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.
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:
