yotehtr
Custom
Federal appeals court rules IL assault weapons ban constitutional, sides with state
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday the Protect Illinois Communities Act does not violate the Second Amendment.
Federal appeals court rules IL assault weapons ban constitutional, sides with state
- Thread starter yotehtr
- Start date
Bassbob
Emissary
See it's never good enough for these places like California and Illinois to trample their citizens rights. They won't stop until they export their BS to everyone else in the country. And people wonder why pro gun people are unwilling to give an inch.Federal appeals court rules IL assault weapons ban constitutional, sides with state
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday the Protect Illinois Communities Act does not violate the Second Amendment.www.wgem.com
yotehtr
Custom
According to data maintained by ISP, there are more than 2.4 million Firearm Owner Identification card holders in Illinois, although not all of them own firearms covered by the assault weapon ban. As of Thursday, only 2,430 individuals had submitted registrations since the agency began accepting them on Oct. 1.
Onewolf426
Professional
This will go before the Supreme Court, and be struck down.
Bassbob
Emissary
Well to be fair those judges are most likely leftist activist judges to begin with.
Funwithfuel
Custom
2 of the 3 are clowns. Easterbrook and Woods are political hacks. Brennan pointed out to them where they were wrong, how they were wrong and what the US Supreme court had previously ruled. Same thing with the Illinois supreme court, they're bought and paid for. That's why gov fatboy is smiling so much.
I hope justice Barrett is keeping her eye on this as she promised. The problem is, this was just for allowing judge McGlynn's ruling to enjoin the laws enactment based on PICA being unconstitutional on its face. It's still in play at the district level as the case has not received a proper ruling. The SCOTUS hasn't shown any willingness to get involved with an interlocutory case in the past. They've only now gotten into Cargill since it has a finalized ruling.
I hope justice Barrett is keeping her eye on this as she promised. The problem is, this was just for allowing judge McGlynn's ruling to enjoin the laws enactment based on PICA being unconstitutional on its face. It's still in play at the district level as the case has not received a proper ruling. The SCOTUS hasn't shown any willingness to get involved with an interlocutory case in the past. They've only now gotten into Cargill since it has a finalized ruling.