Posted on 04/06/2012 9:28:38 AM PDT by Sasparilla
The lawsuit filed by Matthew D. Wilson, Troy Edhlund, and Joseph Messineo, against the Cook County, Illinois “Assault weapons” ban, has survived a motion for dismissal in the Illinois Supreme Court and was sent back to the trial Court for further proceedings. It was filed to challenge the Cook County's Blair Holt “Assault" weapons ban’s constitutionality.
A spokesperson for the three men said that this was a victory for them because the Illinois Court kept the case alive. It was a unanimous decision by the seven Justices. The three men have won a battle; however, a war still lies ahead. But, there may be a proverbial light at the end of the tunnel for "black" guns in Illinois. This is hardly a victory for the anti gun rights groups hoping for an outright upholding of the ban.
The ordinance prohibits "the sale, transfer, acquisition, ownership, or possession of “assault weapons as "defined by a specific list of 60 rifles and pistols designated by model name or type, and “assault ammunition,” including any ammunition magazine having a capacity of more than 12 rounds of ammunition." 1
"The Cook County Commissioners proposed and passed the ordinance in 1993 for 3 purported reasons: 1) easy access to firearms and ammunition had become a concern of public health, safety and welfare for the citizens of Cook County; (2) assault weapons were 20 times more likely to be used in the commission of a crime than other kinds of weapons; and (3) there was “no legitimate sporting purpose for the military style assault weapons being used on the streets.”The ordinance also contained a laundry list of dozens...
(Excerpt) Read more at secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com ...
We have to get back to the definition!!!
If it isn’t full-auto, or select fire, it IS NOT an “assault weapon”!!!
Some state’s definition would outlaw my semi-auto shotgun...
“Some state’s definition would outlaw my semi-auto shotgun...”
That was the point.
the second amendment is not “sporting purposes”
Any object that could be used for violence is by definition an assault weapon. These bans are so stupid. I use a Browning BAR in .270 to hunt deer. It has a pretty walnut stock. If I changed the stock to a composite one with a pistol grip I could make it illegal in some people’s definition of an assault weapon.
Just absolutely false
(3) there was “no legitimate sporting purpose for the military style assault weapons being used on the streets.”
What the hell does that mean? What "legitimate sporting purpose" do non assault weapons have "on the streets"?
If they win, I will have to consider taking up such a cause in Massachusetts. We have the same type of ban up here. A 5.56 mm AR-15 rifle with a collapsible stock, flash suppressor and a 30 round magazine? Forget it.
Finding a team of attorneys willing to take the case may be hard up here though.
Try the Second Amendment Foundation.
http://www.saf.org/
They and their lawyers have been involved in some big wins
Try the Second Amendment Foundation.
http://www.saf.org/
They and their lawyers have been involved in some big wins
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.