Chicago Gun Ban Redux

[Pertinacious Tom]

Customers Line Up Outside Gun Shop Doors

Suburban gun shop owners were swamped with weekend crowds after a federal judge in the district court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an injunction Friday, blocking enforcement of the state’s January ban on appropriate militia firearms.

 

[silent bob]

WELL-REGULATED MILITIA KILLS FIVE IN TEXAS INCLUDING 8-YEAR-OLD BOY

San Jacinto County, Texas... a man killed five of his neighbors with an AR-15 after they requested that he stop shooting in his yard because he was waking up their sleeping baby. Two of the dead were mothers who died shielding their babies with their own bodies. The member of a well-regulated militia is at large (as of 4/29/2023)

Five dead in Texas shooting, armed suspect on the loose

The killer shot an 8-year-old and others after being asked to stop firing a semiautomatic rifle in his yard.

www.reuters.com

An ILLEGAL ALIEN murdered five people.

FBI analyzing 'hundreds of pieces of information' amid hunt for Texas mass shooting suspect

The man who allegedly killed family members is a Mexican national who was previously deported four times, a source familiar with the investigation told ABC News.

abcnews.go.com

 

[MR.CLEAN]

An ILLEGAL ALIEN murdered five people.

FBI analyzing 'hundreds of pieces of information' amid hunt for Texas mass shooting suspect

The man who allegedly killed family members is a Mexican national who was previously deported four times, a source familiar with the investigation told ABC News.

abcnews.go.com

"a person killed five people" or "an illegal alien killed five illegal aliens"

Which is it? Also, why is Texas law enforcement so shitty that they can't even find the guy. Keystone fucking cops.

 

[Steam Flyer]

An ILLEGAL ALIEN murdered five people.
...

According to the US Constitution, he was a member of a well-regulated militia.

You arguin' wit de Constitution??

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

An ILLEGAL ALIEN murdered five people.

Some illegal immigrants are the people.

Not this particular one, but he's useful for the TeamD/gungrabby purpose of blaming peaceful people for the actions of violent criminals. How else are you supposed to justify gungrabbiness?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Looks like the Tommy Gun Militia has a new member.

Looks like gungrabby gossip never gets old. Fuck off and die soon.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Defendants first argued that PICA is consistent with historical tradition
because “[n]either large capacity magazines nor assault weapons were in common use
when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified.” (Doc. 37, p. 22). This
argument is “bordering on the frivolous” because “the Second Amendment extends,
prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were
not in existence at the time of the founding.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 582. Defendants also
argued that “[t]he Act restricts weapons and accessories not commonly used for self-
defense today.” (Doc. 37, p. 26). Similarly, this argument is misplaced. Bruen clearly
holds that the Second Amendment protects “possession and use” of weapons “in
common use” not just weapons in common use for self-defense as Defendants’ argued.
142 S. Ct. at 2128. Even if there was a requirement that the “common use” of an “arm”
be self-defense, AR-15 style rifles would meet such a test considering that 34.6% of
owners utilize these rifles for self-defense outside of their home and 61.9% utilize
them for self-defense at home.

I'd like to sit in on an American History class. I imagine it like this:

"You see, kids, Paul Revere rode along yelling "the British are coming! The British are coming!" so that people would know to take their muskets inside, where militia activity occurs. That's why today, continuing that historic tradition, the second amendment allows us to have a musket in our house but no other guns any other places."

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

It's also a bit odd that the memorandum doesn't mention the fact that SCOTUS has already ruled unanimously on that subject in the Caetano case.

The judge does mention Caetano, but gets it wrong.

...
As the Fourth Circuit noted “in 2012, the number of AR-
and Ak-style weapons manufactured and imported into the United States was more
than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the most commonly sold vehicle in
the United States.” Kolbe v. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160, 174 (4th Cir. 2016) rev’d, 849 F.3d
114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Twenty-four (24) million firearms dwarfs the 200,000
stun guns which the Supreme Court found sufficient to meet the “common use” test.
See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 420 (2016) (per curiam) (Alito, J.,
concurring). Under the Caetano test, even 1% of the 24 million AR-15 style rifles held
by citizens is sufficient to result in a finding that such arms are in common use.
...

The court did not reference the number of stun guns in the per curiam opinion. Alito, joined by Thomas, did mention it in the concurring opinion.

The whole per curiam decision isn't long.

Jaime CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS.

---

PER CURIAM.





The Court has held that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding," District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and that this "Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States," McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining "whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment." 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N.E.3d 688, 691 (2015).


The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment."


Id., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller 's clear statement that the Second Amendment "extends ... to ... arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding." 554 U.S., at 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783.


The court next asked whether stun guns are "dangerous per se at common law and unusual," 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one "important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms," Heller, 554 U.S., at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783 ; see ibid. (referring to "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons' "). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are "unusual" because they are "a thoroughly modern invention." 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693–694. By equating "unusual" with "in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment," the court's second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.


Finally, the court used "a contemporary lens" and found "nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military." 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition "that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected." 554 U.S., at 624–625, 128 S.Ct. 2783.


For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court's precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The bolded part is the per curiam objection to Massachusetts' argument that stun guns are "unusual" and it's based on the fact that the Bill of Rights applies to modern tech, not on the number of stun guns in circulation.

 

[Raz'r]

And this weekend a nice white-nationalist member of the Tommy-gun militia decided to kill shoppers at a mall.

When will the US recognize that mass gun ownership IS the threat to us as individuals... How can we get that message across - that if you or your neighbors have guns, they are more likely to die by way of guns those that don't have that?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

These people had their Second Amendment rights taken away without a hearing. Why won't the NRA stand up for their rats to be in a mulisha?

 

[badlatitude]

 

[badlatitude]

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Oh look! A politically convenient shooting must have occurred! The rats have come to visit, but not to remark on how Black Lives Matter a whole lot less than Gungrabbiness.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Are magazines protected? Judge said yes.

Considering the commonality of magazines banned by PICA, which as this
Court explained are “arms” for purposes of the Second Amendment, the analysis
becomes even more clear. There are “about 39 million individuals” who “have owned
magazines that hold over 10 rounds (up to 542 million such magazines in total).” (Doc.
39-11, p. 1-2). Thirty-nine million individuals is over three times the population of
Illinois, the sixth most populous state in this Nation. See US States – Ranked by
Population 2023, https://worldpopulationreview.com/states. Although “[t]here may
well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use. . . that capacity
is surely not ten” and probably not fifteen either. Heller, 670 F.3d at 1261. Therefore,
both AR-15 style rifles and magazines with a capacity of greater than ten are “in
common use” and protected by the Second Amendment. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2128.

I used to think we could at least agree that the Bill of Rights applies to modern technology.

Oh well.

 

[Goodvibes]

O looky here!

If you run out of people to IGNORE, you can start quoting yourself!

Funni as fuck

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Blessed by St. Thomas the Ignorer.

I take this to mean you "bless" the racism in modern gun control by ignoring it?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Couldn't find the thread about racism in gun control?

It's OK. Blindness to racism is a common disability when gungrabbiness is on the line.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Outrageous video shows Chicago men firing machine guns at a crowd, killing a boy and injuring at least 3 adults

...
The offenders whose guns generated automatic fire were likely using handguns equipped with “Glock switches,” illegal after-market devices that enable semi-automatic pistols to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull. The devices are prohibited under state and federal laws.
...

I've never heard of "Glock switches" but if they're anything like bump stocka, I thought Trump already heroically protected us from those through unitary executive action?

It's another mass shooting but the perps don't appear politically convenient at all, so I doubt anyone else mentions it. It certainly won't get its own thread like the really convenient ones do.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What I'm getting is that "Libertarian" means different things to different people. It's a convenient way of not taking a position in other words.

What's your position on racist enforcement of gun laws?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Illinois PICA Assault Weapon Ban Case Memorandum and Order


It's hard to believe that grabbers continue to bring the argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern technology.

It's also a bit odd that the memorandum doesn't mention the fact that SCOTUS has already ruled unanimously on that subject in the Caetano case.

When Scalia said that the argument bordered on the frivolous, my reaction was that it took a flying leap over that border, well into the land of frivolity. Still, it does have support here on this forum and in courtrooms across the country where grabbers are defending gun bans.

The 7th Circuit heard the combined District Court cases on Thursday

The consolidated cases challenging state and local gun and magazine bans in Illinois were heard Thursday by a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
...

“Assault weapons are virtually identical weapons to M-16s but for one thing, which is that M-16s can use automatic fire instead of semi-automatic fire and sure that is a distinction but it is not one that is constitutionally determinative,” Hunger said.


While the defense said the banned firearms are dangerous and unusual, plaintiffs argued that’s not the case.


Judge Frank Easterbrook asked plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas Maag why bazookas can’t be considered arms.


“In your view, is the stinger missile protected by the Second Amendment,” Easterbrook asked.

...

“Probably not because it would be dangerous and unusual,” Maag said.


“Unusual compared to what,” Easterbrook asked.


“Compared to anything,” Maag said. “Even in the military, they don’t issue manned portable air defense systems like a stinger missile to the average infantryman.”
...

It doesn't say whether Mr. Hunger tried the argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech again.

As for bazookas and stingers, people don't have those around the house for self defense or hunting. SCOTUS said

...

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense.

...