191
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The US Supreme Court has declined to put a temporary hold on an Illinois law that bans the sale of assault-style weapons and a variety of other guns and accessories.

The law will require existing owners of the restricted items to register them by 1 January.

A gun rights group and the owner of a gun shop have sued to stop the implementation of the law.

Their case has consistently been rebuffed by lower courts.

The legislation took effect in January and sales of the restricted guns were stopped immediately.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Botzo@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I'll put an attempted common sense definition out there as a straw man (fully aware of Cunningham's law): it's a rifle typically featuring a pistol grip and detachable magazine.

The definition needs to be intentionally vague to capture a myriad of existing designs (and the legal workarounds). I suspect there are "assault rifles" that don't fit into this vague definition, and equally importantly: vice versa (e.g. the Barret 82A1 can't realistically be considered an "assault rifle" by common sense).

And therein lies the problem: by being only reasonably specific, we provide too many opportunities for shenanigans (cf. Formula 1 in the 70s and 80s). But without a reasonably strict definition, we're also creating a reasonably litigious atmosphere ("no sir, we intended this rifle for small to medium game hunting").

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

I think you're not wrong about what an assault rifle is, but assault weapons are not assault rifles, which were already effectively inaccessible to civilians nationwide before this law was passed. The specific law being discussed here classifies, among other things, a rifle with a pistol grip and a pistol with a threaded barrel (but of course not a pistol with a pistol grip) as assault weapons - what do the two have in common in terms of function or purpose other than looking scary to the general public.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

This is a rhetorical trick. We do not need a technical definition of "assault weapon". We need a legal one. The legal definition here was written by the Illinois legislature and seems to be upheld by the courts.

If someone asks you for a technical definition for a gun law, see if the relevant legal definition exists.

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

It was upheld, but it's also theater, you need to understand. Without fail, every time a state legislature engages in "assault weapon" bans, without fail, they:

  1. Ban a bunch of weapons that have never been used in a mass shooting.

  2. Fail to ban a bunch of weapons that have been used in mass shootings.

  3. Fail to future-proof the law in any way, so new firearms that will become popular in mass shootings are not banned.

The net result is new restrictions with no relation to actual gun violence. They could pass laws addressing the actual problems at hand, like lowering the bar for access to mental health care. They choose not to.

[-] BaldProphet@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

That's because it's not about public safety, it's about disarmament.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Oh cool. Another rhetorical trick. The law isn't perfect. So anyone that supports it looks foolish.

Bonus rhetorical trick. Let's talk about mental health. Aka, change the topic and ignore that one too.

this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
191 points (99.0% liked)

News

39207 readers
2566 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS