14 Comments - Steve - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 8:15 am: The Guggenheim Partners story isn’t so much a story about Illinois. It’s a story about how Florida, the last several years, has made a big effort to become a financial capitol. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 8:16 am: So the writers strike is a thing now. It’s soul crushing. - H-W - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 9:01 am: I have long anticipated that the ban of unnecessarily violent weapons and accessories would reach the U.S. Supreme Court, even if the Illinois Supreme Court were to rule in favor of public safety. The Daily Herald story indicating Justice Barrett wants more information suggests the issue may well be taken up sooner, rather than later. However, I cannot imagine a final ruling until next term. Anyone have a sense of where Justice Barrett stands on the issue? - Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 9:14 am: “Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is giving the city of Naperville until next Monday to provide further information regarding its local ordinance prohibiting the sale of certain high-powered weapons” The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) law seems likely to face a harsh reality as SCOTUS begins its look at the law. The injunction will be just the first round. When the merits are ( eventually) considered against the Bruen precedent - there seems to be no option but to finally rule on “Assault weapons” bans. Up to now SCOTUS was loathe to act in such a direct manner, but with gun safety advocates from Blue states pushing on constitutional rights, the result may finally be a clear ruling prohibiting these bans nationwide. - Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 9:20 am: “Anyone have a sense of where Justice Barrett stands on the issue?” Enjoy https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-on-guns/ - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 9:33 am: Context… - Donnie Elgin -… ===Of course, gun-related killings are always regrettable=== It’s important context when one is concerned “blue states” (yep, wanting an unsolicited political spin) are “taking away” guns… … because, and it’s - Donnie Elgin -‘s own types words, killings are … “regrettable” Once it was acceptable by the - Donnie Elgin - types that killings are “regrettable”, it’s important for children especially that laws look at gun ownership… - Loyal Virus - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 9:35 am: TikTok news hell is terrifying. - Captain Obvious - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 10:22 am: I am fascinated by the concept of unnecessarily violent weapons. It suggests that it’s ok for a weapon to be violent, but there is point past which it can be too violent. It’s a ridiculous idea. Believing that banning certain weapons will make us any safer from violence is a particularly stupid reaction and completely ignores the root cause of mass violence and abhorrent behavior. It also lets government and society off the hook for actually finding a solution to the problem. But it does make self righteous liberals feel good about themselves, so there’s that… Cue nonsensical name calling response from Willy in 3…2…1. - froganon - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 10:22 am: Gun related deaths/massacres are “regrettable”, the price we must all pay for everyone who wants one. We have no choice or voice as SCOTUS imposes the the ideology of 6, unelected, unaccountable overlords on every aspect of our lives. We scrape the remains of our children and our families off of the floors of the latest mass murder site while Barrett, Kavenaugh, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch construct convoluted rulings that provide guns for all and votes for some. We must change the oversight and selection of SCOTUS judges. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 10:33 am: ===It also lets government and society off the hook for actually finding a solution to the problem=== Just saying, but every other industrialized country in the world has decided that the root problem is, actually, widespread gun ownership. And their solutions work a whole lot better than ours. - DuPage - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 10:36 am: ===At issue in the case was the constitutionality of applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the federal law that prohibits most felons from possessing firearms for life—to a man who had previously been convicted of mail fraud. Reagan-appointee Judge Joel Flaum wrote for the panel majority, upholding the law.=== Felons repeatedly caught with a gun should go to jail. The law is there, it needs to be enforced. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 10:45 am: ===Cue nonsensical name calling response from=== Calling gun violence and children dying for going to school “regrettable” is not a strong policy that makes me a “liberal” to anyone. Calling the deaths of any child, adult, “regrettable” so it’s “cool” to merely own a gun is a pathetic and sad self own. I have fired many weapons, I’m in line to inherit “dozens” (plural) of guns at some point. You know nothing of me, my history, or the why I feel as I do, but I can tell you, at no point am I going to call a mass shooting with multiple casualties and/or deaths “regrettable”… and gun ownership will not supersede any thought I have that any weapon I have is worth more than a life, especially if regretting the ownership means saving a life. But, “you be you”… “liberal” bating but “afraid” of a name calling comment? You don’t have a spine to criticism, I can’t expect you to have a spine for a life over a gun. - Demoralized - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 11:01 am: ==But it does make self righteous liberals feel good about themselves== Better than uncaring conservatives who show absolutely no remorse for the mass killings and only double down after every single one. I’d rather be called self righteous than be on the side of mass shooters. - H-W - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 11:02 am: @ Captain Obvious I think we can all agree that weapons are instruments of violence. All weapons used to take life represent instruments of violence. As a pacifist, I would say the same in the context of self defense arguments. Self defense still implies the use of violence. As to unnecessarily violent weapons, I will argue that the capacity to potentially kill more than 10 people with one load, as well as the ability to kill several dozen people with multiple loads, represents an unreasonable argument in terms of self defense, and thus represents the use of an unnecessary instrument of violence. If a person needs more than ten kill shots, the person is in a war, not defending themself against an intruder. If a person needs a .223 caliber bullet, the person is in a war, not defending themself. But I am a pacifist. I do not find any justification for the taking of human life. I am also a veteran, so at one point I did believe there were justifications for killing other people. I grew out of that mindset in my late thirties. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.