7th Circuit - Assault Rifles Not Protected by the 2nd

Is there another court above the 7th Circuit, or is this the last word on the matter?

 

I appreciate Frank Easterbrook, who is a true conservative (huge believer in judicial restraint), giving Republican SCOTUS the finger on this.

 

Ah. So this really is not a blow to the 2nd Amendment after all.

 

scotus will over rule the 7th

 

It's not a blow to the 2nd Amendment either way. It's just a blow to gun nuts who think the 2A guarantees them the right to own assault rifles. It does not.

 

Please define Assault Rifle.

 

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b.../C:23-1828:J:Brennan:dis:T:fnOp:N:3126511:S:0

 

Is what you just wrote going to be what the Supreme Court says?

 

I have always wondered what the arbitrary cutoff is from a second amendment that was drafted when we had muskets. How do they differentiate what is arms and what isn’t? Rocket launchers and other types of military weaponry isn’t. But most anything with a bullet is, although true automatic weapon bans are apparently kosher.

Whatever the criteria is, one is obviously necessary but it is completely arbitrary. Whether an AR-15 falls above or below that cutoff has nothing to do with the constitution.

 

I thought we did this already on assault rifles.

 

Legal definition or sportsman's definition?

 

QUOTE="GatorJMDZ, post: 15791621, member: 1928"]Legal definition or sportsman's definition?[/QUOTE]

His definition. Assault rifles have been basically illegal for a few decades.

 

An "assault rifle" is whatever Congress defines it to be as long as the law puts one on notice as to what is included. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 included several weapons that the firearm and sportsman groups wound not consider to be assault weapons. Their definition, even though it was likely correct from their perspectives, didn't matter. The legal definition did. The ban was allowed to expire in 2004 due to its sunset provision.

 

Do you believe there is a difference between automatic assault weapons used by our military and the semi auto guns used to hunt hogs, deer and sport shooting?

 

Absolutely. I have an AR-15...and a Tec-9.

 

And people. Don't forget people hunting.

 

I posted a link earlier, but for those wondering, the Opinion sets forth the definition at issue as follows:

*****

The Act defines “assault weapon” using language that is largely borrowed from the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796.4 The Illinois Act bans certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols. A semiautomatic rifle falls under the Act’s proscriptions if it has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and one or more of the following features: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock; any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand; a folding, telescoping, thumbhole, or detachable stock or a stock that otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon; a flash suppressor; a grenade launcher; or a barrel shroud. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(a)(1)(A). The definition also includes a semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity of greater than 10 rounds, except those that accept only .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. Id. 5/24-1.9(a)(1)(B). Finally, there is a lengthy list of particular models that fall within the scope of the statute. See 5/24-1.9(a)(1)(J). Subpart (i) of that section covers all AK weapons, and subpart (ii) covers all AR types. In the remainder of this opinion, we will refer often to the AR-15 as a paradigmatic example of the kind of weapon the statute covers. We use it only illustratively, however; our analysis covers everything mentioned in the Act.

The Act makes it unlawful for any person within Illinois knowingly to “manufacture, deliver, sell, import, or purchase … an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge.” Id. 5/24-1.9(b). (Unless the context requires otherwise, from this point we use the term “assault weapon” to cover all four covered items, in the interest of readability.) With some exceptions, the Act also makes it unlawful as of January 1, 2024, for any person within the state knowingly to “possess an assault weapon.” Id. 5/24-1.9(c).

There are two significant exceptions to these prohibitions. Using the terminology the Supreme Court of Illinois adopted in Caulkins, the first is for “trained professionals” and the second is for “grandfathered individuals.” 2023 IL 129453 at ¶ 1. The list of trained professionals, set forth in 5/24-1.9(e), includes peace officers; qualified active and retired law-enforcement officers; prison wardens and “keepers”; members of the Armed Services, Reserves, or Illinois National Guard; nuclear facility guards; and licensed private security personnel. Id. 5/24-1.9(e)(1)–(7). The “grandfather” provision can be found at 5/24-1.9(d). It states that the Act’s prohibitions do “not apply to a person’s possession of an assault weapon … if the person lawfully possessed” that weapon as of the effective date of the law and then the person “provide in an endorsement affidavit, prior to January 1, 2024, under oath or affirmation” certain specified information to the Illinois State Police. Id. 5/24-1.9(d)(1)–(3). A completed endorsement affidavit “creates a rebuttable presumption that the person is entitled to possess and transport the assault weapon.” Id. 5/24-1.9(d), at ¶ 2. The Act restricts the places where authorized persons may possess their weapons to the following: (1) private property owned or controlled by the person; (2) other private property, with the express permission of the owner or controller; (3) premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for lawful repairs; (4) licensed firing ranges or sport shooting competition venues; and (5) in transit to or from any of those locations, if the weapon is unloaded and in a container. Id. 5/24-1.9(d), at ¶ 3(1)–(5). The parties have not focused on these locational restrictions, and so neither will we.