... can we cut the crap about "assault weapons" now? This ordinance bans any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. Capacity is a function of the magazine, not the weapon itself.

It was only passed as part of the Concealed Carry law two years ago. It was one of the Chicago demands to let them keep their beloved AWB.

Part of the deal was; cities that already had an AWB, were allowed to keep it, and others that didn't were given a 10 day window to pass one by now Ex Governor Quinn, who also tried to veto the whole Democrat written and sponsored bipartisan CCW law. (Nothing like pissing off 1.6 million Illinois gun owners in a tight election year.)

A very small handful of towns rushed to pass something without much knowledge of the whole issue. We had a lot of Illinois State Rifle Assn. people speaking and educating at meetings on the issue to explain what a so called AWB really was. Most towns ignored the "opportunity". Still waiting for that first Illinois crime with an AR. By Illinois law now they can't pass any new gun laws stricter than the state.

Highland Park is also a 90%+ white north shore suburb that has a track record for red lining real estate and not welcoming certain people to move there for years and refusing restaurant service to "outsiders". It's still less than 1.8% AA. Not exactly a place I'd admire for their "courage".

You can see how effective Chicago's AWB is on the front page of the Tribune every day in reducing violent crime. On the other hand Highland Park hasn't had any AWB shootings since they passed it .... didn't have any before it either. So that's what passes as a win for gun control these days.

“Assault Weapon” means:
(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a Large
Capacity Magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:
(a) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(b) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that
can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(c) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(d) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely
encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the Firearm
with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding
a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(e) A Muzzle Brake or Muzzle Compensator;


But then goes on to list numerous arms that don't fit that description, including the mini-14. AND doesn't include say the M&P 15 series, Ruger SR, or other typical AWs that do have stocks attached.


What am I missing?

(d) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the Firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

Remember they only had 10 days to draft and pass the law or no AWB.

I'm thinking they threw a bunch of stuff against the wall and had the "experts" at Brady help them.

What do you think that section is supposed to mean? I have no clue. You could argue it only applies to barrel shrouds or you could argue it applies to any sort of foregrip or wood stock extension under the barrel. If you take the latter interpretation all semi automatic rifles are banned.

This case only impacts Highland Park for now and a denial of Certorari by SCOTUS doesn't mean its a settled matter, like an actual court decision would be.

They often leave an issue with the appellate courts for a while, until a "better" case comes along with clearer constitutional issues to resolve.

The gun control fans are all excited because it's as close as they've come to an actual pro gun control decision.

Whew, thank heavens they have control over assault weapons in California.

No chance of them being used in a crime there.

donP: Whew, thank heavens they have control over assault weapons in California. No chance of them being used in a crime there

Had the federal assault weapon ban (AWB) been renewed in 2004, imo there would not be the frequency & severity of mass shootings today.
Mass shootings would tend to cause less damage & less casualties.
But Wayne Lapierre-head would still be a terrorist by the NY Daily News:

NY Daily News calls Wayne Lapierre a “terrorist”

?1449198798
the front page calls Wayne Lapierre a “terrorist” and accuses the NRA of a “sick gun jihad against America in the name of profit.” The paper’s editorial, “Making Mass Murder Easy,” expands upon this notion of just how vulnerable the gun lobby has made US citizens.
This outrage from the Daily News comes after Republicans in the Senate today voted down a gun control measure which would have barred sales of guns to suspected domestic terrorists. While the vote was symbolic ― the voted down amendment was attached to a health care bill with no chance of passage ― it signaled that Republicans are willing to back the NRA at every deadly turn. Of course, this isn’t surprising, given that the NRA spent $34 million in 2014 to block all forms of gun control, including six- and seven-figures to many of those Republican senators who voted against gun control today,

It’s remarkable that the GOP seems to be supporting policies which one imagines ISIS would champion as well: 1) the rejection of Syrian refugees fleeing terror, and 2) the rejection of bills which restrict firearm access, even to domestic terrorists.
The New York Daily News seems to agree, and calls out one entity as more responsible than any for this “sick gun jihad against America” ― Wayne Lapierre’s NRA. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/3/1456666/-NY-Daily-News-calls-Wayne-Lapierre-a-terrorist-accuses-NRA-of-sick-gun-jihad-against-America?detail=email

there were plenty of semiautomatic rifles sold during the AWB. Adam Lanza's rifle would still have been perfectly legal.