Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

US Supremes refuse assault weapons ban appeal

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

Acting in the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from gun owners who challenged a Chicago suburb’s ban on assault weapons.

Two conservative justices said they would have heard the case and struck down the ban.

The court, though, left in place a lower court ruling that found that local governments have leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld the city of Highland Park’s 2013 gun law that bans semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.

In October, the federal appeals court in New York largely upheld similar laws in Connecticut and New York, among a handful of states that ban semi-automatic weapons.

Discuss.

…Adding… Steve Chapman has some perspective on this issue…

It’s hard to think of any plausible safeguard that would have blocked firearm acquisitions by the husband — a Chicago-born U.S. citizen with a government job, a spotless record and no known history of mental illness. Law enforcement officials report that all four of the guns the killers had were bought legally in California.

Farook bought the two pistols, and another man bought the two rifles. The couple may have gotten the rifles in violation of the state’s rule that all gun transfers must go through a licensed dealer. Determined criminals can easily evade the law.

Two people capable of making or acquiring more than a dozen pipe bombs, which are not sold at Wal-Mart, probably have ways of getting the sort of guns they deem necessary.

Not that they would especially need “assault weapons.” These rifles are functionally indistinguishable from other semi-automatic firearms, which discharge equally lethal rounds with equal rapidity. And plenty of ordinary guns with higher calibers can do worse damage just as quickly.

Trying to prevent carnage by getting rid of “assault weapons” is like trying to prevent alcoholism by outlawing vodka. There are plenty of good substitutes. Limiting the size of magazines is also no hurdle for a minimally competent shooter, who can bring extras to quickly replace depleted ones.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:11 am

Comments

This last bit from the Justice Thomas dissent in this morning’s action shows the paranoia mentality on this issue:

“There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”

Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:24 am
Time for other local governments to copy Highland Park’s gun law where “semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines” are banned.

Comment by PublicServant Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:26 am
There are more than 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States with millions more sold every year.

Any nut or fanatic who is ambulatory can get a gun by hook or by crook and enough load to start spraying any time those voices in their heads tell them to.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, the governor is allegedly very concerned about a handful of Syrian refugees, but not the 50,000 or so in the state who are likely illegally armed after being found, after due process of law, to be mentally ill and a threat to themselves and others.

No plan from the chief executive on fulfilling his Constitutional duty and seeing that law faithfully enforced.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:36 am
-publicservant

That window has passed, it was part of the CCW law. There was a limited to pass certain firearms measures locally, now it is the exclusive authority of the state.

Comment by mcb Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:38 am
sorry, “limited time”

Comment by mcb Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:38 am
Amalia, don’t you agree that many people - including a sizable chunk of our elected officials - would cheerfully legislate or encumber all semiautomatic rifles out of existence if they could? I may seem like paranoia to you, but it is the reality.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:40 am
It, not I.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:41 am
==…like trying to prevent alcoholism by outlawing vodka==

But, using Steve’s analogy, we’ve done a pretty good job creating (and standing by) DUI laws since 1986.

Comment by Jocko Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:43 am
==Time for other local governments to copy Highland Park’s gun law where “semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines” are banned.==

They no longer have authority to do so, at least in Illinois

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:48 am
“It’s hard to think of any plausible safeguard that would have blocked firearm acquisitions by the husband — a Chicago-born U.S. citizen with a government job, a spotless record and no known history of mental illness.”

Except of course the elephant around the room, the option the NRA (and arguably the Supreme Court wants to make unmentionable): Banning purchase of the firearm in question by any U.S. civilian.

In other words, it’s actually pretty easy to think of a safeguard, once you broaden your perspective.

Comment by ZC Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:49 am
===Trying to prevent carnage by getting rid of “assault weapons” is like trying to prevent alcoholism by outlawing vodka.===

Alcohol is one of the most heavily regulated industries that exist, to such an extent that different venues and stores are required to carry different kinds of licenses, they’re required to carry additional insurance, and many communities have a fixed or limited number of permits that they will issue in in their communities or in specific areas in the community. There is literally zoning that makes it illegal to sell or distribute alcohol in certain areas and that makes it impossible to open up a tavern establishment in certain areas. When someone drinks too much alcohol and causes an accident or dies, there are instances where the folks that sold or served that alcohol are held civilly or criminally responsible. There’s even extra taxes on alcohol to make up for the negative externalizes associated with it.

So, when someone makes a comparison to alcohol and doesn’t mention all of the regulation that does exist regarding alcohol, that’s kind of silly.

Besides Chapman’s bad comparison, I am also disappointed at any person who wants to weigh in on the discussion of policy while proposing no policy themselves. “I don’t like you’re idea. I’m going to pretend like it doesn’t work and ignore all of the countries where your ideas do work and I am going to refuse to propose my idea.”

Chapman contributes nothing to the policy discussion.

Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:50 am
-ZC
I think he’s addressing that exact thing. Bombs aren’t legal for purchase, but the couple somehow had a lot of them…

Comment by mcb Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:55 am
Because clearly nobody here knows, here’s some fun facts you might not know.

1. There’s no such thing as an “assault weapon”. There’s no type of gun officially classified as an assault weapon. The closest we come as local governments who create assault weapon bans, but they have to make their own decision on what fits that title. There is also an Assault Rifle, which requires the rifle to automatic capabilities. Those are not generally available for civilian ownership.

2. Semiautomatic is not the same thing as burst fire. Semiautomatic means when you pull the trigger once, the gun will fire one bullet, and reload another cartridge automatically. Basically every gun that is not a revolver, or a bolt-action rifle is semi-automatic.

3. AR15 stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle. The similarities between the two end there.

4. “High capacity” Magazines are ones that hole over 30 rounds. 30 rounds is considered factory standard for most modern rifles.

Comment by Caitie Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:58 am
==But, using Steve’s analogy, we’ve done a pretty good job creating (and standing by) DUI laws since 1986.==

… by criminalizing the behavior, not banning the item. I think you’ll find consensus between the sides on the topic of strict punishment for criminal misuse of firearms.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 10:59 am
-Anon I think you’re showing exactly why the comparison is good. You may simply not be aware of the huge amount of regulations on the firearm industry. That includes zoning in many communities, just like taverns and package liquor.

There may not be a good parallel for a bar owner allowing someone to get drunk in their establishment and walk out to their car though… But if someone walks into a gun store and asks to buy a gun because they are going to kill someone, then there is certainly liability on the part of the store owner.

Comment by mcb Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 11:13 am
Good stuff from Chapman. It’s also worth bearing in mind that rifles - all rifles - are used in 1 or 2 percent of all gun homicides. The FBI doesn’t even bother to classify the subset of “assault rifles,” (or semi-automatic rifles, for that matter). They simply aren’t used in quotidian crime and banning them would, at its very best, prevent perhaps 200 murders per year. And that is working from the highly unlikely assumption that the would-be murderers wouldn’t just use, say, a handgun instead.

Short of repealing the Second Amendment altogether and outright confiscating millions of weapons, as proposed on the front page of The New York Times this week, what new proposals are being offered? Considering this is a hyperliberal pipe dream, I imagine a good place to start would be to more strictly enforce the federal and state gun laws we already have. They’re fairly strict; if we want to “do something!,” I suggest we start there.

Comment by Paul Kemp Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 11:22 am
@Paul Kemp: what existing gun laws not currently sufficiently enforced would help with the problem? While I agree that repeal or modification of the 2d Amendment is unlikely, one has to admit that the level of gun violence in this country compared to other developed countries makes a pretty formidable argument that the widespread availability of guns here is the major cause of that violence.

Comment by JackD Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 11:38 am
-JackD
There have been several active shooter incidents in which a history of mental illness was not used to block a sale. Why isn’t the data getting to the right people? It seems as though the background check system could use some help.

I think what Chapman is getting at is that nothing anyone is proposing right now would’ve stopped San Bernardino. Again, banning specific guns would be worthless as there are plenty of other choices which would be just as deadly, that aren’t on anyone’s “assault weapons” list.

If you look at other industrialized countries, you’ll find countries with much stricter gun laws that haven’t worked (Norway?, as well as countries with little no regulations (Switzerland- where citizens can own automatic weapons) but much lower crime. In fact you can look at UK or Australia as many point to, which say their murder rates rise after they reacted to mass shooting with new restrictions.

Comment by mcb Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 11:57 am
==what existing gun laws not currently sufficiently enforced would help with the problem?==

More than gun laws need to be ==sufficiently enforced==.

The gov ==vetted== and granted a K1 immigrant fiancé(s) visa to a woman who listed a fake address on her application as well as a hometown that does not even exist. How thorough are these ==checks==?

In Illinois, last month ==As reported in the Sun-Times on Sunday, the State Police have largely ignored a state law that they track what happens to guns owned by thousands of people whose gun ownership rights have been revoked for mental health reasons. The state police started doing so only in recent weeks — and only after Sun-Times reporters Frank Main and Mick Dumke began asking questions.==

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 11:58 am
It is my understanding that one of the AR 15 type rifles used by the California terrorists had been modified in violation of Public Law 99-308. One of the rifles was manufactured by DPMS and the other was a Smith & Wesson M&P 15.

Modifying a semiautomatic receiver in this manner constitutes manufacturing a machinegun receiver, and such manufacture is prohibited by federal law as of May 19, 1986. To the best of my knowledge neither the NRA nor the ISRA has promoted revocation of this law. It is possible for an American citizen to own a fully automatic machinegun manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, the National Firearms Act of 1934 however requires that even those guns be registered with the ATF.

The rifles used by the two terrorists in California to the best of my knowledge were illegal. The DPMS had also been modified in violation of California law to accept a larger magazine. Existing laws relating to the weapons were violated and creating new laws is in this situation pointless as it related to these terrorists. I assume our friend Todd knows a lot more about this than I do, so I look forward to his post on this issue.

Comment by Rod Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 12:05 pm
I agree that enforcing some of the laws mentioned would be a good idea. I don’t agree that they would make a major difference in the problem of ten violence in this country.

Comment by JackD Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 12:23 pm
Gun violence not ten violence.

Comment by JackD Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 12:23 pm
@Ken in Aurora, the paranoia is about the Second Amendment. today’s action means that governments can, and in my opinion should, look at banning weapons like those used in San Bernardino that are not appropriate in the hands of the public. if you think that the second amendment does not allow banning, then you should be trying to legalize machine guns and cannons fully in the hands of the public.

Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 12:26 pm
Advocates can dance around semantics of “assault” as much as they want. The argument does impress nor does the “standard” issue 30 cartridge magazine. It is clearly evident that a militarization of hardware has entered the commercial and public realm where a justification for such is clearly not evident by any stretch of reasoning for purposes of security, recreation or hunting. It is troubling that a large segment of gun buyers gain such a sense of identity with these weapons designed for combat. The fact that these are semi automatic makes absolutely no difference. Their lightness, portability and ease of use makes them formidable killing machines that have become the choice in several of the most deadly mass shootings.

Comment by vole Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 1:16 pm
Ban cars because they kill people.

Comment by Liberty Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 1:24 pm
@Public Servant, yeah let other cities join the movement to ban assault weapons. They can hold a press conference after passing the regulations and everyone can pat themselves on the back until it hurts. Will it put a dent in the gun violence problem, nah, but it will play well to their voting base.
There are tons of weapons on the street and these criminals don’t by their weapons legally anyway in most cases. An individual who has been treated for mental illness can buy his gun too because that information isn’t in the database that the state police reference for background checks.
By all means though lets pass some feel good legislation instead of doing something that might actually help.

Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 1:26 pm
–There are tons of weapons on the street and these criminals don’t by their weapons legally anyway in most cases. –

No, many criminals buy their weapons from those who purchased them legally and then sell them illegally.

But mass shooters for the most part are law-abiding citizens until they are not.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 1:29 pm
==Ban cars because they kill people.==

I’m fine with a database telling me who owns each car, requiring a title transfer when selling, requiring people to contact police when the car is stolen or involved in an accident, and requiring the owner purchase insurance.

Comment by Jocko Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 1:32 pm
I’m disappointed that the ban was not struck down. I think it is a very flawed policy that is not in the public interest.

Comment by logic not emotion Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 1:49 pm
vole in California the larger magazines used by the terrorists were illegal. It is illegal in California to import, sell, give, trade, or lend a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition, except for fixed tubular magazines for lever-action rifles and .22 caliber rifles.

AR 15 type weapons in California made after 1989 simply cannot have magazines that are removable without the use of a tool. While the rifles the terrorists had met this standard they were altered to accept a removable magazine.

These laws are meaningless, any reasonable skilled machinist could produce magazines of a larger size an illegally market them, they would also be available on the world market.

Comment by Rod Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 2:04 pm
-Jocko,
That database only exists for cars driven on public roads. You don’t need to title, insure, or license a vehicle that is only kept on private property.

Just like with guns. There’s no database or license unless you want to carry in public places.

Comment by mcb Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 2:18 pm
While the term “assault rifle” may be meaningless in the technical sense to us gun nuts, the reality is that any semi-auto rifle with a large capacity magazine or pistol that looks like a sub-machine gun with a large capacity magazine is going to be branded an “assault rifle.” Worse, in my opinion, is that M-16 and AK style rifles are being shortened and the butts replaced with a pistol-grip only, and classed as pistols- these are definitely going to be considered “assault rifles” even they are considered pistols by the feds.
An earlier poster said that 30-round magazines were “standard”, don’t know where that came from- most hunting shotguns and rifles have a five or less capacity, due to hunting regulations.
Also, most of the concealed carry handguns have a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or less, either because of legal issues, or simply because the gun isn’t big enough to carry more rounds.
Like it or not,the term “assault rifle” is here to stay; the reality is that the difference between a semi-auto and a full-auto really isn’t that much.
Keep in mind, also, that most assault rifle laws are not actually bans: most weapons and hi-cap magazines already owned are grandfathered in; only the sale of new magazines and weapons are outlawed.
Will we see more “assault rife” bans? Yes. Will we see them in Illinois?-maybe-expect an attempt by Chicago area legislators, and it will be an upstate vs. downstate thing- Rep.Madigan will be the key again.

Comment by donwstate ciommissioner Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 2:52 pm
- donwstate ciommissioner
What does Rich call this? Sock puppetry?

Comment by mcb Monday, Dec 7, 15 @ 3:20 pm
Unless the legislature changes the law the only “assault weapons bans” Illinois will have are those that were grandfathered in.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapterID=39
(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)
Sec. 13.1. Preemption.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly.

Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Dec 8, 15 @ 6:46 am