Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The anti's in Illinois aren't giving up in Illinois.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240

    The anti's in Illinois aren't giving up.

    We can expect another try at the Magazine / Assault Weapons ban after Easter recess.

    I have been noticing a new phrase in the anti's lexicon. They have recently changed from "assault weapon" to " assault style weapon ". I don't know why, except a rifle such as an AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" by definition. The M-16 that it looks like is.

    So here is my thought. They are now admitting they want to ban firearms based on looks, not function. So, wouldn't that be a violation of the 1st amendment? It would be the same as banning a genre of music because they didn't like the sound. or banning modern art because they didn't like the way it looks.

    Of course these style bans violate the 2nd amendment, but maybe we are missing out on challenging them on 1st amendment " freedom of expression " grounds as well.
    Last edited by kurt555gs; 04-05-2013 at 01:34 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by kurt555gs View Post
    We can expect another try at the Magazine / Assault Weapons ban after Easter recess.

    I have been noticing a new phrase in the anti's lexicon. They have recently changed from "assault weapon" to " assault style weapon ". I don't know why, except a rifle such as an AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" by definition. The M-16 that it looks like is.

    So here is my thought. They are now admitting they want to ban firearms based on looks, not function. So, wouldn't that be a violation of the 1st amendment? It would be the same as banning a genre of music because they didn't like the sound. or banning modern art because they didn't like the way it looks.

    Of course these style bans violate the 2nd amendment, but maybe we are missing out on challenging them on 1st amendment " freedom of expression " grounds as well.
    A very interesting perspective. You'd have to talk to a lawyer to get a solid answer, but it sounds reasonable to me. And if they ban them on looks alone, doesn't that also include Airsoft, BB, and water guns too? Might be able to get a lot more people on our side if it does.
    "Somebody ever tries to kill you, you try and kill em right back!" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Didn't they previously have a IL Supreme court case that said something like "similar style" and the court struck it down as being too vague?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Didn't they previously have a IL Supreme court case that said something like "similar style" and the court struck it down as being too vague?
    I meant a purely 1st amendment challenge. Not vagueness of description.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •