this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
143 points (100.0% liked)

News

23293 readers
6125 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A federal judge in Illinois ruled the state’s ban on semiautomatic weapons unconstitutional, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that reinforce Second Amendment rights.

Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a permanent injunction against the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, but delayed its enforcement for 30 days to allow for appeal.

The law, enacted after a 2022 mass shooting in Highland Park, faced opposition from gun rights advocates and some local sheriffs.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul promptly appealed the ruling, with Gov. J.B. Pritzker expressing confidence the ban will ultimately be upheld.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago (4 children)

He's not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn't say "keep and bear some kinds of arms", it just says "keep and bear arms".

It also says "a well-regulated militia", but that's a separate issue. The Heller decision's torture of the text was absurd. Limiting the rights of the people unconnected with a militia does not inhibit a well-regulated militia.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

I have read arguments that in the language of the day "well regulated" meant "in good working order."

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I get sick of relitigating the this argument, but there is a lot of flowery and outdated language in the founding documents, and in the context it is used there "well regulated" means "in good functioning order" or "of uniform quality". It has nothing to do with government regulation as we might understand it today. Moreover if you read the Federalist Papers and other supporting documents it is clear that a government-regulated militia would be entirely contrary to the stated purpose, and makes no logical sense.

The framers wanted dispersed concentrations of local armed groups, with near force parity with any federal infantry or potential foreign adversary. They were extremely suspicious of standing armies.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee -1 points 5 days ago

The type of militia is not really relevant. Heller disregarded the part about the militia entirely. Regardless of equipment or whether it was organized at the federal, state, or city level, or even independently organized, it's still mentioned.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

He’s not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear some kinds of arms”, it just says “keep and bear arms”.

It's kind of vague though. If a kid asks, "Can I have ice cream," and their parents say, "Yes, you can have ice cream," it doesn't mean the kid can have whatever ice cream them want and in whatever quantities they want.

As a non-American, I always find it funny how some people revere the framers as having future vision and somehow infallible.

People don't revere the framers, they treat our founding mythos similarly to religion. They embrace what they like and what reinforces their beliefs while ignoring things that they find inconvenient. Primarily they ignore that very little was universally agreed upon by our framers and that the Constitution is the result of significant compromise. When someone says, "The framers believed..." they are almost always wrong and actually only framing what they believe in a way that they think gives it more credibility.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (3 children)

The second amendment doesn't say "keep and bear some kinds of arms", it just says "keep and bear arms".

Yeah, but it was also written at a time when the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles. The idea that civilians could own and fire 1000+ round-per-minute machine guns in their backyard was unimaginable back then.

2A needs to be updated. The times have changed. Arms have changed.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but it was also written at a time when the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles.

Actually, according to Wikipedia, "The first bolt-action rifle was produced in 1824" so that's decades after the second amendment was ratified.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Dang, I didn't wanna say "musket" because I thought that was too old, but maybe those were still in use at the time. So even a BAR is more modern than what Madison could've had in mind.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 days ago

Smoothbore musket was the standard issue firearm during that period, with a smattering of rifled muzzleloaders as well.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles

At the time, individuals owned top-of-the-class warships complete with cannons. It's what made up a good portion of the continental navy.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition even used the Girandoni rifle, complete with a 21 round magazine.

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago

Full-auto machine guns are already illegal for the majority of americans.