this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19239 readers
1863 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn is holding off on enforcing his ruling for 30 days to allow Illinois leaders time to appeal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

To fully understand this, you have to have been following the Supreme Court gun rulings since 2008. That's when it started changing.

2008 - D.C. vs. Heller - Handgun ban

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

"Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."

How this relates to assault weapons, from the ruling:

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

"The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster."

2010 - McDonald v. City of Chicago - Handgun ban

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/

Because D.C. is a special district, and not a state, the court ruled 2 years later that, yes, they mean states as well.

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."

2016 - Caetano v. Massachusetts

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/

This is my favorite of the bunch. Woman buys a stun gun to protect against an abusive ex. MA rules that stun guns didn't exist back in the day, so the 2nd amendment doesn't apply.

"The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."

2022 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

This is the one that's causing lower courts to re-consider all their rulings.

On the face of it, it up-ended how New York State assigns concealed carry permits. In order to get a permit, you had to show "special cause" and statements like "I don't feel safe" or "I want to defend myself" weren't deemed special enough.

So to start with:

"the "constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need."

BUT - THE COURT DIDN'T END THERE.

They added this little bon mot for other courts:

"To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599)."

So now, all other courts are reviewing the laws with those two bullet points in mind... aaand here we are...