Authored by Andrea Widburg via American Thinker,
Illinois desperately wants to ensure that, within the state’s borders, only criminals have guns.
When it comes to law-abiding citizens, the state will do anything to disarm them.
That includes passing a law that pretty much bans “assault weapons” (a non-existent category that really covers AR-15s, America’s most popular gun) and large-capacity magazines (which really do exist). A federal district court issued an injunction against that part of the law, but a three-judge panel reversed the injunction on grounds that are so asinine and juvenile that they could come only from judges.
The three-judge panel in Barnett v. Raoul (Case No. 23-13530 consisted of a Reagan appointee, a Clinton appointee, and a Trump appointee. Only the latter supported the trial court. The other two judges came up with some astounding logic. I’ve summarized the judges’ logic, along with my commentary (in bolded text).
A few things need to be said here:
Of the 20 million AR-15s in use in America, it’s impossible to imagine how small the percentage is of people who use bump stocks. Most Americans don’t want automatic weapons. They chew up ammo, which means that their time-utility is limited, and the average citizen would have to be weighed down with hundreds of bullets.
Image: A civilian’s long guns.
I’m unsurprised that a Clinton judge would be behind this risible “logic.”
I’m saddened that a Reagan judge would be, and I can’t even guess his motives.
However, given my very deep disrespect for judges, I’m ready to be very unimpressed by both judges’ intelligence.