Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Assault Weapons in Cook CO IL

[eagleclaw]

A federal appeals court upheld Cook County IL “assault weapon ban and magazine limitation. It was a unanimous decision . One of the judges was appointed by Trump.
Note the reporter's comments in the last sentence regarding expanded background checks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...ocid=chromentp

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a county-wide ban on assault weapons and limits on magazine capacity. The three-judge panel rendered a unanimous opinion for the court, including the assent of Trump appointee Judge Amy Joan St. Eve.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that two Cook County, Illinois residents who sought to challenge these restrictions came "forward with no reason — much less a compelling one," to revisit the court's own precedent establishing such rules as constitutional.
A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year, and the three-judge panel upheld that ruling on Thursday.
In 2006, Cook County enacted the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban, which fined residents up to $10,000 and allowed for six months imprisonment if they were found to possess an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine. Over a decade later, two county residents filed an action in federal court, after years of litigation at the state level, challenging the rules as unconstitutional.

The defendants could ask the judges to rehear the case or call for a full complement of Seventh Circuit judges to reconsider Thursday's decision.
Eric Tirschwell, the managing director of the gun violence prevention group Everytown Law, reaffirmed the decision in a statement to Newsweek.
"As the court recognized, states have broad authority to pass public safety laws to protect their citizens, including laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines," he said.

A similar dispute is playing out in California, where a gun-rights group is suing to block the state's assault weapons ban. The action was filed in the same court where a federal judge invalidated California's ban on large-capacity magazines, using some of the underlying reasoning in that case to support their challenge.
Thursday's decision looms large over both gun-rights supporters and gun violence prevention advocates, who are both keeping watch on Capitol Hill as Congress reconvenes and considers new federal gun control legislation.

While none of the bipartisan proposals under consideration involve banning assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, the National Rifle Association has vowed to fight the prospective restrictions, recently deciding to relocate its upcoming board meeting to D.C. at a cost of $100,000 in order to influence the legislative process.
The two main vehicles that have earned support from both sides of the aisle are measures expanding background checks for gun purchasers and a bill that would encourage states to adopt so-called "red flag" laws. Red flag laws allow for courts to order the temporary confiscation of a gun owner's firearm if it is believed that the weapon will imminently be used to cause harm.

Expanded background checks have shown moderate effectiveness in several studies analyzing their impact on gun violence, though they have the support of an
overwhelming proportion of the public, including a majority of NRA members.

[gghbi]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that two Cook County, Illinois residents who sought to challenge these restrictions came "forward with no reason — much less a compelling one," to revisit the court's own precedent establishing such rules as constitutional.
A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year, and the three-judge panel upheld that ruling on Thursday.

this was a case of not having standing, not much more than that. But the press will spread it far and wide.

[KPShooting]

this was a case of not having standing, not much more than that. But the press will spread it far and wide.

Couldn't they cite violation of their civil rights as standing?

[bamboomaster]

This is totally understandable for Cook County in particular and Illinois in general. They have massive pension plan deficits due to years of underfunding the plan and over-paying the retirees. Even a steam shovel couldn't dig a deeper hole.

The only way to meet their underfunded obligations is to increase taxes and confiscate property - to the tune in excess of $100 billion.

What politician would want citizens to own semi-auto rifles with large magazines? It would just make tax increases and property confiscation more difficult endeavors....

[GeneCC]

A federal appeals court upheld Cook County IL “assault weapon ban and magazine limitation. It was a unanimous decision . One of the judges was appointed by Trump.
Note the reporter's comments in the last sentence regarding expanded background checks.

"The two main vehicles that have earned support from both sides of the aisle are measures expanding background checks for gun purchasers and a bill that would encourage states to adopt so-called "red flag" laws. Red flag laws allow for courts to order the temporary confiscation of a gun owner's firearm if it is believed that the weapon will imminently be used to cause harm.

Expanded background checks have shown moderate effectiveness in several studies analyzing their impact on gun violence, though they have the support of an
overwhelming proportion of the public, including a majority of NRA members. "


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...ocid=chromentp

This is the same MSN which has liar Rachel Maddow as one of their anchor news casters.


We've had Brady Checks since 1993. How are they working? Why would more of the same get it done?

[GeneCC]

A federal appeals court upheld Cook County IL “assault weapon ban and magazine limitation. It was a unanimous decision . One of the judges was appointed by Trump.
Note the reporter's comments in the last sentence regarding expanded background checks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...ocid=chromentp

"
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that two Cook County, Illinois residents who sought to challenge these restrictions came "forward with no reason — much less a compelling one," to revisit the court's own precedent establishing such rules as constitutional.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year, and the three-judge panel upheld that ruling on Thursday.
In 2006, Cook County enacted the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban, which fined residents up to $10,000 and allowed for six months imprisonment if they were found to possess an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine. Over a decade later, two county residents filed an action in federal court, after years of litigation at the state level, challenging the rules as unconstitutional."

You win some, you lose some.

I'd like to know when our side is going to abandon the Courts. They are not legislators.

We need to get pro-gun legislatures into play.