The 7th Circuit holds that AR-15s aren’t protected by the Second Amendment

[DadSmith]

The 7th Circuit holds that AR-15s aren’t protected by the Second Amendment

Illinois desperately wants to ensure that, within the state’s borders, only criminals have guns. When it comes to law-abiding citizens, the state will do anything to disarm them. That includes passing a law that pretty much bans “assault ...

www.americanthinker.com

The State of Illinois, in the legislation that lies at the heart of these [combined] cases, has decided to regulate assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — a decision that is valid only if the regulated weapons lie on the military side of that line [separating “personal” weapons from “military” weapons] and thus are not within the class of Arms protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The 7th Circuit holds that AR-15s aren’t protected by the Second Amendment

Illinois desperately wants to ensure that, within the state’s borders, only criminals have guns. When it comes to law-abiding citizens, the state will do anything to disarm them. That includes passing a law that pretty much bans “assault ...

www.americanthinker.com

The 2nd amendment makes no distinction between "military" arms or otherwise. The entire 7th Circuit should be disbarred.

 

[KellyinAvon]

The 2nd amendment makes no distinction between "military" arms or otherwise. The entire 7th Circuit should be disbarred.

Maybe sent to remedial reading. Then required to read NYSRPA v Bruen.

 

[DadSmith]

The 2nd amendment makes no distinction between "military" arms or otherwise. The entire 7th Circuit should be disbarred.

Another quote from judge Diane Wood.

As we know from long experience with other fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech, the right peaceably to assemble, the right to vote, and the right to free exercise of religion, even the most important personal freedoms have their limits.

Government may punish a deliberately false fire alarm; it may condition free assembly on the issuance of a permit; it may require voters to present a valid identification card; and it may punish child abuse even if it is done in the name of religion.

The right enshrined in the Second Amendment is no different.

 

[foszoe]

Another quote from judge Diane Wood.

And they can punish me for misuse of my firearm. But they can't preemptive sew my mouth shut

 

[daddyusmaximus]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Another quote from judge Diane Wood.

"Government may punish a deliberately false fire alarm; it may condition free assembly on the issuance of a permit; it may require voters to present a valid identification card; and it may punish child abuse even if it is done in the name of religion.

The right enshrined in the Second Amendment is no different."

She's conflating laws with rights. And we all know that laws have served to whittle away all of our rights. So technically she's not wrong if speaking of what has happened in the past. But it needs to stop. And that's my disagreement with her last line.

 

[04FXSTS]

I have also heard part of her opinion was ghost written by the other judge Easterbrook who is a rabid anti-gunner. He is the judge that overturned the injunction to stay the enforcement of this law. Nice that he would head up the three judge review panel, those close to this in Illinois knew what the decision would be as soon as the panel was picked. This will go to the Supreme Court no doubt about it. Jim.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Maybe sent to remedial reading. Then required to read NYSRPA v Bruen.

More like Miller.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As we know from long experience with other fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech, the right peaceably to assemble, the right to vote, and the right to free exercise of religion, even the most important personal freedoms have their limits.

Government may punish a deliberately false fire alarm; it may condition free assembly on the issuance of a permit; it may require voters to present a valid identification card; and it may punish child abuse even if it is done in the name of religion.

The right enshrined in the Second Amendment is no different.

What did the Supreme Court tell you? No 2 stepping! No interest balancing! No racism!

Yet the 7th Circuit did all three. Thank you Judge Wood for setting the ball on the tee so nicely.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Live action photo of 7th Circuit 2 step competition:

 

[KellyinAvon]

More like Miller.

It is too bad Miller was dead and nobody brought in a couple WWI Vets to testify how the useful SBRs and SBSs are to the militia.

 

[1nderbeard]

Rights aren't subject to limitation.

 

[Ark]

Expect a lot more of these straight up narcissistic reversal rulings if Democrats continue to hold the White House another one or two terms.

 

[Leadeye]

At the end of the day leadership does not want you to have guns, any guns. The further people go into the "land of leadership" the more they will come around to this philosophy regardless of where they start.

 

[manifest destiny]

Will this ruling apply to M1 Garands? They "lie on the military side", after all. I've also never heard the expression. "not within the class of Arms protected by the Second Amendment." It wouldn't be too dificult to outlaw all rifles with this contorted logic.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Will this ruling apply to M1 Garands? They "lie on the military side", after all. I've also never heard the expression. "not within the class of Arms protected by the Second Amendment." It wouldn't be too dificult to outlaw all rifles with this contorted logic.

It would if someone used one to attack a lot of people or the right person. Otherwise without a news headline no one really cares.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It would if someone used one to attack a lot of people or the right person. Otherwise without a news headline no one really cares.

Most of the people making or ruling on these stupid laws don't know the difference between an AK15 or an AR47. They definitely aren't familiar with the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment.

 

[indykid]

So a while back the Supreme Court says AR-15s are ok per their interpretation of the whole second amendment, but a lower court says they are wrong? What is upside down here that I understand? <-- Yes, I understand that the 7th circuit is wrong.

 

[d.kaufman]

**** the 7th circuit court