Freidman vs City of Highland Park

[Canine]

The Supremes are poised to take up this challenge to a government being able to impose any restrictions on weapons.If the plaintiff prevails,this would basically end any form of gun control.Anyone could carry any weapon at anytime,anywhere,for any reason.Pretty scary.

 

[johnny b]

The Supremes are poised to take up this challenge to a government being able to impose any restrictions on weapons.If the plaintiff prevails,this would basically end any form of gun control. Anyone could carry any weapon at anytime, anywhere, for any reason.Pretty scary.

Huh? You make it sound like if this guy wins, then all the crack heads, thieves, and other assorted criminals will be walking the streets with rocket launchers on their shoulders!


This case is about magazine capacity and cosmetics, ie.....a local 'assault weapons ban'.
I doubt the case will even be taken up by SCOTUS due to it being filed in a manner outside of normal protocol.

Even if it is taken up, it is not going to affect the existing Federal firearms acts of 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1993.

If the plaintiff were to win, it means that the semi auto weapons that have become the most popular sporting arms over the last 50 years can't be singled out by local jurisdictions just for a perceived 'feel good' result. (That 'feel good' term is from the Judge's Opinions in the lower court cases the plaintiff has already lost.)

BTW--crack heads, thieves, and other assorted criminals already carry any weapon at anytime, anywhere, for any reason, because they don't obey gun laws, because they're criminals...that's what's 'pretty scary'!

 

[Canine]

In my humble opinion,if the supremes rule that local government has no right to restrict firearm access and trade,that's exactly what I'm saying.I guess there is no middle ground in the gun debate.Seems people are in the extreme,whichever way they feel.The lower courts have already ruled for the city.If the SCOTUS doesn't take it up,the law stands.

 

[johnny b]

Even if the plaintiff wins this case and the ban is lifted it still only affects local jurisdictions from imposing a law not in line with the rest of the state.
We have that here in Virginia and I'm sure in many other states as well. It's called preemption.
Before Virginia updated its preemption laws, the gun laws in the northern counties of Va were more restrictive than the rest of the state. Now, there is uniformity within the state, and the liberal bastions of Fairfax, Alexandria, and Arlington were given a little smackdown.

The Illinois legislature is probably where the focus should be. Get a state preemption law passed to prohibit the local ordinance.   :idea:

 

[highdesertranger]

I think wishing for the state of Illinois to pass legislation favoring gun owners is like wishing for Santa Claus to deliver to you vehicle. like that will happen when pigs fly. highdesertranger

 

[B and C]

Yep!  Chicago is still in Illinois isn't it?

 

[johnny b]

Illinois has been a "shall issue" state for concealed carry for almost 2 years now. 120,000 ccw permits were issued in the first year, with 12% going to women. Throughout the state it has been very quiet ...no bloodbath as fearmongered by the critics (just like the other 43 'shall issue' states). The ongoing turf wars in Chicago really don't involve folks who carry legally.


There's no reciprocity with other states yet, so if traveling thru be sure to abide by Federal transport law and double check state law to make sure you're legal in your vehicle. :idea:

 

[LeeRevell]

Heavy draconian gun control - THAT is scary.  Essentially, 'gun control' is NOT about guns, it is about CONTROL....  of the populace.  Lose our right to gun ownership, we lose all other rights.

 

[Canine]

Well,I'm pro second amendment but I don't think I would agree with that.If someone thinks they can take their trusty deer rifle and stand against the US Army to protect their rights,they are not being realistic.When the court ruled in Heller vs DC that gun ownership was an individual right but Scalia put limits on that right when he wrote his opinion, it only muddied the water.Of course the lawyers are the major beneficiaries of any contradiction.

 

[B and C]

And as always, we the citizens lose.