Judge blocks Illinois ban on assault weapons

Originally published at: Judge blocks Illinois ban on assault weapons | Boing Boing

By that logic laws against private ownership of anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers should be unconstitutional as well.


There are plenty who believe just that. And they seem to be gaining ground.


no crime committed with them could “justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific”

Yeah, why would anybody think that? It’s not like there’s evidence from dozens of other countries with sane gun control that that’s exactly what would happen…


Hey, U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn,

Youre An Asshole GIF



i think you mean “constitutional”, but yeah.

i really wish these conservative judges would protect the freedom to live life without fear of death from gun violence. that’s a cool constitutional principle too


People “we want to ban guns”

Judges “That’s up the people/ states”

People : “Ok, let’s pass a law banning guns”

Judge: “NO. Not like that.”



I agree, And for that matter following this judges logic(?) why not gernade launchers? The M-79 would make an awesome home defense weapon with a 40mm shell loaded with buckshot. Absolutely no murders have been reported by someone using an M-79 gernade launcher anywhere in the United States.


As a mate of mine says the UK is a racist, Terfy, rainy, plague island but you know… I can leave the house without thinking I’m going to get shot.

That walking out the house and not thinking you could get shot is quite nice. The rest of it is shit, but that bit is quite nice.

Do you think this judge might be willing to try it? Just for a fortnight or something?


I assume they mean opponents of the ban, not opponents of assault weapons? Anyway, as someone who knows people in Highland Park, including some who were near that particular shooting, this is not a win.


If you’d like to see the nuttiest of the gun club in Illinois at their best/worst, wander over to the Illinois subreddit. It’s generally filled with a lot of southern Illinois people who hate Chicago and JB so it’s a rough ride at the best of times, but the threads on this gun law have been off the chain.

The amount of people posting that they immediately went out and bought multiple guns when this ruling came down was mind boggling. Why? How does that impact…anything?

Also, it was generally expected that it would get blocked at some point since there are several other similar laws from other states currently in a holding pattern for the SC. It was the right move. If you need a semiautomatic weapon (or a dozen of them, per several posters) to shoot a deer, you shouldn’t be hunting. I support someone’s right to have a gun for hunting and potentially self defense, but you don’t need something that shoots 15 rounds a second with a easy-pull trigger. It doesn’t make you macho; it makes you pitiful.

Realistically, we all know that what they want them for is so they can shoot their neighbors because the leaf blower is too loud.


Yes. What I’m hearing from this ruling is a judge saying “Some day I too might get angry enough to want to murder dozens of people in a bloody killing spree, and I want to keep my options open at any cost.”


That is in my Top Ten things in the UK.

Well, Top Five. It’s gotten really shit.

  1. Stonehenge
  2. Buckingham Palace
  3. A thatched cottage
  4. Poundland
  5. Not getting shot.

Yeah that covers it.


Activist judge makes unclear decision about reproductive care = doctors back off from providing any kind of reproductive care. Women suffer, die and are generally terrorized out of seeking any kind of even vaguely related care.

Activist judge makes unclear decision about assault weapons = Yee-Haaawww, buying spree!!!


I’d trade out Buck House for a packet of Bourbons, but yeah, fair enough :+1:


It impacts the bottom line for gun manufacturers who see sales spike after mass shootings.


And Scalia more recently: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Scalia would not have found an assault rifle ban unconstitutional because such weapons did not exist at the time the 2nd Amendment was written. He’s responsible for nixing handgun bans in Heller, so he’s partly responsible for where we are on this issue, but even he didn’t view this right as unlimited.


I’ve known people like that. They rush out and buy more because they’re convinced that this or that government or pack of liberal elites is THIS CLOSE to outlawing guns completely, and trying to take the guns that people have. Get them while you can, and a big reason to do that is to defend yourself when “they” come to take them!

Same thinking, I think, that led people to buy up ammo like crazy a while back. “Obama is jacking up the prices, hoping that soon, no one can afford ammo anymore!” No, prices went up and there were shortages because paranoid idiots were buying so much ammo.