It's stunning that in our gun-saturated country, firearms like AR-15s and AK-47s are covered under the 2nd Amendment, firearms that are mass shooters' favorite weapons. But what can we do? Protests don't seem to work. The March For Our Lives demonstration in Washington, DC, was massive. I was part of between 1.2 and 2 million people, making it one of the largest protests in American history.
Not much has happened since then, except for the Illinois assault weapons ban, but a Trump-appointed judge overturned that on Friday. Sigh.
HuffPost reports:
A federal judge overturned an Illinois assault weapons ban Friday, contending that the law enacted in response to the 2022 mass shooting at a Highland Park parade violated the Second Amendment in its entirety.
The 168-page ruling, by Donald Trump-appointee Stephen McGlynn, deals a sharp blow to reformers and marks the latest major court ruling to expand gun rights in the wake of the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court's sweeping reinterpretation of the Second Amendment two years ago.
The decision boosts the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on whether states can restrict the sale of semiautomatic rifles, such as AR-15s and AK-47s, without running afoul of the Constitution.
"While the Court is sympathetic to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence, such tragedies are not an excuse to restrict the rights guaranteed to the Illinois public by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution," McGlynn wrote in his opinion.
Fact check: No, he is not sympathetic to victims of gun violence.
McGlynn's ruling found that the arms covered by the Illinois law are purchased for the lawful and protected purpose of self-defense and therefore fall under the Second Amendment's protection. Though the state of Illinois argued that rifles like AR-15s made poor choices for self-defense compared to handguns, McGlynn ruled that several of its features — including the ease of shooting a light-kicking gun and the ability to easily attach optics and pistol grips — made it ideal for the purpose, especially for smaller or less-strong people.
"In a self-defense scenario, every second matters and this Court will not fault individuals who are not able-bodied for choosing weapons that enable them to more carefully defend themselves and their families," McGlynn wrote.
I can't believe this is real life. McGlynn cited the stories of David and Goliath and Indiana Jones.
"David selected an arm that allowed him to fire a projectile from a safe distance to impose lethal force on his opponent before the giant closed within an adequate distance to slay David with his sword," McGlynn wrote.
The judge also noted that, in a movie, Indiana Jones shot a large man with a pistol because he couldn't reach him with his sword.
Uhm, Indiana Jones is a fictional character, you goober. And if you believe the historically inaccurate story of David and Goliath, which happened in the 11th century BC, David, at about 16 years old, took down Goliath with a stone and a sling and did not need an AK. Holy fuckballs, we're doomed.
