second Amendment gives the government the right to organize and arm a militia which is already fully covered in Article I Section 8 Clause 16. What is new in the Amendment is what follows the comma at the end of the preparatory statement, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The preparatory statement, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state," simply refers to that part of the Constitution about to be amended, that part being Article I Section 8 clause 16. Nothing in the Bill of Rights creates or confers new government power. This is the only logical way of interpreting the Amendment.

 

[Rightguide]

Like much of reality outside of Hollywood movies, one area on the planet don't make it the world. It's all relative to where you're sitting at the time.

https://www.businessinsider.com/largest-armies-history-2016-12

So, what is your point to my statement? The largest army at the time of our founding as armed with weaponry only capable of firing one round at a time. The same technology was left in the hands of the American people by the Founders under the Second Amendment.

 

[Rightguide]

If Illinois wants to make semiautomatics illegal, so be it. When the citizens of Illinois start to feel their rights are being violated then they can vote the shmucks out of office.

Apparently, they have already voted constitutionally astute Sheriffs in at least 90 counties who understand the state government cannot write law that is unconstitutional.

 

[icanhelp1]

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:​

The above refers to the organized and unorganized militia. The left goes off the rails when they think the Second Amendment gives the government the right to organize and arm a militia which is already fully covered in Article I Section 8 Clause 16. What is new in the Amendment is what follows the comma at the end of the preparatory statement, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The preparatory statement, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state," simply refers to that part of the Constitution about to be amended, that part being Article I Section 8 clause 16. Nothing in the Bill of Rights creates or confers new government power. This is the only logical way of interpreting the Amendment.

I was just giving #186 the definition of militia and that there is no restriction on armament to include nuclear. I fully agree with how the high court defines the 2nd amendment. I also agree to states rights on what restrictions state legislator impose on their citizens. What I disagree with is a federal ban on AR-15 style weapons, leave that to the states, not to say feds don't play a role such as special permitting for fully automatic weapons and other devices ( hand grenades, laws ect. )

 

[icanhelp1]

Apparently, they have already voted constitutionally astute Sheriffs in at least 90 counties who understand the state government cannot write law that is unconstitutional.

I'm a firm believer that people votes these schmucks in they get what they deserve, that's democracy. Ironic that some of these states and cities have the strictest gun laws on the books and the problem still exist. The laws are comprehensive the enforcement isn't.

 

[Chobham]

There needs to be a middle of the road approach. The letter or even intent of words written 200 years ago or more may not be the best for society now. Things have changed dramatically. If the forefathers could see automatic weapons that can kill 20 or 30 people in a few seconds, how would they write the rules?

There must be limits, but we need legislators that are willing to write them into law and Judges that are willing to uphold them.

No there doesn't, rights aren't negotiable.