On January 10, 2023, Governor JB Pritzker signed into law Public Act 102-1116 Opens in new window, the Protect Illinois Communities Act (Act). The Act regulates the sale and distribution of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and switches in Illinois. The Act went into effect immediately upon signing. Individuals who possessed assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other devices listed in the Act before it took effect are required to submit an endorsement affidavit through their Firearm Owner’s Identification Card account by JANUARY 1, 2024.
Here are two discussion about the trial which has just started. For the historical and legal nerds/junkies (that's me at least but maybe a few on forum) an English trial in 1686 has a bearing on this case.
Read more at AmmoLand blog
The critical legal interpretation came from the 1686 trial of Sir John Knight, where the court emphasized that the statute applied only when arms were carried with “malo animo,” or malicious intent. The jury acquitted Knight because he did not go armed with the intent to terrify the public. This reinforces the principle that carrying arms for self-defense was lawful unless it was done to cause fear or harm.
In America, the right to bear arms evolved into something far more expansive than its English origins.
This divergence is crucial to understanding why the Second Amendment was framed without the qualifications that limited English rights. The Founders sought to enshrine an individual right that went beyond the restrictive English model, ensuring that American citizens could bear arms for self-defense without conditions based on their status or intent.
And for a video discussion as well from Tom Grieve channel.
On such legal interpretation does our God giving enshrined in the Constitution becomes tested. And why it can take years to overturn unconstitutional laws which are passed over and over again. Easy to see why the state lawyers can get the big bucks to argue over this for their political bosses on taxpayer dime.
Here are two discussion about the trial which has just started. For the historical and legal nerds/junkies (that's me at least but maybe a few on forum) an English trial in 1686 has a bearing on this case.
Read more at AmmoLand blog
The critical legal interpretation came from the 1686 trial of Sir John Knight, where the court emphasized that the statute applied only when arms were carried with “malo animo,” or malicious intent. The jury acquitted Knight because he did not go armed with the intent to terrify the public. This reinforces the principle that carrying arms for self-defense was lawful unless it was done to cause fear or harm.
In America, the right to bear arms evolved into something far more expansive than its English origins.
This divergence is crucial to understanding why the Second Amendment was framed without the qualifications that limited English rights. The Founders sought to enshrine an individual right that went beyond the restrictive English model, ensuring that American citizens could bear arms for self-defense without conditions based on their status or intent.
And for a video discussion as well from Tom Grieve channel.
On such legal interpretation does our God giving enshrined in the Constitution becomes tested. And why it can take years to overturn unconstitutional laws which are passed over and over again. Easy to see why the state lawyers can get the big bucks to argue over this for their political bosses on taxpayer dime.
