Downstate judge strikes down Illinois ban on high-powered guns

[In It to Win It]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/downstate-judge-strikes-down-illinois-005900669.html

A downstate judge on Friday struck down the ban on high-power firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines that Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law earlier this year, a ruling the Illinois attorney general’s office immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The scope of the ruling was a subject of dispute, with the attorney for the state lawmaker who was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit arguing that it applies statewide and Pritzker’s office contending it does not.

“We expected political grandstanding from those more beholden to the gun lobby than to the safety of their constituents and today’s ruling comes as no surprise,” Pritzker spokesman Alex Gough said in a statement, adding that “the governor is confident” the law ultimately will be held constitutional.

Macon County Judge Rodney Forbes wrote in a two-page ruling that the ban, passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature in response to the deadly mass shooting at Highland Park’s Fourth of July parade, violates the equal protection and special legislation clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. I Like That Called The Suits "Grandstanding"

No mincing of words. I approve of the blunt language.

[Cha]

2. Damn! I hope this isn't over.

[WarGamer]

3. Even California's Assault Weapons Ban is hung up in the Courts right now...

https://abc7news.com/judge-roger-benitez-assault-weapons-california-ban-ca-gun-laws-gavin-newsom/12850369/

California's assault weapons ban could soon be overturned: Here's what that means

SACRAMENTO (KGO) -- As early as this week, a federal judge could once again rule to overturn California's longstanding ban on assault weapons.

The ruling -- which would come from Judge Roger Benitez -- is believed to be imminent, according to Kostas Moros, a lawyer representing the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Moros said the final response briefs in the cases are due on Tuesday and Benitez could rule any time after that.

Advocates on both sides of the gun debate issue say they expect Benitez, who is known for ruling against California's gun control laws, will decide to strike down the three-decades long law.

[keithbvadu2]

4. Doesn't Constitutional originalism contend that the 2A does not cover modern high power rifles?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

5. Not the current interpretation

There was a case before SCOTUS dealt with whether modern weapons were covered. Caetano v. Massachusetts in 2016. A woman was charged and convicted of possession of a stun gun, which was banned in Massachusetts. MA State Supreme Court upheld her conviction by saying that stun guns were not protected because they were not in existence at the time. She appealed to SCOTUS contending that a stun gun was protected under the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS ruled in her favor, Per Curium, which means they essentially unanimously sided with her. The Courts opinion stated "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." There were no dissents from the liberal justices.

[keithbvadu2]

6. "interpretation" - a contentious idea depending on whether one agrees with it or not.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217615919

Good news - Wife beaters can get guns - Supremes base it on 1791 law

Thomas explained that the law was illegitimate because it was not “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In other words, if there was no such law in 1791, it’s unconstitutional now. - (2022)

-----------------
Whatever interpretation it takes for the gun to prevail.

Oh, heck! It must be just my conspiratorial paranoia.

???