Deerfield, Illinois bans scary-looking black rifles to “increase the public’s sense of safety”
CBS News reports that Deerfield, Illinois city council voted to ban scary-looking black rifles as well as ammunition magazines which hold more than ten bullets. Their reasoning for the ordinance is to “increase the public’s sense of safety.” Not to make the public more safe, but rather to make the public FEEL safer.
The ordinance states, “The possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is not reasonably necessary to protect an individual’s right of self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”
So, beginning June 13, banned assault weapons in Deerfield will include semiautomatic rifles with a fixed magazine and a capacity to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, shotguns with revolving cylinders, and conversion kits from which assault weapons can be assembled. And those are just a few of the firearm varieties banned. The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.
So residents have until June 13 to voluntarily turn over their offending firearms after which they face a fine of $1000/day until they comply with the law. Of course, in order to enforce the law, the council will have to suspend the Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” to conduct house-to-house inspections for the guns they seek to confiscate.
The measure passed unanimously in the council.
“We hope that our local decision helps spur state and national leaders to take steps to make our communities safer,” Deerfield Mayor Harriet Rosenthal said in a press release…
But don’t worry, the gun-grabbing Leftists don’t want to take your guns away from you.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Oh-blabla and Ream Emanuell and their ilk are contaminating everything up there.
Ill-anoyed is right.
Molon Labe, bitch.
No fucking way this holds up to a legal challenge.
A huge steaming pile of leftist bullshit!… But this is a local thing, and the vote was unanimous… this tells me that the residents of the area got the govt. they voted / asked for, and as such, my sympathy for them is limited… If this was on a national level, or even a state, where leftist inner cities skewed the vote, that’d be different, but that’s not the case here…YMMV
μολὼν λαβέ, τύραννος
Funny how we keep getting told that “Nobody wants to take your guns” – but then someone decides to try to take folks guns.
Personally, this ol’ Texas boy would – if so cursed as to have to live in Deerfield, Sick-sound – join up with as many free American Citizens (not slaves) as he could to march into the next council meeting fully armed, locked and loaded, and openly carrying – and just stand there.
Unfortunately for them, it appears that most of the residents in that area consider themselves subjects, serfs, and slaves of their (D)umfluck Overlords.
I read somewhere that about 2/3 of the citizens who showed up to speak, did so AGAINST the measure. Obviously the council represents themselves, not their constituents.
Could be, though either the ones that showed up are outnumbered by the ones that voted these idiots in, or the ones that showed up were dumb enough to vote the idiots in…
‘Their reasoning for the ordinance is to “increase the public’s sense of safety.” Not to make the public more safe, but rather to make the public FEEL safer.’
Feelings always take precedence over facts and objective analysis.
Everyone knows that.
https://youtu.be/6-oHYYaw9jA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=6-oHYYaw9jA
My wife grew up in a really shitty neighborhood in east San Diego. Maybe not “south-central LA” shitty, but pretty bad nonetheless, with several murders per week and several shootings/standings/assaults per day. With that background, she feels very safe knowing that any threat to our household can and will be met with superior firepower.
MOLON LABE
Autocorrupted “stabbings” into “standings.” “Smart” phone my ass.
Yeah, they can go ahead a grab a spoon and eat my ass……
I hate Illinois nazis.
His name is Elwood Blues, he lives in Chicago…and he’s a CATHOLIC!
1060 W. Addison.
AND… he’s on a mission from GOD!
No… He’s on a mission from Gahd.
If they actually implement this against anybody, they will be sued out of existence. Of course, Deerfield is a near suburb of Chicago, so the number of law abiding citizens with semiautomatic rifles is probably zero.
I’m sorry Deerfield, but my AR-15 is a defensive weapon, not an assault weapon. So please feel free to go and have a nice day.
“So please feel free to go and have a nice day.”
Or fuck off. Whichever works better for them.
Good luck with this standing up to legal scrutiny. I think I read the NRA is already prepping a challenge.
And probably will garner an increase in membership amongst the local citizens.
Amongst the serfs, however…
I’m almost convinced that the Hoggwash and other Dems are actually on the payroll of the NRA to get them national power.
Does this burg have the legal team and financial ability to defend itself in this violation of Constitutional Rights? Really?
Frankie, they don’t bother with such things. I guarantee none of them could recite the basic first 10 amendments of our Constitution, much less what they entail and mean. This is simply throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks and believe me, this shit won’t stick.
Deerfield is a pretty wealthy suburb, hosting the HQs of Walgreen’s, Baxter Healthcare and other corporations. With the state chapter of the NRA prepping a slam-dunk lawsuit, though, I don’t they’ll mount much of a defense after they consult with the lawyers.
I know I wouldn’t feel very safe if the government took away my means of self-defense.
“Being necessary for the security of a free state” is so overrated.
So how will the Deerfield PD know the locations of the so-called “assault weapons”, and are there judges who would be willing to sign off on a search warrant to confiscate the alleged weapon? You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to recognize this is multi-layered clusterfuck.
Illinois requires you to have a Firearm Owners ID (FOID) card to own or buy a firearm.
Judges in Illinois are elected. This is part of Cook county. I doubt any of them there will disagree with the council and will be happy to sign the warrant. They will start with someone with a big collection as an “oh shit” moment to get everyone else to bend to their will.
If you read the ordinance you will see that it is a modification of a previous ordinance from 2013 where the town know-it-alls told the citizens how they were allowed to store their evil weapons.
Cross out the “except when stored…” that came after “illegal to possess” and now the ordinance gets fun.
Remember Liberals:
1) don’t want your guns
2) claim you are paranoid when they suggest registration and/or “common sense gun measures”
They expect that most gun owners would rather drop their guns off at the PD instead of becoming instant felons.
Or in this case get a fine for $365,000 x (the number of standard capacity magazines+number of forbidden guns) each year.
Never had a desire or need to live in or visit Illinois. This just reinforces it. Thanks for the info.
And remember!
Registration does not lead to confiscation! Don’t be silly!
We do not want to confiscate or ban guns! Don’t be silly!
We do not call to repeal the Second Amendment! Don’t be silly!
And dont ever point out anything we do contradicting what we say!
Arbeicht macht frei!
Deerfield, Il. is mostly in Lake County, Il., with a “small portion” in Cook County. It’s in a solid democrat area, the Federal congress critter, State representative and State Senator are all dems. The village council is likely far to the left of their state and federal representatives, judging by their votes.
“Armalite M15”
You’re going to have to suck it out of my living hands.
Noticeably missing on that list there is my SCAR-17S and noticeably missing from Deerfield is my residential address.
So either way, I am safe.
They missed The M-41a.
Maybe we should tell them.
“suspend the Fourth Amendment”
I see a violation of the less talked about third amendment. Especially if the Guard is used. The second comes before the third for a very good reason. The third is further refined in the fourth. It is pretty obvious the founders wanted to be be left the fuck alone.
Question for the Legal Beagles here:
Didn’t the Heller Decision say something about firearms in common use being legal?
I see that thrown around a lot on social media.
How is a semi-auto rifle, pistol, or shotgun not common use; no matter what cosmetic features it may have?
There are millions of AR-15 type weapons out there in ‘common use’.
So, how is it that Feds aren’t stepping in and slapping this community down with a Civil Rights lawsuit?
Heller only applied to the Federal government, not state. The cite you are looking for is McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010.)
Here’s why: The Bill of Rights actually doesn’t apply to the states, it only constrains the Federal government (See Barron v. Baltimore, a landmark 1833 decision.) HOWEVER, after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was ratified and the 14th Amendment prohibited ANY government actor from depriving Americans of their fundamental civil rights.
Over the next 150 years or so, one by one almost all of the provisions of the original Bill or Rights were “incorporated” to the states via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment was the last one that was actually incorporated to the states and it was the McDonald decision that did that.
Unfortunately both Heller and McDonald left open the question of just how much regulation could be done before crossing the line of “infringement” that would violate the 2nd Amendment. That is going to have to be determined by further court cases.
So while there is certainly a challenge to be made, it’s not necessarily a slam dunk. The court is going to have to decide whether the prohibition of an entire class of weapons is a sufficient “infringement” as to be prohibited by the 2nd Amendment.
The counter-argument is that as long as the law allows citizens to have other types of firearms for their personal protection and self defense, (for example handguns, revolvers, pump-action, lever-action, and bolt-action rifles and shotguns) it is not an infringement because the citizens still have the means to protect themselves.
Not a legal beagle by any stretch.
Heller references Miller and states:
“Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Accoring to Heller: “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”
Then Heller goes onto say that:
“The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. ”
This ordinance looks like it tries to get around Heller by saying at the very beginning that nobody uses AWs for self defense, which is false, but here we are.
IMHO, it would appear that the ordinance runs afoul of Miller.
Well, one could certainly MAKE that argument but it would really turn on how broadly or how narrowly the courts interpreted Heller and McDonald.
As a general rule, courts always start from a proposition that any law that has been passed by Constitutional means (in this case by a vote of the city council) is presumed to be Constitutional. The person challenging the law, then, bears the burden of showing that it is not.
A petitioner challenging this law would have to show that it burdens his exercise of his 2nd amendment rights to a degree that constitutes “infringement.”
Since Heller and McDonald both held that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for lawful self defense, that is the specific thing that a petitioner would have to show has been unconstitutionally burdened by this law.
IIRC, Heller and McDonald even specifically limited their holdings to the notion that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for lawful self defense of one’s home or property.
So in order to invalidate the law, the petitioners would have to show that this law burdens their ability to defend their home or property. And I could see that as being somewhat of a difficult thing to do. After all, residents can still own handguns, they can still own rifles and shotguns that are not magazine-fed semi autos.
The petitioner would somehow have to show that they cannot adequately defend their homes with the firearms that are permitted under the law.
Understand, I’m not saying I agree with that position, I’m saying that is what would likely be necessary for a court to believe in order to overturn this law based on the precedent of Heller and McDonald.
On the flip side, if the petitioner was able to get the court to apply the “strict scrutiny” standard, they might have a chance as the city would then have to show that (a) the law was enacted for a legitimate purpose and (b) that the law is the only effective way to achieve that purpose.
Per Heller and McDonald a court might find that while (a) has been met – the “legitimate purpose” being the reduction of mass-shooting incidents – (b) has not because the banning of an entire class of weapons based on the fact that some of those weapons have been used in crimes goes too far.
This would be the argument I’d expect the petitioners to make.
Also not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but wouldn’t this village ordinance violate the provisions in both the Federal and Illinois constitutions about ex post facto laws? Article I, Section 16 of Illinois’ constitution forbids ex post facto laws.
Then, there is Article I, Section 22, which states “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed”.
The Constitutional convention clarified this section, “Because of that, and to insure a personal right to keep arms in addition to the collective right to an armed militia guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the 1970 constitutional convention proposed this section. The committee explanation stated that “a citizen has the right to possess and make reasonable use of arms that law-abiding persons commonly employ for purposes of recreation or the protection of person and property”. That said, it hasn’t prevented state courts from doing that which flies in the face of the rights guaranteed by the state constitution. http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/ILConstitution.pdf
So, who knows how this usurpation of basic rights will be decided? It’s likely headed to SCOTUS.
My professor of political science said that the bill of rights was designed to protect us from the federal government, not the state or local governments, therefore an state or local government can constitutionally prohibit assault rifles.
Your prof is an idiot. 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
You weren’t paying attention. I don’t believe he said that UNLESS he said “originally”–that is, before the Sup Ct concocted the incorporation mechanism to extend most of the Bill of Rights to state and local gov’ts as well. Pay attention!
I have to take Yef’s side on this one, AW1Ed.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from the federal government. The 14th Amendment, for better or for worse, extended that to the States – usurping the Federal System put in place by the Founding Fathers.
It is open to debate whether this extension of Federal powers brought in by the 14th Amendment is, overall, a good or a bad thing. But before 1865 the States were allowed to run their own business, and therefore a State could, then, restrict the right of their citizens to own firearms without running afoul of the Bill of Rights.
As 2/17 says – pay attention.
Not disparaging Yef at all, 2/17 and GB, just his prof with whom I happen to disagree. First of all its rather well passed 1865, and I looked hard, even underneath, and nowhere did I see the word “originally” in his post.
*grin*
Also, seems to me this dangerous overreach of local authorities is exactly why the 14th is there in the first place.
At least *I* didn’t use “originally”
::snerk::
Prior to 1865 he was correct.
Actually, best I can tell prior to 2010 he was correct. It wasn’t until McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the 2nd Amendment was held to be a restriction on state action.
Prior to that time, as I recall the Slaughterhouse Cases (1860s or 1870s) held that the 2nd Amendment did NOT restrict state action regarding restrictions on possession of firearms – and as far as I know, that precedent wasn’t overturned until Chicago v. McDonald.
Again, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, “They have made this decision; now let them enforce it.”
Smells like tyranny.
Looks like it, acts like it…
Yeah, pretty much a case of blatant tyranny.
The tree of Liberty is best watered with the blood of tyrants, to paraphrase Tom Jefferson.
They will not have to suspend the 4th Amendment. There will be more than enough “confidential informants” to satisfy a local judge’s probable cause standard. Or maybe a home will be burglarized one night and the occupant takes a shot or two at the bad guy using a banned gun or magazine. Victim is now the defendant. This is how the tyrannical state rolls.
They don’t have to do a damned thing to enforce the law. But here’s what happens: They pass the law and after X date is is a felony to possess a weapon on the list. So let’s say you’ve got a dozen of them in your home. What now? You can’t shoot them at the local gun range because to even be in possession of that weapon within the city limits is a crime. And if you take it out of the city limits, you’d better be careful – what if you get pulled over for a broken taillight and the cop sees your illegal gun in the back seat? What if you get into an accident that requires you to be transported to the hospital, and in doing an inventory of your car before having it towed, the police find your illegal gun? Or what if you are involved in a messy divorce and your spouse threatens to rat out your illegal stash if you don’t sign the papers on her terms? Ditto the above but instead of a spouse it’s your good-for-nothing kid who gets into trouble and then says if you don’t bail him out of juvie he’ll rat you out to the cops. Or the employee of the gun range (the one that’s in another city where the gun is legal) notices that your driver’s license shows you as a resident of the city where such a gun is prohibited. Most likely he won’t rat out a customer, but maybe he will? You even have to be careful going to and from the range when your nosy neighbor sees you loading a suspicious package out of your vehicle. Or what if your wife’s best friend drops by to return that covered dish from Thanksgiving and happens to notice you cleaning your AR in the garage? All of these things (and more) are likely to be going through the head of anybody who still owns a prohibited firearm, and for a lot of them, eventually they’re going to decide it’s just not worth it and get rid… Read more »
That’s a possibility, to be sure, but during the pendency of that eventuality, a CI or any applicable exception to the warrant req’mt will work.
But that presumes that the city would have any appetite for actually enforcing the law.
Given that any actual arrest is likely to be challenged all the way up to SCOTUS, I can’t imagine the city really wants to take on that burden.
Therefore, to throw in some legal jargon, the law acts in terrorum i.e. the purpose of the law is not to be enforced but rather to scare people into self-enforcing.
Spelling error, should be “In Terrorem”
AR15 type rifles are prohibited in the suburb where I live. However, there’s a range/gun store in another nearby suburb where they’re not prohibited. This range also has secure storage lockers. Just store it at the range…100% legal.
Yeah, and if someone is breaking in, you just tell them to wait a while while you go get your 100% legal useless gun… assuming the break-in is during normal range business hours. Uh, no.
I think you’re missing the point here. But if you’re happy with having to store your weapons outside your home, carry on.
I live where the probability of a home invasion is pretty low.
However,
any firearm/firearms I may or may not possess would never, ever, be stored in a storage locker outside my home.
Just like I keep two fire extinguishers in the back of my vehicle, along with multiple first aid kits and supplies in the house and in the vehicles.
Knowing that I can run to town and get some Quick Clot is one thing. Trying to make the trip while someone I love is bleeding out is another thing.
The probability of needing the fire extinguisher or first aid kits is very, very low. The probability of needing a firearm is, again, very low.
But if one needs any of the above, they need them readily accessible and right friggin’ NOW!, not stored somewhere else.
You never need a gun, until you need one very very badly! It’s that simple. My gun is not, has never been, or ever will be a threat to anyone that is not placing the lives of my family or me in danger.
Yep this is right, always better to be way more prepared than not…
We pretty much only sail Long Island and occasionally out to Block Island in blue water…We are in sight of land all the time…I still carry and EPIRB along with our type 1 life jackets…and whenever we are outside the cockpit a life jacket is our mandatory rule…and if it’s even a little chop a tether is also mandatory or you don’t get to ride with us…we’ve never lost anyone overboard even in the one bad trip to Block Island with 10 foot seas in 3 second swells….
When you need stuff, you need it that very second not minutes later…minutes later is often a death sentence.
I believe the LEO had a very quick response time to the YouTube shooter of 2 minutes from the time of the 911 call.
A lot can happen in 2 minutes.
Indeed when seconds matter the police are only minutes away…
Very well written Martinjmpr.
That is the argument I make about bump stocks now being contraband in Florida as of October.
I can shoot mine out on my buddy’s land in the Everglades.
Travel to or from, accidents en route, home medical emergencies, all could bring the attention of the police and make me a felon.
As for making my legally acquired property into contraband, there is actually no constitutional problem with that.
The takings clause only applies to property taken for public use.
It’s like when they first made cocaine illegal.
They did not have to buy up all the previously legally owned cocaine.
So I am in quandry as to what to do with all my bump stocks.
Sell them out of state before Trumps National bumpstocks ban goes into effect?
I thought that was a “recoil reduction” stock.
Two piece, springs, etc.
They sell such things to clay-target shotgunners for a bunch of C notes. Ditto owners of heavy-caliber rifles.
What is the legal difference?
I wonder if there is also a 5th Amendment “taking” issue here. If the government demands that people turn in their weapons, an argument can be made that this is a “taking” under the 5th Amendment that requires just compensation.
Now, some might argue that the 5th Amendment only applies if the government takes the property for its own use (as in an exercise of Eminent Domain where the government takes a piece of your land to put in a superhighway.)
However, as the Kelo decision told us, the excercise of Eminent Domain applies not just to government USE (i.e. the government taking your property for public use) but rather can also be exercised for a public PURPOSE.
SInce this law was passed to make people “feel” better and more secure, the argument can be made that the government is taking privately owned property (i.e. weapons) for the public PURPOSE of making people feel better, and that requires “Just compensation” per the 5th Amendment as incorporated through the Due Process clause of the 14th.
That argument is being used now, in FL, I believe.
Probably the rationale behind “buy-backs”. Someone now please explain how the government can “buy back” what they never owned.
That list looks like my safe inventory.
Molon Labe
That’s funny.
ALL members of the Deerfield IL City Council are dedicated idiots to the liberal agenda. Let an Elected Body try to enforce something like that in Red State America and blood would flow.
I’ll just leave this because nothing makes you feel safer than Las Vegas lounge music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ
Y’all are welcome to shoot me now– if you feel like it…
OH, it’s Deerfield again, having fits and sitting in them. The smart thing the residents can do is move out of the city limits of Deerfield – NOT all that difficult to do – and sell their property to some nice but questionable couple with 8 children of various species… and watch dear old Deerfield turn into gang territory, like Camden, NJ, only worse.
There goes the tax base, there go the schools, and there goes the whole idea that Deerfield is a wonderful place to live. The only people who are afraid of those with guns are the city council members. And yes, that ordinance can be overturned by legal beagles and cost Deerfield lotsa cash.
Idiots.
better yet, move out of Illitard completely. I hear the weather in Indiana is the same, but with jobs.
My parents keep asking me if I’m moving home.
Nothing could make me do that.
I hear you, Ret_25X. I have frequently considered moving 8 miles north across the state line, but within sneezing distance of a very good VA facility.
I’d to remind everyone that the council also has also forgotten that little old 8th amendment to the US Constitution, in which cruel and unusual punishment includes excessive fines.
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. The amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
Y’see, anyone who wants to make the board of the village of Deershitfield spend some serious cash can take the sorry asses of the entire board to court over violating that simple clause, because a fine of $1,000/day is exorbitant, and no one is going to pay it. Since 2/3 of the people present at that meeting spoke against banning any firearms at all, and the Board decided to do what it wants to, the residents of Deerfield can make this one-sided decision extremely costly to the village of Deerfield.
As much as I’d like to see it happen, I doubt anyone would be inspired to add a sign to Deerfield’s “Welcome” signboard, one that says something like “Criminals are Welcome. Take anything you like.”
Illinois gives me the hips. The only thing that keeps me where I am is the convenience of everything, and the fact that I’m in such an out-of-the way spot, it’s almost invisible.
I went to their site to read the council information, and they stated that Law Enforcement will NOT go door to door. SO, how will they enforce this if no one wants to turn these weapons in?
Read more comments.
The best part about their little list? The Hi-Point carbine and Kel-Tec Sub rifles they mention are both pistol caliber carbines.
So the police chief needs to deputize every member of the town council and draft them into his Scary Gun Confiscation Team. Those members that voted for this ordnance need to be the first ones through the door on each of his raids. We’d see how the heroes are real quick.
Exactly. See my Andy Jackson quote, RinR. Fairly simple to pontificate from the bench behind armed guards, but who is going to be the tip of the spear here and carry out the edict?
Deerfield City Council, “Officer Friendly, go to So-and-So’s house and confiscate his evil assault weapons.”
Officer Friendly, “Fuck no. You go do it.”
Now what?
It really doesn’t take that until one reaches the hardcore. Most people, being sheep or unable to suffer an arrest/ social stigmatizing/job loss will comply.
Maryland’s legislature passed similar laws, and had a dismal compliance rate. Actual numbers are of course unknown, but New York State seems to have had about a 4% compliance rate with its gun laws.
Forbes Link
“Most people” here in my small part of the PDRofMD, including my County Sheriff, ignore the law, refusing to comply.
I do not know whether IL state has a local pre-emption position regarding firearms. In some states, a locality is not empowered to touch certain areas that the state reserves for itself.
Good point. The lefty child toucher Mayor of Seattle tried to violate Washington States pre-emption laws vis a vis guns and got bitch slapped down.
They did pass a new tax on guns and ammo and the only thing they accomplished was to loose money on taxes as all the sporting goods stores lost so much business that they moved out of the city. This is what happens when the people elect avowed communists.
Oh, is that what happened in Venezuela? I was wondering.
And…bingo…a suit has been filed by a resident of Tyrannyville asserting that the ordinance violates a 2013 pre-emption law in which the state reserved to itself regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons. Tyrannyville replied that it is merely amending an ordinance that existed before the state law was enacted. That’s bullshit. The new ban is substantive new law.
Well, good.
If Dear Deefield is like many cities with a sky-high murder rate, the city council likely has banned weapons never, or nearly never, used in killings. Ya just don’t find many street thugs with an AR-15 in their pants.
You DO find ARs in the trunks of police patrol cars, though. Wonder why that is?
It’s a wealthy suburb of Shitcago, with a toe stuck down into Cook County right at Lake Cook Road. I used to shop at a mall down there. It is full of overpriced housing, big houses on squinchy little yards, no sidewalks (because they’re all paralyzed from the neck up) and everything so manicured it looks like a Dreamworks cartoon town.
All the morons automatically add .50 BMG and now even .500 S&W they are after.
Do you know how hard it is to do a drive by shooting a Barret or M2 from the drivers seat out the window of the passenger side while driving your Olds Cutlass ’88?
And it’s very hard to find a 30 round magazine in .50 BMG for a Barret.
I never met a man who could shoot a 500 S&W more than twice in the same day. That sucker will get meat on either end.
All of the legal considerations aside for a moment, this action by the city council is pretty outlandish. Think about it. You own an AR-15. It was a perfectly legal transaction. You enjoy taking that rifle out to a range or a farm and firing it now and then. Well, in 60 days, if you haven’t disposed of that rifle, your continued possession of it will be a crime. Think about that. Someone may turn you in and you may be arrested. If arrested, your name will be published on the web, if not the newspaper, and your Lefty boss may not want to retain you any longer. Paint the consequences however you will but real people who own an AR-15 in that burg now have to make an ugly decision. To me, this is unconscionable. Here’s the ordinance, BTW:
http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1506
Well, at least they gave a lengthy detailed definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon”. They could have shortened it a bit by just saying “any firearm”
Turn in those camo 870 Wingmasters boys!
….and if anyone is truly concerned about being punished for a legal act and for following the state’s gun ownership rules, then the solution to that problem is to find another house, starting now, put the current house up for sale, move the hell out and never look back.
Y’see, it’s not Lake County that is the problem. It is the Village Board of the Village of Deerfield, IL.
Another solution is to rent locker space at a shooting range, move your stuff there, and use it when you go to the shooting range.
And demand a search warrant if the poh-lease people show up looking for guns. Since these mopes were so specific about what guns are bannable, there is a whole population group of guns that are not included, isn’t there? I didn’t see anything about dual shot Deringers on that list.
Well….?
You can always work around these things.
I see what you did there, Ex. Love my little twice-barrel, but it’s a back-up gun and really only suitable at bad-breath range. I may have a couple scary black rifles that the PDRofMD doesn’t like, if I ever have to reach out and touch someone.
And they came for the Communists but I wasn’t a Communist so I said nothing… you should know that one. Let them ban one, and they will ban others. Their goal is to ban them ALL… much though I respect your opinions, ma’am, this is one case where you are dead wrong. Let them force you to accept bans on some, and bans on all will follow. You might check the UK for a preview… you can’t defend yourself with a kitchen knife (cast iron pan legislation no doubt pending.) Let them ban some, they will seek to ban ALL.
Ummm… there are still shooting ranges in the UK, and people still go gun hunting in the hunting season, David.
Prince Phillip likes to go shoot stages with great antler spreads.
Highly restricted gun ownership, largely limited to the wealthy and connected, London’s murder rate now exceeds NYC’s, and carrying even a pocket knife is prohibited. Sure you want to use that?
The UK media don’t like to refer to race, unless, of course, its topic is white privilege. Nevertheless, names tell a story and it strongly appears that Blacks and ‘ethnics’ are both doing most of the slicing and dicing and are being sliced and diced out of proportion to their population numbers. Names such as Dami Odeyingbo, Yaya Mbye, Kwabena Nelson, and Juan Olmos Saca well represent the victim list in London.
So, just like inner-city shootings in the US, the unaffected populace doesn’t much give a shit, but the politicians are, as here, making believe otherwise with the yappidy-yap-yap-yap. What are they gonna do, ban knives?
And despite the nigh-universal gun bans, shootings are rapidly increasing in London as well. As Raheem Kassam of Breitbart London put it, “Wait, I thought the liberals said there weren’t any guns in London!” He also correctly observed that London has in fact become “a shithole.”
Is it just me, or does it seem like it’s universally a bad sign of a town in the United States refers to itself as a village?
“If broad bans on firearms can be upheld based on the conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the 2nd Amendment guarantees nothing.” Justices Scalia and Thomas dissent in the Court’s decision not to hear a challenge to the 2013 Highland Park gun ban.
How right they were. There is no stopping this train just now. States and localities are using Highland to ban guns, not because particular guns have been shown to be more deadly than others, but because the bans presumably make people feel safer. Well, you know where this leads. If banning some guns makes some people feel safer, then banning all guns must make them feel all the more safe.
yeah, right…… ban the street sweeper because it looks like a monster pistol.
Ban every magazine fed semiautomatic rifle. Sure seems like infringement to me.
Supreme Court needs to get off its fucking ass and slap these idiots hard.
Well, the Remington 742/7400 would likely be banned, as it is semi-auto, will accept a mag that holds more than 10 rounds, and, many,like mine, have a thumb-hole stock.
Don’t register your vehicle. Don’t renew your driver’s license. Don’t get a fishing license. Don’t have an inspector look at the electrical work you did in your home. Burn your garbage in your backyard. Add a deck, but don’t let the buildings people know. Remove your catalytic converter. Put the wrong color kerosene in your truck. Fail to clean the snow from your sidewalk. Do not separate plastic, paper, and metal garbage where required. Throw an apple core out of your car window. Be late filing taxes or don’t file at all. Home school your child w/o first receiving permission from the state….The list is endless. It is truly endless. What’s this got to do with the ordinance? Everything.
So, they ban possession for everyone? The police too? Of course not, the same reasoning the libs give for why they need armed guards but “you” don’t need a gun. It’s Animal Farm.
That special class of civilians known as law enforcement officers, and the special-special class of civilians known as retired law enforcement officers, are exempt under the ordinance.
Cops have a -much- higher conviction rate than CCW holders.
How many former Illinois governors are currently in prison? Has any other state had more governors convicted and incarcerated, than Illinois?
They should hand that town over to control of Canada.
We are moving our family to Illinose now so we can be MORE safe, because you all know now it will be.
#peoplewithout10roundmagazineslivesmatter
Looking at that ordinance, I see more “may” in it that does NOT make me feel “safe.”
MAY
auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or (Archaic) mayest or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1.
(used to express possibility):
It may rain.
2.
(used to express opportunity or permission):
You may enter.
3.
(used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.):
I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4.
(used to express wish or prayer):
May you live to an old age.
5.
Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)
Mark Robinson addresses Greensboro City Council on gun show ban.
Chicago is known mainly for three things: street killings, political corruption, and weather. For some reason, the people in Chicago seem to care more about the weather than the other two and more people there probably believe that more can be done to change the weather than the other two. So far this year, more than 500 people have been shot in Chicago, with 94 going to the morgue. That’s not a record pace, but it’s a strong one. Police have killed no one in Chicago this year. No one. Just thought you might like to know.
The police haven’t killed anyone in Chiraq this year? Can’t be, the NAACP, CORE, Jesse Jacks-hnnnn, Rahmbo, the democrat party and just about anyone in Southside Chiraq will tell you that the cops are the problem, if only they would stop shooting people, no one would die.
In the 90s, some heavy-handed enforcement led to a book called “unintended consequences”
A good read if you can find it.
For some reason, it scared the shit out of a bunch of folks.
There is never a reason to own an AR-15.
There is never a reason to carry a gun.
There is never a reason to carry a knife.
The top two you are familiar with. We’ve been hearing those cries for quite some time now, or ones similar. The third one is new and it’s real. It’s what the mayor of London, some guy named Sadiq Khan, said in response to the surge in knifings in that city. He added that those who do carry a knife will feel the “full force of the law.” I kid you not.