Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of the Illinois 'Assault Weapon' Ban
U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn says the law bans firearms covered by the Second Amendment and is not supported by historical precedent.
U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn says the law bans firearms covered by the Second Amendment and is not supported by historical precedent.
The 2024 Democratic platform devotes five paragraphs to firearm restrictions but does not even allude to the Second Amendment.
Does the Second Amendment allow the government to ban guns in common use for lawful purposes?
The decision shows that the Supreme Court has forced judges who like gun control to respect the Second Amendment anyway.
The party's neglect of the issue is consistent with its domination by Donald Trump, who pays lip service to the Second Amendment but has never been a true believer.
The appeals court is reviewing an injunction by a judge who concluded that the law is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.
The late California senator always seemed to err on the side of more government power and less individual freedom.
California’s governor insists his “28th Amendment” would leave the right to arms “intact.”
A preliminary injunction in Illinois may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud.
Once again, firearm-averse legislators chase after a restriction-averse public.
A federal lawsuit notes that the new law draws arbitrary distinctions and targets guns in common use for legal purposes.
Bullet speed matters, but so does bullet weight
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion about the Second Amendment, gun control, and mass shootings.
As usual, Biden's gun policy proposals bump up against reality.
The president seems to have forgotten his concession that such laws leave murderers with plenty of options that are "just as deadly."
The law is hard to defend on logical, practical, or constitutional grounds.
It’s a bold and probably unconstitutional goal that’s bound to alienate millions of Americans.
The results also confirm that "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines are widely used for lawful purposes.
The Texas gubernatorial candidate's interpretation reflects his assumption that opponents of "assault weapon" bans don't care about murdered schoolchildren.
Even while conceding that the rifles they want to ban are commonly used for lawful purposes, they refuse to grapple with the implications.
Recent polling suggests that Americans are starting to recognize that such laws make no sense.
No, these rifles are not "the weapon of choice in most mass murders."
The Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the sort of reasoning that a federal appeals court used to uphold New York's ban.
The gun control policies under discussion are fundamentally ill-suited to prevent mass shootings.
The Court told appeals courts to reconsider their conclusions in light of last week's ruling against New York's restrictions on public possession of firearms.
The administration's slippery terminology illustrates the challenge of distinguishing between "good" and "bad" guns.
The president implies that anyone who resists his agenda is complicit in the murder of innocents.
Two federal appeals courts recently concluded that such age restrictions are unconstitutional.
Neither expanded background checks nor a federal "assault weapon" ban can reasonably be expected to have a meaningful impact on such crimes.
These three gun controls failed in New York, and there is little reason to think they would work elsewhere.
It's not clear which guns she is talking about, and even Collins does not seem to know.
The vast majority do not have disqualifying records, and "universal" requirements are easily evaded.
The problem is not sneaky entrepreneurs who sell accessories; it's legislators who ban guns based on functionally unimportant features.
Already abused for political purposes, the power of government shouldn’t be expanded based on lies.
Gavin Newsom is exploring legislation to authorize private civil actions against people who sell "assault weapons" or gun kits.
Eric Adams insists on a double standard that lets former cops like him escape the firearm restrictions everyone else has to follow.
David Chipman's obfuscation, like the president's vagueness, is aimed at concealing the illogic of targeting firearms based on their "military-style" appearance.
Such laws arbitrarily prohibit rifles that are commonly used for legal purposes.
Victory for the Second Amendment in Miller v. Bonta. Will the Biden administration pay attention?
A new RAND analysis shows how difficult it is to answer basic questions about this rare variety of homicide.
A ban won’t stop mass shootings, but it will hinder self-defense.
The president's unilateral restrictions are legally dubious and unlikely to "save lives."
The suggestion that the ordinance could have prevented Monday's mass shooting is utterly implausible.
It is hard to see how an "assault weapon" ban or expanded background checks could have prevented this attack.
As usual, the senator and her allies want to ban guns based on arbitrary distinctions.
The policies he favors would arbitrarily limit Second Amendment rights and threaten the industry that makes it possible to exercise them.
Sheila Jackson Lee's sweeping licensing and registration scheme suggests what Democrats would do if they didn't have to worry about the Second Amendment.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10