In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Friday, December 1, 2023

Appeals court upholds assault weapons ban



A U.S. appeals court Monday upheld a Chicago suburb’s assault weapons ban that had become a focus in the statewide debate over gun control, though a dissenting judge sharply criticized the majority opinion.

In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago concluded the city of Highland Park’s 2013 ban does not violate the Second Amendment, saying municipalities ought to have leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms.

“If a ban on semi-automatic 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 12-page majority opinion says.

The legal battle over Highland Park’s ordinance drew national players in the gun debate, including a brief filed with the 7th Circuit defending the ban from the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and briefs opposing it filed by weapons manufacturers, including Sig Sauer Inc., and Smith & Wesson Corp.

Monday’s decision sets precedent not just for Illinois but for two other states in the judicial circuit — Indiana and Wisconsin. Of Illinois’ 1,300 municipalities, no more than a few dozen have regulations or bans similar to Highland Park’s.

Among other arguments from the court majority was that would-be gun owners in the northern Chicago suburb still had more than ample options under Highland Park law to protect themselves, including purchasing a handgun.

But in his hard-hitting dissent, Judge Daniel A. Manion said the U.S. Constitution leaves it to individuals, not elected officials, to determine which guns do or don’t offer the right degree of self-defense.

“To limit self-defense to only those methods acceptable to the government” creates an “enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government — a result directly contrary to our constitution and to our political tradition,” Manion wrote.

Illinois State Rifle Association and Highland Park resident Arie Friedman challenged the ban. Asked about an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Richard Pearson, the ISRA’s president, said, “I’m sure there will be an appeal.”

Steven Elrod, the corporation counsel for the city of Highland Park, heralded the appellate court’s finding.

“We are delighted,” he said. Asked if he thought the ban would survive an appeal to the nation’s highest court, he said, “I have every confidence that the ordinance will continue to be found to be constitutional.”

Attorneys for Highland Park had argued that even though the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s, sweeping handgun ban and recognized a right to carry firearms in a key 2008 decision, it also left open the possibility that lawmakers could ban certain types of weapons. Monday’s majority opinion agreed.

Manion, though, said prohibiting an entire class of weapons — in this case, assault weapons — went too far.

“Outside of weapons deemed dangerous or unusual, there is no historical tradition supporting wholesale prohibitions of entire classes of weapons,” he wrote. “The right to self-defense is largely meaningless if it does not include the right to choose the most effective means of defending oneself.”

Manion was appointed to the federal bench in Chicago by Republican President Ronald Reagan, as was the author of the majority opinion, Frank Easterbrook. Ann Claire Williams, an appointee of Democrat Bill Clinton, was the second vote in favor of upholding Highland Park’s ban.

Pearson, of the rifle association, said the 7th Circuit has historically backed firearms restrictions and said the decision wasn’t a surprise.

“It always happens that way in Illinois,” he said.

Highland Park was one of several Illinois communities two years ago to debate whether or not to regulate or ban assault weapons when state lawmakers made it legal to carry concealed weapons in public. The state bill included a provision that gave local communities 10 days to come up with an ordinance or forfeit their right to do so.


Associated Press writer Sara Burnett contributed to this report.


Copyright © 2015 Capitol Hill Blue

Copyright  © 2015 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

50 thoughts on “Appeals court upholds assault weapons ban”

  1. Apparently this anti-gun group feels the problem is using a few fingers less , HOWEVER, without firearms it is usually a lot of blood and limbs alike a recent culprit in Boston!

    The pistols have been illegal in Australia since around 1902(around Australia’s year of Federation). whether a knife , lump of wood , iron bar or “home made sword”(whether stainless steel or mild steel or welded or one solid machined sheet piece ), most ad-hoc weapon systems of killing or fighting causes horrendous injuries.

    This invites his name as nick-name to be used by people (whom take for granted a firearm will always be there to cleanly harm or kill from either perspective in a crime problem to remember what happens if they have only alternate methods) to remember what the injury result often can equal.

    The “Boston Bomber”(non firearm attacker) is the equal of many of these medieval and prehistoric equipment that replaces the firearm as can be seen by the photographs of victims that day near the marathon finish after the bomb detonated showing the terrible similarity of wounds and number of dead(only two dead).

    The below then deserve to be referred to as “Boston Bomber” or “would be Boston Bomber” alike Lanza’s girlfriend “Queen Hoddle of Strathfield in Cairns 2014”

    “Teenage Boston Bomber”

    “Home invading Boston Bomber”

    “Another home invading Boston Bomber”

    Machete, axe used in bloody home invasion April 21, 2011

    …Boston Bomber”

    …Boston Bomber”

    …Boston Bomber”

    …Boston Bomber”

    …Boston Bomber”

    This here is the most simplified form of the “Boston Bomber” with two knife victims

    …Boston Bomber”

    …Boston Bomber”

    …Boston Bomber”

    …Boston Bomber”

    So thus in basis we know this problem is true if firearms are banned and stand your ground laws are a better solution appealing to common sense…

    = = = Australia never had much firearm use history in 100 years = = =

    odd Australian killers a sort of note….


    The list goes on…..

    (You may be interested to know that the following is illegal in Britain and its commonwealth countries but there are various weapons in houses around in Australia) This following IS NOT Australian footage or incident!

    But it is what it can become easily in Australia or Britain in your house (the people in the house won this one but it can appear the opposite)!

    Redo of Bob Englehart’s cartoon because it does not show what occurs after gun control is in place…

    I almost forgot!!! The Khmer Rouge kept old gun barrels to execute death sentenced prisoners at the burial pits “because bullets cost too much” and they don’t use money and had very little resources , they used a “method of two strikes to the rear of the head using the bare gun barrel” , aside that, the machete on millions of people!


    If anti gunners want an argument for not using such lethal force at points then perhaps this Hymn can provide them a few ideas or safe personal excuse!

  2. If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the PERCEIVED risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public FEEL safer as a result, the purveyors and victims of that idiocy will receive neither REAL safety nor an ACTUAL reduction in risk.
    — Some poor old fool who lived 250 years ago and believed men to be capable of wisdom.

  3. >> “If a ban on semi-automatic 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,”

    Feelings… nothing more than Feelings… Trying to establish, a reason to be overruled!
    Feelings… no thought just Feelings… What a pair of morons… feeling out the law!!

  4. “Though a dissenting judge sharply criticized the majority opinion”

    Keep voting liberal Democrat and this is what you will keep getting.

  5. idiots……it IS a violation of the 2nd amendment and furthermore, this ban hasn’t curbed violent crimes anyways…. your either on the side of the agenda or your too stupid to realize it.

  6. Nothing like limiting basic freedoms based on “perceived risk” and “feel safer”. Progressives don’t let facts get in the way of decision-making, it’s all about feelings.

  7. Everyone who likes these weapons should sue the suburb. Eventually the cost will create a real burden… and they will have to pay a price for their decisions. As long as there is a stiff price; it should deter other boards.

  8. But does “feeling” safer outweigh our constitution? And frankly I’d feel safer with a semi auto rifle with a large magazine capacity than without one. What criminal do you think is going to pay any attention to the ban? Can you bring me one violent criminal that was ever stopped in an act of violence by some silly ban or sign? And historically a citizen’s own government is a far bigger threat than any criminal ever way when you look at the numbers of the last 100 years or so.

  9. I’ll be voting Republican, after being a lifelong Democrat, from here on out for two reasons. First, I’m Fed UP With 95% Of The Entertainment Industry Being Controlled By The 2-5% HOMOsexual Community. Almost every movie or TV show today has HOMOsexual component in it , promoting HOMOsexuality like it’s a normal alternative lifestyle to millions of impressionable and confused adolescents in PRIME TIME every night, Well, It’s Not Normal, It’s a Mental Or PhysicalL Disorder That Needs To Be Treated Like You’d Treat Schizophrenia Or Cancer Secondly, I’m friggin tired of the Democrats trying to curb my gun ownership rights with False Flag Events like Sandy Hook which was nothing but a Poorly Executed FEMA / Homeland Security Capstone Drill Modeled after The Dunblane Scotland School Shooting in the 90’S where Hand Gun Ownership was Tototally Banned in Great Britain a Year Later which is their goal here. There are 10’s of millions of Gun Owning Democrats that are against THE HOMOsexual Agenda that is High Jacking The Democratic Party . Also , there are 10’s 0f millions Democratic Men of all Races saying they’ll vote for Hillary in public, But Never Will Inside That Voting Booth ,Guauranteed. Republicans will win the 2016 Presidential Race by a Landslide !!!
    Here’s a small % of TV shows with Homosexual Characters or Content without doing an in depth search ,let’s see we have the one that started it all Will and Grace, then Six Feet Under , Girls, The L Word, The Walking Dead , The Following, Empire , Backstrom, Chicago Fire , The Royals ,The Big Bang Theory, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Cleveland Show, King of the Hill, South park, The Simpsons, Glee, The 100 Black Sails, Madame Secretary , Gotham , Kingdom, How to get Away With Murder, The Modern Family, Dominion, Tyrant, The Night Shift, It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Penny Dreadful, Nurse Jackie ,Star Crossed, The Fall , Peaky Blinders , Wentworth , Defiance, Hemlock Grove, Hannibal , The Bridge , Under The Dome ,Ray Donavan , Orphan Black, Banshee, Betrayal , House of Cards , Alpha House , Masters of Sex , Nashville, Da Vinci’s Demons , Arrow, Sons of Anarchy Orange is the New Black, Sherlock ,Skins , Lip Service, How I met your Mother, Xena ,Prison Break , Homicide Life On The Streets , East Enders , Teen Wolf , Torchwood, Sex and the City , Bad Girls ,True Blood , Spartacus ,Game of Thrones , The Vampire Dairies , Shamless , Q ueer As Foik , The Wire ,The Office , Weeds ,Ripper Street , Schitt’s Creek , Eye Candy ,Transpatrnt, The Flash ,Chasing Life ,Hit The Floor ,Dracula , Dates , The Originals ,A Place To Call Home , The Fosters , The Carrie Dairies , and American Horror Story just to mention a few there are dozens more. YOU GETTIN THE PICTURE !!!!!!1

  10. ““If a ban on semi-automatic 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,”

    It seems this joke of a court would abrogate their responsibility to the citizens of their state and to the citizens of this country. Judge Daniel Manion said it best and said it loudest. The “Assault Weapons” in question are (Operationally) NO DIFFERENT that say, the semi automatic rifle produced by Remington for nearly 100 years. The “Assault” is on HONEST American citizens because, once again, the Bad Guys will have what they want and when they want it.

    “Prior Restraint”, and the assumption that otherwise law-abiding citizens will commit crimes, without these anti-gun laws, is the equivalent of taping peoples mouths shut prior to going into the movies so no one can’t shout “FIRE!” and by doing so abridging their First Amendment Rights.The Courts, in the past, have seen the use of “Prior Restraint” (which this ruling is) and disallowed its use in the case of the First Amendment. Where is the difference, please tell me? To ASSUME an honest, law abiding citizen will commit a crime and therefore needs his Second Amendment Rights abridged with an onslaught of more and more anti-gun legislation which institutes “Prior Restraint” on honest citizens Second Amendment Rights as taping the mouths shut of movie goers would abridge their First Amendment Rights. To ASSUME ANYONE will commit a crime or will shout “Fire” in a crowded venue and therefore needs to have their mouths taped shut is ludicrous at least and down right criminal.The American People are getting pretty tired of being pushed around by an increasingly overbearing federal and state governments. The semi automatic firearm is ubiquitous and has been on U.S. soil for ten decades and is no more of a threat than any other firearm in the hands of an HONEST, LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. This is exactly what the framers of our Constitution warned us about. The Power Grab begins, but the FIGHT is FAR from over.

  11. – “If a ban on semi-automatic 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,””

    In other words, the majority’s ruling is predicated on the legal theory that your rights end where someone else’s feeeeeeeeelings begin.

  12. Passing unconstitutional law should bring automatic arrests and prosecution for these left wing, Constitution disobeying and violating judges! Those that support this crap, due to unfounded fear mongering, should be sitting in jail right now, and be permanently removed from the bench.

  13. Let’s hope so. To not reverse this terrible, law breaking, unconstitutional decision would be disastrous, and give us all the MORE reason to want to be armed.

  14. too bad the city officials do not have to pay the legal fees from their own pockets…this should be overturned at the Supreme Court

  15. “If a ban on semi-automatic 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 12-page majority opinion says.

    So they are admitting that the ban will do no good, but allowed this “feel good” legislation stand anyway. And that is a good reason to violate the 2nd Amendment? I guess that they should just get rid of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights because someone feels that it will make some people feel better about the country. Yea, let’s go with that!

  16. “If a ban on semi-automatic 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,”

    “perceived risk,” not actual risk.
    “feel safer,” not be safer.

    This should get overturned on appeal.

  17. Wherein lies your entire problem – it already HAS BEEN decided by the SCOTUS. The article even refers to the decision…

  18. Wow Guns are Bad? No kidding? But baseball bats kill people too. Guessing the Chicago Cubs and White Sox are criminals as well, because they also use Assault weapons. Or at least seeing as assault is an action, and not a weapon, or tool. Lets see I take a Liberal and beat their behind with my hands, are my hands considered an assault weapon? they were used to assault that person, keep in mind without the use of a Firearm, so are they considered an assault weapon? The people of Chicago, San Francisco, Hell-A, New Dork, Boston, and several other Liberal run sanctuaries seem too think that their opinion is more important or valid than everybody else’s opinion is. Any superior court that comes from any Metropolitan area has to have its credibility questioned when it comes to firearm laws. As they work from opinions and emotion, rather than logic, and the gathering of credible statistics. I have a feeling that this ruling will most likely be over ruled at some point. as there is not and inkling of logic behind it.

  19. I forgot to mention that if the judge ruled that there is a ban on assault weapons then the guns pictured above are not assault weapons, Assault weapons are military full auto select, the guns pictured are semi-auto rifles. We need to know exactly the wording used in the ruling.

  20. These judges took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. This is treason. The 2nd amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to we the people. No where in the 2nd amendment does it state what type of gun a person and own. There is what is known as the exclusionary rule, that if an issue is not in the constitution then the government cannot do it. The government is bound by what is in the constitution, not the people. All powers not delegated to the government by the constitution, are reserved to we the people and the state. Where are all the high powered attorneys? Are they afraid to tell it like it is?? I would really like to see some input here in this comments section from some attorneys.

  21. We can only hope this will be overturned in the Supreme Court.
    Same goes for Shew v. Malloy in Connecticut. Go Justice Scalia!

  22. There is that pesky new term “assault rifle” again. Something that none of the three pictured rifles are. I think that people are tired of getting spoofed like this.

  23. The civilian version of the military M16 is NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON!!!!!! The civilian version only fires in semi-auto and the military version has a selector switch which allows it to be switched from semi auto to full auto. Wonder how long it will take for these stupid college graduates that have no common sense to understand that.

  24. ” … reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting,…”

    Note that it does not state any ACTUAL reduction of risk .

    Not a well-considered response.

  25. “If a ban on semi-automatic 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,”

    So any law that just makes you feel safer, but doesn’t actually make you safer is a good thing? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard a judge say.

  26. Perceived risk?? WHAT THE HELL??? SO he admits this ban is no good and won’t stop any violence. I am the public and this tripe does NOT make me feel any safer. Maybe we need to be protected from the perceived risk of 2000 pound plus cars that can go 200 mph the law says you can’t drive that fast so we don’t need them. I thought you had to have a smatter of wisdom to be a judge but they completely disproved it here except for the dissenter.

  27. I would first like to know what an “Assault Weapon” is. I am a gun owner, NRA member, and former military. No such term has ever been used by professionals.

  28. Yeah there you go keep it out of those who want and use them within the law but let the criminals use them allll they want. Amazing how STUPID people are!!! Frankly we shouldn’t have any laws against Weapons because criminals will do what they want anyway only thing the Weapons laws do is keep them out of the innocents hands not the criminals. Keep up the BS you liberal Punks!!!

  29. So, according to the dissenting judge in that ruling, it should be left to any individual the choice of choosing weapons of self defense. Does that mean people should now be allowed to purchase bazookas, hand-missiles and rockets, and trap their garden and yards with landmines to keep trespassers away?

  30. Since when is a “perceived risk” really a reason for any legislation? In the early 1800’s, many whites “perceived” that blacks were less human than whites. They were wrong. In the 1930’s-50’s, cigarettes were “perceived” to be good for your health. They, too, were wrong. Anybody with half a brain could come up with more examples that are similar. Now, we have a court saying that “If a ban on semi-automatic 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”, and are expected to treat that as a true statement. Logically, this is false. If it doesn’t make the public safer IN REALITY, then all the perception in the world doesn’t change the facts. This is pure legislating from the bench by these judges, playing politics to the emotions of the public, not the facts of the situation as they are required to do. These judges are not doing their job of upholding the law, they are attempting to make the law.

  31. “Outside of weapons deemed dangerous or unusual, there is no historical tradition supporting wholesale prohibitions of entire classes of weapons”

    I think Judge Manion means dangerous “AND” unusual, or at lest that what the SC stated. I find that common military weapons to be neither. It would the up to Highland Park attorneys to provide creditable information that these firearms are both dangerous and unusual. However, considering that an “assault” weapon can not fire itself and the Ar-15 and M16 M4 are the most common rifles in the United States of America, they have a huge way to go in proving they meet the dangerous and unusual category. The Supreme court may take this case just because the lower court ruled against the case in the face of the Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago rulings.. It is pretty sad to see that an individual right is being trump by the courts delusion of public safety. Whats next book bans because the book author might cause readers to insight violation in turn destroying the public safety? Its all non-sense created by control freaks.

  32. Clearly an infringement on the rights of gun owners! They know it too! A “perceived risk”? Making “people feel safer”? No concrete evidence whatsoever!

  33. “If a ban on semi-automatic 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 12-page majority opinion says.

    The “Feeling safer” is useless.bthe criminals still have the guns.

  34. I find it interesting that Chicago is so worried about these so-called assault weapons when they are used so seldom in gun-related crimes.

  35. Unless they are capable of firing on auto, these modern sport rifles are not “assault rifles”. They are “rifles that look menacing”. That’s like banning cars because they have racing stripes.

  36. They are not assault weapons, simply semi-automatic guns they look scary but realistically they are as simple as any semi-auto, assault weapons are the full-automatic weapons, hold the trigger and they fire rapidly until empty, A.R. rifles fire only one time for each trigger pull, it’s already illegal to go around shooting people and I don’t think the criminals will obey a law to ban A.R. rifles when they decide to shoot a person. A homeowner can be very effective defending their home with a semi-automatic rifle when two or three criminals break in on them.

  37. Hasn’t the Supreme Court already issued a ruling a couple years ago on this issue? Yes it did! How can Chicago be in violation of this ruling? Only an administration that is afraid of it’s law abiding citizens would take such a measure. Chicago has enabled it’s gangs to commit more violence against their taxpayer citizens by demanding such weapons be banned for the home defense of law abiding citizens! The city administration has not ordered their police departments to do anything to disarm the black, criminal, savage desperado’s. Chicago’s administration has now created a new set of citizens to become victimized by they cities black gangs. They have provided a “go ahead light” and endorsed home invasions, more murders, continued looting, and committing other violent, savage criminal attacks upon Chicago-lands citizens. Don’t you love it?

  38. I have no doubt that you are correct. That still leaves the residents of Highland Park with an onerous law on the books and a huge financial burden to defend this “feel good” law, And while were at it just where in our constitution is there a provision for feel good legislation?

  39. Lets hope so… its such a flimsy, stupid excuse to Ban anything… “Reduces the perceived risk of a mass shooting” What kind of BS is that? its like saying that speed limit signs reduce the Perceived risk of an accident because traffic is slower on that road. lol

    If they are just out to try and trick the sheep into believing they’re safe, just tell them all the crazy nuts are safely locked away in mental institutions where they cannot get any guns!

  40. You guys can always go buy a M1A or something. as long as its not black, has a wooden stock and no pistol grip, barrel shroud or anything on the end of the barrel, flash suppressor, muzzle break or even a bayonet adapter, the morons wont care because its “Not a deadly, military type gun made just to kill humans!” lol,lol,lol..

  41. It certainly would be reasonable for the people to disregard the courts Decision and the municipalities law, as the law and the decision, do create a perceived threat from the government, known as Tyranny and Slavery !
    I will move to Highland Park, and I will be willing to die in defense of My and Your Constitutional Rights and Freedom.
    Death to Tyrants

  42. Don’t quite understand how a sporting rifle that is ownable all over the rest of the U.S. can’t be owned in a crime-laden area like Chicago’s suburbs, but law abiding citizens. Is the gun itself immoral? Can it come to life and shoot up the place? Or are you concerned that those living in Chicago’s suburbs are somehow less moral than the rest of the nation?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: