lilguy
Member
And what worries me is that the last highest court has not found them unconstitutional yet.
What's the hold up?
What's the hold up?
Illinois AWB signed
- Thread starter lilguy
- Start date
LiveLife
Member
On Friday, Judge Joshua Morrison of 4th Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, temporarily preventing any administrative agency or law enforcement agency from enforcing the new law but only against those who brought the suit under Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker after emergency temporary restraining order hearing on Wednesday - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12527049
Preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for 2/1/23.
HankB
Member
IANAL so I have a question about the registration portion of Illinois' new law.
As I understand it, Pritzker's law requires registration of existing "assault weapons." In view of the old SCOTUS case from 1968 (IIRC, it was Haynes vs. US) prohibited persons can't be prosecuted for a registration violation, because a requirement for them to register something they're prohibited from possessing would be a requirement that they incriminate themselves, a 5th Amendment violation. (They can still be charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a felon - a possession violation, not a registration violation.) I vaguely remember reading that Chicago's gun registration law required some kind of rewrite back in the day to exempt convicted felons because of this.
So . . . is there anything in Pritzker's law exempting prohibited persons from registration requirements?
(This is academic for me, since I'm not a prohibited person and I moved out of Illinois decades ago anyway.)
As I understand it, Pritzker's law requires registration of existing "assault weapons." In view of the old SCOTUS case from 1968 (IIRC, it was Haynes vs. US) prohibited persons can't be prosecuted for a registration violation, because a requirement for them to register something they're prohibited from possessing would be a requirement that they incriminate themselves, a 5th Amendment violation. (They can still be charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a felon - a possession violation, not a registration violation.) I vaguely remember reading that Chicago's gun registration law required some kind of rewrite back in the day to exempt convicted felons because of this.
So . . . is there anything in Pritzker's law exempting prohibited persons from registration requirements?
(This is academic for me, since I'm not a prohibited person and I moved out of Illinois decades ago anyway.)
Things on this atrocity change daily. Local dealers aren't even sure what they can sell. A simple ten shot 22 semi auto handgun with a threaded barrel? 10-22? Charger? A consigned AR owned by a legal person before ban passed?
M1 Carbine?
Also, if a person is an ISRA and NRA member who answered the call for donations to help defeat the bill, shouldn't they be part of the plaintiffs group?
M1 Carbine?
Also, if a person is an ISRA and NRA member who answered the call for donations to help defeat the bill, shouldn't they be part of the plaintiffs group?
The standard answer is that you don't understand the brilliance of Bruen and eventually Clarence will free us, even if it takes 30 years. The argument is that Brown took 30 years to really come into force, so we should just sit back and wait for a similar long set of decisions.
This is contrasted to a good number of legal scholars who thought Bruen was a mess in part and direct decisions would have been better.
Bottom line, don't hold your breath. It isn't clear that Roberts and Kavanaugh would support direct decisions against bans and getting rid of CCIA type laws.
LiveLife
Member
Fifth District appellate court just ruled that the TRO issued by the 4th circuit court judge can remain in effect - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12537649
https://theconversation.com/biden-c...d-mass-shootings-undermine-his-message-198770
Article suggests that focusing on AWBs is waste of time for gun control advocates due the small number of actual incidents compared to number of gun fatalities with handguns in crime and suicide. Thus change the message for controls.
Article suggests that focusing on AWBs is waste of time for gun control advocates due the small number of actual incidents compared to number of gun fatalities with handguns in crime and suicide. Thus change the message for controls.
JTHunter
Member
Your memory of Haynes is on the money.
From a policy statement issued by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center:
[Assault weapons] will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an “old” debate...... handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Assault Weapons and Accessories in AmericaConclusion | Violence Policy Center (vpc.org)
lilguy
Member
He is correct..The antis are playing the long game. A nibble here a bigger bite there. Until the last highest court rules these items protected under the 2nd amendment we have nothing.
I don’t think we’ll get there.
I don’t think we’ll get there.
lilguy
Member
Positive first 100 yards in a marathon. We will keep hoping.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_34c36830-b9f8-11ed-b877-eb8067fc5da5.html
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_34c36830-b9f8-11ed-b877-eb8067fc5da5.html
