Jump to content


Photo

People v. Webb - IL Supreme Court Rules Ban On Carrying Stun Guns and Tasers Unconstitutional


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,069 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:10 AM

Section 24-1(a)(4) of the unlawful use of weapons (UUW) statute (720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4) (West 2016)) provides, in part, that it is unlawful for a person to possess or carry a stun gun or taser in a vehicle or in public. In two separate cases, the circuit court of Du Page County held this provision unconstitutional under the second amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. II). The - 2 - State appealed both judgments directly to this court pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013), and we consolidated the cases for review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

 

 

Attached File  People v Webb - ban on carrying stun gun and taser unconstitutional.pdf   34.8KB   427 downloads


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#2 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,069 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:23 AM

This is a fun ruling to read.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#3 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:35 AM

Now that is awesome. Just finished reading the opinion of the court. Now I imagine we will see a change in the FCCA to include stun guns and tasers.

Until then I would think we're good to go with no restrictions.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#4 dukemason

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 15

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:51 AM

That's great!



#5 Bubbacs

    #Fear The Clown

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 14

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:16 PM

Actually read the whole thing just now.
And MollyB you are correct, it was a fun read, and at times I had a smile on my face!
Question: (And Ill double back but didnt want to stop mid read.)
Was it not stated that it would be the same as concealing and carrying a rifle/shotgun?

Im heading back and will update those who dont wish to read it all.
Ill grab the exact location sos to help a bit.

Here ya go: (If Im breaking any forum rules in posting from the PDF, please remove this part with my apologies.)

Subparagraph (iv) of section 24-1(a)(4) excludes from the offense of UUW only those weapons that are carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act by a person who has been issued a concealed carry license. To be in accordance with a statute means to be in agreement or conformance with that law. See Websters Third New International Dictionary 12 (1993). In our view, the most natural reading of the requirement that weapons be carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act is that the weapons, themselves, are of the type for which a valid concealed carry license may be issued under the Carry Act. Indeed, any other reading would lead to absurd results. Under the States reading of the statute, as long as a person has a concealed carry license for a handgun, that person may carry any other weapon, including a rifle or shotgun, and still be acting in accordance with the Carry Act, even though the Carry Act is specifically limited to handguns and does not allow for the concealed carry of rifles or shotguns. We do not think the States interpretation is what the legislature intended.

Yeah Im back a third time: Reading and following the threads about carrying and or having a AR pistol on or about your person in a truck and discussing elsewhere would now be moot? Yes? No?

Edited by Bubbacs, 21 March 2019 - 12:24 PM.


#6 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:23 PM

Unanimous -- no dissent

 

this is good



#7 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:29 PM

Actually read the whole thing just now.
And MollyB you are correct, it was a fun read, and at times I had a smile on my face!
Question: (And Ill double back but didnt want to stop mid read.)
Was it not stated that it would be the same as concealing and carrying a rifle/shotgun?
Im heading back and will update those who dont wish to read it all.
Ill grab the exact location sos to help a bit.
Here ya go: (If Im breaking any forum rules in posting from the PDF, please remove this part with my apologies.)
Subparagraph (iv) of section 24-1(a)(4) excludes from the offense of UUW only those weapons that are carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act by a person who has been issued a concealed carry license. To be in accordance with a statute means to be in agreement or conformance with that law. See Websters Third New International Dictionary 12 (1993). In our view, the most natural reading of the requirement that weapons be carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act is that the weapons, themselves, are of the type for which a valid concealed carry license may be issued under the Carry Act. Indeed, any other reading would lead to absurd results. Under the States reading of the statute, as long as a person has a concealed carry license for a handgun, that person may carry any other weapon, including a rifle or shotgun, and still be acting in accordance with the Carry Act, even though the Carry Act is specifically limited to handguns and does not allow for the concealed carry of rifles or shotguns. We do not think the States interpretation is what the legislature intended.
Yeah Im back a third time: Reading and following the threads about carrying and or having a AR pistol on or about your person in a truck and discussing elsewhere would now be moot? Yes? No?


A pistol is a pistol. Yes.

I read what you did and all I can say is that the State's lawyers are a bunch of idiots. They were slapped down by the Supreme Court and rightly so.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#8 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:34 PM

Now I want to by a Taser, carry it, just because I can.   :D


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#9 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,214 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:34 PM

Does this mean you must have a CCL in order to carry a taser or stun gun?
Or can non-CCL people carry one without a license??
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#10 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,069 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:39 PM

Does this mean you must have a CCL in order to carry a taser or stun gun?
Or can non-CCL people carry one without a license??

 

Tasers and stun guns are specifically not included in the carry act.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#11 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,630 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:40 PM

Actually read the whole thing just now.
And MollyB you are correct, it was a fun read, and at times I had a smile on my face!
Question: (And Ill double back but didnt want to stop mid read.)
Was it not stated that it would be the same as concealing and carrying a rifle/shotgun?
Im heading back and will update those who dont wish to read it all.
Ill grab the exact location sos to help a bit.
Here ya go: (If Im breaking any forum rules in posting from the PDF, please remove this part with my apologies.)
Subparagraph (iv) of section 24-1(a)(4) excludes from the offense of UUW only those weapons that are carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act by a person who has been issued a concealed carry license. To be in accordance with a statute means to be in agreement or conformance with that law. See Websters Third New International Dictionary 12 (1993). In our view, the most natural reading of the requirement that weapons be carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act is that the weapons, themselves, are of the type for which a valid concealed carry license may be issued under the Carry Act. Indeed, any other reading would lead to absurd results. Under the States reading of the statute, as long as a person has a concealed carry license for a handgun, that person may carry any other weapon, including a rifle or shotgun, and still be acting in accordance with the Carry Act, even though the Carry Act is specifically limited to handguns and does not allow for the concealed carry of rifles or shotguns. We do not think the States interpretation is what the legislature intended.
Yeah Im back a third time: Reading and following the threads about carrying and or having a AR pistol on or about your person in a truck and discussing elsewhere would now be moot? Yes? No?


A pistol is a pistol. Yes.

I read what you did and all I can say is that the State's lawyers are a bunch of idiots. They were slapped down by the Supreme Court and rightly so.



At one point the FCCA states:

""Licensee" means a person issued a license to carry a concealed handgun."

But later, refers only to being allowed to carry a "firearm", not a "handgun"

"c) A license shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. A license shall permit the licensee to:
(1) carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm,
fully concealed or partially concealed, on or about
his or her person; and ..."

This ruling may have worked against us to a degree on the broader interpretation of carrying a concealed firearm.

#12 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:55 PM

Our conclusion that stun guns and tasers cannot be carried or possessed “in accordance” with the Carry Act because a concealed carry license cannot be issued for those weapons is further supported by section 24-2(a-5) of the UUW statute. This provision states that section 24-1(a)(4) of the UUW statute does not “apply to or affect any person carrying a concealed pistol, revolver, or handgun and the person has been issued a currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act at the time of the commission of the offense.” 720 ILCS 5/24-2(a-5) (West 2016).3 When read together with section 24-1(a)(4), section 24-2(a-5) makes clear that only those weapons that can be licensed under the Carry Act are meant to be excluded from the reach of the UUW statute.

 

Doesn't the above section basically mean that the Carry Conceal Act doesn't apply?

 

So if the Act doesn't apply, it would appear that you would be able to carry those without a Carry License.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#13 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 01:02 PM

Our conclusion that stun guns and tasers cannot be carried or possessed “in accordance” with the Carry Act because a concealed carry license cannot be issued for those weapons is further supported by section 24-2(a-5) of the UUW statute. This provision states that section 24-1(a)(4) of the UUW statute does not “apply to or affect any person carrying a concealed pistol, revolver, or handgun and the person has been issued a currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act at the time of the commission of the offense.” 720 ILCS 5/24-2(a-5) (West 2016).3 When read together with section 24-1(a)(4), section 24-2(a-5) makes clear that only those weapons that can be licensed under the Carry Act are meant to be excluded from the reach of the UUW statute.
 
Doesn't the above section basically mean that the Carry Conceal Act doesn't apply?
 
So if the Act doesn't apply, it would appear that you would be able to carry those without a Carry License.


Yep, that's how I read it.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#14 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 01:08 PM

 

 

Actually read the whole thing just now.
And MollyB you are correct, it was a fun read, and at times I had a smile on my face!
Question: (And Ill double back but didnt want to stop mid read.)
Was it not stated that it would be the same as concealing and carrying a rifle/shotgun?
Im heading back and will update those who dont wish to read it all.
Ill grab the exact location sos to help a bit.
Here ya go: (If Im breaking any forum rules in posting from the PDF, please remove this part with my apologies.)
Subparagraph (iv) of section 24-1(a)(4) excludes from the offense of UUW only those weapons that are carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act by a person who has been issued a concealed carry license. To be in accordance with a statute means to be in agreement or conformance with that law. See Websters Third New International Dictionary 12 (1993). In our view, the most natural reading of the requirement that weapons be carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act is that the weapons, themselves, are of the type for which a valid concealed carry license may be issued under the Carry Act. Indeed, any other reading would lead to absurd results. Under the States reading of the statute, as long as a person has a concealed carry license for a handgun, that person may carry any other weapon, including a rifle or shotgun, and still be acting in accordance with the Carry Act, even though the Carry Act is specifically limited to handguns and does not allow for the concealed carry of rifles or shotguns. We do not think the States interpretation is what the legislature intended.
Yeah Im back a third time: Reading and following the threads about carrying and or having a AR pistol on or about your person in a truck and discussing elsewhere would now be moot? Yes? No?


A pistol is a pistol. Yes.

I read what you did and all I can say is that the State's lawyers are a bunch of idiots. They were slapped down by the Supreme Court and rightly so.

 



At one point the FCCA states:

""Licensee" means a person issued a license to carry a concealed handgun."

But later, refers only to being allowed to carry a "firearm", not a "handgun"

"c) A license shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. A license shall permit the licensee to:
(1) carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm,
fully concealed or partially concealed, on or about
his or her person; and ..."

This ruling may have worked against us to a degree on the broader interpretation of carrying a concealed firearm.

 

No, you are incorrect in that assumption. This is from the Act

 

   (430 ILCS 66/5)
    Sec. 5. Definitions. As used in this Act:
    "Applicant" means a person who is applying for a license to carry a concealed firearm under this Act.
    "Board" means the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board.
    "Concealed firearm" means a loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle.

 

As you can see, under the definition a concealed firearm is limited to a handgun, it does not include any type of a long gun.



NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#15 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 21 March 2019 - 04:42 PM

It's constitutional carry of stun guns until the FCCA is amended to include stun guns.
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#16 McCroskey

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,618 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 08:23 PM

Wow, and Anne Burke delivered the judgement. Ed Burke's wife. :D


“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#17 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,958 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 08:39 PM

 

Actually read the whole thing just now.
And MollyB you are correct, it was a fun read, and at times I had a smile on my face!
Question: (And Ill double back but didnt want to stop mid read.)
Was it not stated that it would be the same as concealing and carrying a rifle/shotgun?
Im heading back and will update those who dont wish to read it all.
Ill grab the exact location sos to help a bit.
Here ya go: (If Im breaking any forum rules in posting from the PDF, please remove this part with my apologies.)
Subparagraph (iv) of section 24-1(a)(4) excludes from the offense of UUW only those weapons that are carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act by a person who has been issued a concealed carry license. To be in accordance with a statute means to be in agreement or conformance with that law. See Websters Third New International Dictionary 12 (1993). In our view, the most natural reading of the requirement that weapons be carried or possessed in accordance with the Carry Act is that the weapons, themselves, are of the type for which a valid concealed carry license may be issued under the Carry Act. Indeed, any other reading would lead to absurd results. Under the States reading of the statute, as long as a person has a concealed carry license for a handgun, that person may carry any other weapon, including a rifle or shotgun, and still be acting in accordance with the Carry Act, even though the Carry Act is specifically limited to handguns and does not allow for the concealed carry of rifles or shotguns. We do not think the States interpretation is what the legislature intended.
Yeah Im back a third time: Reading and following the threads about carrying and or having a AR pistol on or about your person in a truck and discussing elsewhere would now be moot? Yes? No?


A pistol is a pistol. Yes.

I read what you did and all I can say is that the State's lawyers are a bunch of idiots. They were slapped down by the Supreme Court and rightly so.

 

They are not a bunch of idiots.  They are doing their job extremely well, and they argued the case well.  The fact that they lost is great for our cause.  You do not want to win a case with idiot attorneys on the other side.  You want to blow them away when they are talented, and this is what happened!  The victory is much sweeter when the vanquished had their own honor, congrats on a good job, but bye bye.


Life Member --- NRA Endowment Level
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member --- Tennessee Gun Owners
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Oak Ridge Sportsmen's Association

 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.


#18 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,292 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 21 March 2019 - 09:01 PM

Very nice.



#19 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 21 March 2019 - 09:41 PM

This is good news.

 

This case should be used as another ruling to support the FOID card is unconstitutional lawsuit. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#20 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 21 March 2019 - 10:26 PM

A good case to be used to attack the unconstitutionaly of the inevitable scary looking gun bans and firearms licensing in this state, lower courts are really going to have to squirm to justify bans on any arms in common use after this ruling.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#21 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,838 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 March 2019 - 06:59 AM

It's constitutional carry of stun guns until the FCCA is amended to include stun guns.

Ding ding I was just gonna say that. They declared it facially unconstitutional and didn't stay the mandate like what CA7 did in Moore. The statute doesn't exist due to this ruling. Void from inception.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#22 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,309 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 22 March 2019 - 08:26 AM

XWZ3G6g.jpg

I think AR’s/semi autos fall into this category, no?.........

#23 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 22 March 2019 - 08:42 AM

I think ARâs/semi autos fall into this category, no?.........

You are correct. Justice Kavanaugh pointed this out in a dissent arguing semi auto rifles are protected.

"Most handguns are semi-automatic," Kavanaugh said. âAnd the question came before us of semi-automatic rifles and the question was, "Can you distinguish as a matter of precedent?" Again, this is all about precedent for me, trying to read exactly what the Supreme Court said and if you read the McDonald case. And I concluded that it could not be distinguished as a matter of law, semi-automatic rifles from semi-automatic handguns. And semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semi-automatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit common use and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon."

Edited by NakPPI, 22 March 2019 - 08:46 AM.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#24 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,309 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 22 March 2019 - 09:04 AM

I think ARâs/semi autos fall into this category, no?.........

You are correct. Justice Kavanaugh pointed this out in a dissent arguing semi auto rifles are protected.

"Most handguns are semi-automatic," Kavanaugh said. âAnd the question came before us of semi-automatic rifles and the question was, "Can you distinguish as a matter of precedent?" Again, this is all about precedent for me, trying to read exactly what the Supreme Court said and if you read the McDonald case. And I concluded that it could not be distinguished as a matter of law, semi-automatic rifles from semi-automatic handguns. And semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semi-automatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit common use and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon."
All a good lawyer would have to do, if a ban is signed into law, is refer to People Vs Webb where it states what I circled, as ARs/semi-autos are far more common then stun guns, which stated here they said are less used than handguns, but still in common use, so therefor how could they ban semi autos/magazines which are in common use more than the commonly used stun guns?

Edited by steveTA84, 22 March 2019 - 09:06 AM.


#25 Twostarrz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 22 March 2019 - 09:45 AM

I think ARâs/semi autos fall into this category, no?.........

You are correct. Justice Kavanaugh pointed this out in a dissent arguing semi auto rifles are protected.
"Most handguns are semi-automatic," Kavanaugh said. âAnd the question came before us of semi-automatic rifles and the question was, "Can you distinguish as a matter of precedent?" Again, this is all about precedent for me, trying to read exactly what the Supreme Court said and if you read the McDonald case. And I concluded that it could not be distinguished as a matter of law, semi-automatic rifles from semi-automatic handguns. And semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semi-automatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit common use and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon."
All a good lawyer would have to do, if a ban is signed into law, is refer to People Vs Webb where it states what I circled, as ARs/semi-autos are far more common then stun guns, which stated here they said are less used than handguns, but still in common use, so therefor how could they ban semi autos/magazines which are in common use more than the commonly used stun guns?
The thing I don’t like about using this argument is being painted into a corner. What using that terminology does is says we are NOT fighting for things like full auto because they aren’t in common use. While it does seem to make keeping semi auto firearms safe, it also seems self defeating in the argument to lift the full auto production ban or the NFA.

#26 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,309 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 22 March 2019 - 09:51 AM

^^^^^

NFA is already at the Supreme Court

https://gunowners.or...-supreme-court/

What this does (ILSC case) is give a solid ground to fight any type of ban on firearms/magazines/etc as they are in common use and available at any gun shop and online. How can they have a ban on magazines, or an AR for that matter, when they’re everywhere?

#27 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 22 March 2019 - 10:48 AM

The thing I don’t like about using this argument is being painted into a corner. What using that terminology does is says we are NOT fighting for things like full auto because they aren’t in common use. While it does seem to make keeping semi auto firearms safe, it also seems self defeating in the argument to lift the full auto production ban or the NFA.

 

 

I would argue that full auto is in common use all over the world and in the US by those 'allowed' the fact that there is a pre-existing and infringing law that forbids many from using them doesn't equate to them not being in common use.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#28 Twostarrz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 22 March 2019 - 11:27 AM

The thing I dont like about using this argument is being painted into a corner. What using that terminology does is says we are NOT fighting for things like full auto because they arent in common use. While it does seem to make keeping semi auto firearms safe, it also seems self defeating in the argument to lift the full auto production ban or the NFA.

 
I would argue that full auto is in common use all over the world and in the US by those 'allowed' the fact that there is a pre-existing and infringing law that forbids many from using them doesn't equate to them not being in common use.
I am 100% in agreement with your position. The Narrative is two fold. First is in common use second is relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. We the people have the right to defend against a tyrannical government with like defenses. As a well regulated militia we would have the right to all firearms.

Edit for clarity:

The NFA created an artificial gap in what IS in common use as far as the public is concerned, and what SHOULD BE in common use. I have no doubt that if the unconstitutional NFA hadnt been put in place, most people who currently own modern sporting rifles, would undoubtedly also own many full auto firearms, with little to no effect on the currently touted statistics of deaths by firearms.

Edited by Twostarrz, 22 March 2019 - 11:31 AM.


#29 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,825 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 22 March 2019 - 03:26 PM

This is a stunning decision.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#30 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 22 March 2019 - 11:45 PM

groan    ^^^






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users