The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you read the article the court didn’t rule that the actual law was constitutional. The court’s ruling was that there was no constitutional issue with the law particularly as it related to the equal protection clause. This ruling doesn’t mean that there isn’t any other constitutional issues that arise from it, such as 2a or 4a violations.

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not “unconstitutional until proven constitutional” lol

      You clearly think this law is unconstitutional and hasn’t been shown to be constitutional yet but that’s just not how laws work.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t believe this law Would survive the Bruen test. I’m not suggesting that every law must be proven to be constitutional in court before it may be employed. I was stating that the question at had in the court wasn’t if it was constitutional or not it was whether it violated the Equal Protections Clause. Which the court found it didn’t violate.

        • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Where is the equal protection clause written

          Edit: cause you keep replying and deleting or Lemmy is being weird I’ll just answer my own rhetorical question. The 14th amendment of the constitution. It’s a ruling that the law doesn’t violate the 14th amendment of the Constitution. there are parts of the constitution other than the second amendment - hard to believe I know, but they are also in there. And rulings on those grounds are just as constitutional.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The 14th Amendment, this case was about this the plaintiff was arguing on 14th amendment grounds not 2nd per the article.