Federal Appeals Court Upholds ‘Assault Weapons Ban’

Photo: Wikipedia.com

A decision issued Monday by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a Illinois gun ban to stand. According to the Seventh Circuit Court, such bans are constitutional on the basis that they “may increase the public’s sense of safety”.

The case in question, Friedman v. Highland Park, was brought in 2013, it sought to overturn a city ordinance that banned “assault weapons or large capacity magazines (magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds).”

After a slew of circuit court opinions that upheld the individual right to bear arms, it is no surprise that this ruling comes from one of America’s progressive bastions. Even less surprising is the lack of an actual argument on behalf of the majority.

Highland Park, a Chicago suburb, is one of several cities in the area that quickly passed ordinances that regulated or banned the possession of “assault weapons” before the state legislature preempted home-rule authority to do so.

In a 2-1 decision, the three judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ordinance. The majority opinion claims:

“A ban on assault weapons won’t eliminate gun violence in Highland Park, but it may reduce overall dangerousness of crime that does occur ….”

The majority’s opinion is simply amazing; they would rather the public have a false sense of security than the ability to defend themselves with a firearm considered “too dangerous”. The court seems to have forgotten that the Second Amendment is not subject to public opinion polls on perceived threats.

The unruly court did not stop there, remarkably the opinion went on to state that even if the ban had no beneficial effect on safety, it could still be justified by the false sense of security that is provides to residents. “If it has no other effect…Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events”, the majority wrote.

“If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the opinion argued.

Beyond amazing is the fact that the court defended the ordinance’s inability to protect the public, offering that the ordinance serves the public because the firearms in question are perceived to be a threat; the court did so without even offering an argument as to how much of a threat “assault weapons” truly are.

Judge Daniel Anthony Manion dissented from the majority opinion. He persuasively argued that the ruling is “at odds with the central holdings in Heller and McDonald: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.”

“The government recognizes these rights; it does not confer them”

Judge Manion recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, and for that he should be commended. His reminder that the government “recognizes [constitutional] rights; it does not confer them” points out a serious flaw in the majority’s baseless opinion.

 

6 Comments on "Federal Appeals Court Upholds ‘Assault Weapons Ban’"

  1. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. This is from Miller vs United States. The Seventh Court of appeals has just dared to override the Supreme Court. I don’t think so Tim.

  2. Don’t matter….I’ll buy whatever guns/ammo I want, and would love to watch them try to come take it….

  3. THIS IS BULL CRAP SO US TRUE LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS GET SCREWED AGAIN WHILE GETS TO KEEP ANY GUNS THAT HE CAN STEAL OR KILL OF AND EVEN BUY ON THE STREET,BUT YOUR SITTING THERE ON YOUR FAN ASSES BREAKING THE BY STEPPING ALL OVER OUR CONSTITUTION,THE SECOND AMENDMENT…BUNCH OF ANTI-AMERICAN FUCKS…

  4. The term “high capacity magazine” is ignorant. I have two pistols that come with two clips holding 17 rounds. So why restrict a rifle which is much more difficult to conceal. Pistols have been used in far more violent crimes than rifles. Take sandy hook for instance. The scumbag used a 9mm pistol and several clips. He had an AR yes, but it was in his car. 99.4% of gun owners are law abiding citizens who use those high capacity mags lawfully with no crimes committed. Personally i own an AK-47, i have 7, 30 rd mags and 3, 40 rd mags. I use my weapon for deer hunting, hog hunting and clearing coyotes off of my land, and its fun to take to the gun range. Never once have i even committed a crime let alone a violent crime. They need to quit infringing on our civil liberties and start realizing the guns arent the problem the individuals who wield violently are.

  5. Gerald Green | May 10, 2015 at 9:46 pm |

    So these three stooges said that if it makes the public feel safe then they ought to be banned. Do you honestly think the gangs and criminals are going to abide by this?? I think all three of them should be taken from the bench. They are not doing the people’s will.

  6. This will get over turned by the Supreme Court!

Comments are closed.

Facebook