Illinois gun ban 2023

Some place along the way our rights under the US Constitution ought to be considered. Let's skip the Second Amendment for a second and look at the 9th and 10th Amendment. These two are NO JOKE. An example is SLAVERY. It was a pre-existing practice when the Constitution was ratified and there was nothing in the Constitution allowing the Federal Government to Abolish it. The Federal Government could regulate trade so the importation of slaves was immediately outlawed. THAT'S WHY the Constitution had to have an Amendment to Abolish Slavery. There were about 8 cases that went up to the Supreme Court and the Court upheld slavery every time as a pre-existing practice. So FIRST, were firearms privately owned when the Constitution was ratified? Yes. Therefore it is a protected right. The Constitution does not expressly (written down) authorize the Government to eliminate that right.
Now let's look at the Second Amendment. Al Gore, when running for President said he didn't have a problem with someone owning a "small gun for sporting purposes", that is a shotgun to shoot birds. We;;, CONGRATULATIONS, even in the worse days of the Soviet Union the citizens could own and keep a shotgun in their home "for sporting purposes". Big deal.
So the Second begins with a Well Regulated Militia. The Uniform Militia Acts of 1792 and 1793 REQUIRED the citizen to own a suitable rifle or musket for use in a militia so by law, in order to comply the right to buy and own such a weapon is inferred since in no other manner could a citizen so comply.
Warren Burger argued the 2nd was a "communal" right because the word "People" was used. Okay, back to that in a second. Burger then makes this unsubstantiated leap in logic to argue a "communal" right means GOVERNMENT. That's where this "People" means STATE GOVERMENT came into existence but what a slippery slope if we interpret "People" as such, the right of the People to peacefully assemble, etc.- all that means STATE GOVERNMENT?
All this was already hashed out some years ago by the U.S. Justice Department. They concluded "People" means people. They argued that if the people (across the board) were denied arms- that was unconstitutional, so theoretically you could background check an individual and that disarm everyone in the country but if you passed a law no one CAN HAVE AN ARM SUITABLE FOR SERVICE IN A MILITIA- that would be unconstitutional and they further concluded that some level of individual right existed in order to comply with the greater scope. AND REMEMBER this is the 2nd and we are speaking of arms suitable for a militia, the rest is covered in the 9th and 10th.

https://www.justice.gov/file/18831/download