Supreme Court leaves in place Illinois restrictions on military-style weapons — The Washington Post
The Supreme Court turned down a request to put on hold laws banning AR-15-style weapons and large ammunition magazines.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pay wall.
Details for those of us that refuse to support MSM?
Pay wall.
Details for those of us that refuse to support MSM?
Exactly.The SC did not uphold the ban. They declined to rule while lawsuits are still working through the system.
“Dad, can I have I ice cream?”
“Not until after dinner.”
“I want ice cream now!”
“After dinner.”
“Mom, dad won’t let me have ice cream!”
Same thing…
Another symptom and proof that The Republic has failed. Control the crash in your immediate vicinity as best you can. No one's coming to save US.Our Constitution is no longer being defended or upheld.
The SC did not uphold the ban. They declined to rule while lawsuits are still working through the system.
“Dad, can I have I ice cream?”
“Not until after dinner.”
“I want ice cream now!”
“After dinner.”
“Mom, dad won’t let me have ice cream!”
Same thing…
They be did not uphold it. My understanding is they declined to issue an injunction to put the new restrictions on hold until the issue works it’s way through the courts.![]()
Supreme Court leaves in place Illinois restrictions on military-style weapons — The Washington Post
The Supreme Court turned down a request to put on hold laws banning AR-15-style weapons and large ammunition magazines.apple.news
Yes, but “nuance” doesn’t drive clicks…They be did not uphold it. My understanding is they declined to issue an injunction to put the new restrictions on hold until the issue works it’s way through the courts.
Not the same thing.
The legal system is political. If it weren't why would it matter which political party placed the SC judges...Never trust the stinking Black robes! They are part of the political class and care nothing for us serfs!
It’s the same thing until it’s sorted out, assuming it ever is. Could be years...They be did not uphold it. My understanding is they declined to issue an injunction to put the new restrictions on hold until the issue works it’s way through the courts.
Not the same thing.
No it is not no matter how many times you say it.It’s the same thing until it’s sorted out, assuming it ever is. Could be years...
It is LITERALLY the SC declining to do anything- right now.So does this override McGlynn who blocked the law from going into effect?
I agree except instead of ice cream we should go back to tar and featheringThe SC did not uphold the ban. They declined to rule while lawsuits are still working through the system.
“Dad, can I have I ice cream?”
“Not until after dinner.”
“I want ice cream now!”
“After dinner.”
“Mom, dad won’t let me have ice cream!”
Same thing…
This quote byU.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall turned down a request to put the laws on hold, the case now at the Supreme Court.
“The text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected,” Kendall wrote.
Usually somebody has to be the martyr before it can get to court..
SCOTUS is waiting for a better case
Ok. So let me ask you this? Are people currently limited or not allowed to use their 2A rights in full, right now, because of this? If you answer yes to any part of that then is it not a de facto ban as a result of the courts declining the case i.e. upholding the ban, temporary or not?No it is not no matter how many times you say it.
One is a declining to get involved and will be temporary until eventually settled (which may reach SCOTUS via appeals) and the other sets precedence which is given great weight and deference in future cases.
Not the same at all.
Exactly. AKA temporarily upholding the ban.It is LITERALLY the SC declining to do anything- right now.
absolutely. Completely different topic from our prior exchange, but yes...absolutely.Ok. So let me ask you this? Are people currently limited or not allowed to use their 2A rights in full, right now, because of this?
I have. The issue is, until “the right” case comes around, all this bullshit stands as law, which is automatically defiant to what the BOR spells out in black and white. This is politicized bullshit. We either have the rights or we don’t, and the BOR is pretty clear, despite what any idiot in court says. If they don’t like it then there is processes to change it. It’s really that simple. What you have here is a bunch of fucking morons that are abusing their powers. Does the courts override the supreme law of the land? Got to be careful on how the question is answered.SCOTUS is waiting for a better case... This isn't the one yet. Watch The Four Boxes Diner Youtube channel. Mark Smith does an excellent job at analyzing what is in play around the country and with the SCOTUS...
Yep. Against the 2A as well. All of this stuff should be struck down. I’m a bit of a purist. It literally says shall not be infringed. People can argue semantics all they want but it’s as clear as it can be. If they don’t like it, then change it. There are processes outlined to do so. But again, you have a whole bunch of people that completely disregard what the BOR says.The hand wringing and poor reading comprehension of Hide members may be an ever higher percentage than that of the general public!
Im not a genius by any measure, and I can understand the article fine.
And no, residents of IL have not been able to exercise their 2A rights in some time.
FOID card anyone?
Not unexpected. This guy in the video below posted that the SCOTUS would most likely do what they did about a week ago. You should probably subscribe to his channel.
Yeah, well that is not how the Heller decision reads that refused to ban handguns. What is more dangerous a firearm that kills over 10K a year or a firearm by class that kills less than 1k? If SCOTUS eventually just uses Heller “In common use for lawful purposes” precedent there is no way an AR ban could stand, nor a 30 standard capacity round limit.This quote byJudgeIdiot Kendall pretty much says it all. Where the hell does it say ANYTHING like that in the 2nd Amendment. Pretty sure it says "shall not be infringed".
They will make laws to enforce laws...In my opinion, without them writing a 74 page ruling they could have slapped them down with the precedence already set, and stated, Not constititional, done.
I think you may be giving the average voter way too much credit here.Nobody is dumb enough to believe these people have any other Agenda than to destroy me and take my stuff.
This is precisely my point.“The text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected,” Kendall wrote.
The thing that concerns me is that the person making this statement is not a stupid/low IQ that is incapable of understand the true words/context of the 2A:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[32]
This person knows exactly what the verbiage is, and what it means so this convolution of the wording is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution of The United States and it cannot be an accident. This is an attempt to deprive citizens of a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. So what is the motivation? what is the real reason this person wants US disarmed and deprived of our Rights?
I was taught that the only reason to disarm a Free Man was to kill him, subdue him, and "have your Way with him" and that man disarmed/denied his Rights is now a criminal or slave and that means he has *No* Rights and can be subdued/dealt with.
The people that say and do these things have An Agenda to take our Rights and do as they please once we are disarmed. No one is stupid enough to believe that once we are deprived of our Rights we won't be exploited. Nobody is dumb enough to believe these people have any other Agenda than to destroy me and take my stuff.
VooDoo
Yes, exactly. I think we all know this, despite some people in this thread thinking certain people have reading comprehension problems. My issue with it is, in no circumstances should anyone’s rights be suspended on these grounds while we wait for any part of the courts to do the right thing. Period. If they can be placed on hold, reinterpreted and so forth then they are not rights and the constitution is useless. They are undermining the BOR supremacy.Been mildly following this. I think SCOTUS is giving the 7th circuit their duty for review and ruling. (and hopefully do the right thing). If in their ruling they don't, SCOTUS will pick up the appeal, and smack it down.
Right here is the crux of the matter. A Federal Judge issues a ruling so out of step with established precedent that they should be impeached. It literally flies in the face of all recent 2A decisions, but everyone is focused on the Supreme Court or Illinois or some random 3rd option.This quote byJudgeIdiot Kendall pretty much says it all. Where the hell does it say ANYTHING like that in the 2nd Amendment. Pretty sure it says "shall not be infringed".
Then it sounds like we have already lost.You’re not wrong, but you are asking the wrong people. I can’t imagine there are many here that disagree with you, but this this where we are and where we have allowed ourselves to be cornered. The rights of the people have been redefined by a carefully enacted plan to normalize socialism and then communism in the US. Now it is a right to be a victim. A right to be paid for reproducing if you can meet the racist criteria required. A right to not be called out or have your feelings hurt.
But the actual rights spelled out in the law of the country are to be challenged constantly for the advancement of those with money and power.
I don’t know. Sometimes it feels like that. We certainly are late to the party. But I do think that maybe we can slow down and maybe reverse that snowball (or pendulum if you prefer) if we are vocal, and adamant, and challenging.Then it sounds like we have already lost.