It's not unconstitutional because it doesn't infringe on your ability to bear arms. Specific types of guns are already banned on a federal level and have been for almost 100 years now.
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
143 points (100.0% liked)
News
23301 readers
3451 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Banning arms in common use is unconstitutional. Like it or not, these arms are in common use.
It's not a ban on ownership, it's a registration requirement and a ban on selling. There's no second amendment right to sell specific guns.
It’s not a ban on ownership
According to the AP, it is most certainly a ban on ownership. "Illinois banned the sale or possession of semiautomatic weapons". This is the core reason the law was overturned, it's unconstitutional to ban arms in common use.
It also says this in the article you linked:
Those who already own such guns will have to register them, including serial numbers, with the Illinois State Police.
So it would apply to new purchases, but not those already owned. I'm disappointed in AP's reporting on this, different parts of the article seem to contradict one another on what the law actuality does.
That's not correct, you have to register any on the list with the state police. The time period for that requirement has lapsed and many people thought they wouldn't have to do it as they believed the law was unconstitutional so they didn't do it. Standard semi auto guns are still legal to purchase and own without registration.
If they are banned, then they won't be in common use, so it would be constitutional.
If you think my logic is flawed then you understand exactly why the supreme Court's ruling is flawed.
Why don't you provide everyone from as early as the age of 5 with a rocket launcher to protect themselves with. Then everyone will be safe.
Not all of us are lucky enough to be born with silver tactical nukes in our mouths.
But it would solve a lot of issues. Like, people are ONLY allowed a rpg. When you're in a fight, you will have to get range to fire otherwise you will die in the blast too. This will give you time to think "ah, is it really worth it? Maybe I'm overreacting."
An rpg is heavy. Obese people will loose weight carrying one.
People with a micropenis won't buy massive trucks anymore because they will be too easy to hit.
You only have 1 round. So using it should be a wise decision. It will help people think before they act.
People will be more polite, because you're talking to someone with a fucking rpg.
I can go on an on with why this is a good idea, honestly.
Wiggle for president!
I would only take the official title of "The Royal Right Honourable Supreme Emperor, World Dictator, God of Gods and Mankind, Ruler of the Universe and Beyond", nothing less. And yes, only of gods and mankind, obviously cats will have a place higher then me.
If I supply a postal box address, can someone ship me my RPG?
No need, you can get a copy of Baldur's Gate 3 on Steam, it's one of the best RPG's out there.
You know that shithole country remark Donald Trump said? It's projection.
He's not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn't say "keep and bear some kinds of arms", it just says "keep and bear arms".
It also says "a well-regulated militia", but that's a separate issue. The Heller decision's torture of the text was absurd. Limiting the rights of the people unconnected with a militia does not inhibit a well-regulated militia.
I have read arguments that in the language of the day "well regulated" meant "in good working order."
I get sick of relitigating the this argument, but there is a lot of flowery and outdated language in the founding documents, and in the context it is used there "well regulated" means "in good functioning order" or "of uniform quality". It has nothing to do with government regulation as we might understand it today. Moreover if you read the Federalist Papers and other supporting documents it is clear that a government-regulated militia would be entirely contrary to the stated purpose, and makes no logical sense.
The framers wanted dispersed concentrations of local armed groups, with near force parity with any federal infantry or potential foreign adversary. They were extremely suspicious of standing armies.
The type of militia is not really relevant. Heller disregarded the part about the militia entirely. Regardless of equipment or whether it was organized at the federal, state, or city level, or even independently organized, it's still mentioned.
He’s not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear some kinds of arms”, it just says “keep and bear arms”.
It's kind of vague though. If a kid asks, "Can I have ice cream," and their parents say, "Yes, you can have ice cream," it doesn't mean the kid can have whatever ice cream them want and in whatever quantities they want.
As a non-American, I always find it funny how some people revere the framers as having future vision and somehow infallible.
People don't revere the framers, they treat our founding mythos similarly to religion. They embrace what they like and what reinforces their beliefs while ignoring things that they find inconvenient. Primarily they ignore that very little was universally agreed upon by our framers and that the Constitution is the result of significant compromise. When someone says, "The framers believed..." they are almost always wrong and actually only framing what they believe in a way that they think gives it more credibility.
The second amendment doesn't say "keep and bear some kinds of arms", it just says "keep and bear arms".
Yeah, but it was also written at a time when the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles. The idea that civilians could own and fire 1000+ round-per-minute machine guns in their backyard was unimaginable back then.
2A needs to be updated. The times have changed. Arms have changed.
Yeah, but it was also written at a time when the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles.
Actually, according to Wikipedia, "The first bolt-action rifle was produced in 1824" so that's decades after the second amendment was ratified.
Dang, I didn't wanna say "musket" because I thought that was too old, but maybe those were still in use at the time. So even a BAR is more modern than what Madison could've had in mind.
Smoothbore musket was the standard issue firearm during that period, with a smattering of rifled muzzleloaders as well.
the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles
At the time, individuals owned top-of-the-class warships complete with cannons. It's what made up a good portion of the continental navy.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition even used the Girandoni rifle, complete with a 21 round magazine.
Full-auto machine guns are already illegal for the majority of americans.