It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Illinois city bans assault weapons (any semi-auto), imposes fines up to $1,000 per day

page: 1
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+26 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:35 PM
link   
But they arent coming for our guns right?

According to this ban, assault weapons are defined as:




The ordinance defines the term assault weapon to include semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, or shotguns with a revolving cylinder. It also includes conversion kits and goes on to name specific rifles such as the Uzi, AK-47 and AR-15, among others.


So just in case you cant read, thats ALL firearms. So anyone in that town that legally owns ANY firearm, is now in violation of the law.




According to Steve Sadin of the Pioneer Press, there was no debate by the trustees during Monday’s meeting, but 20 people spoke during public remarks: 14 in opposition to the ban, and six in support.

Majority opposition but, we dont care about that do we?

Source

Beware America , they are systematically doing it, now I realize Illinois isnt exactly a bastion of Conservative values and gun support.

But this is exactly what I said to another person on another thread , who said they COULDNT and WOULDNT do it, well they are.

And their method is to CRIMINALIZE people who LEGALLY by the 2nd amendment already own firearms.

Stay vigilant friends
edit on 3-4-2018 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2018 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Ordinance as per deerfield



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

Here is the document:
www.deerfield.il.us...

I find it peculiar that it is worded as such:
"Whereas the corporate authorities of the village of Deerfield...."


Also, I think anyone being issued a fine has the ability to take Deerfield to court based on stomping on their second amendment rights.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
Also, I think anyone being issued a fine has the ability to take Deerfield to court based on stomping on their second amendment rights.


They'll probably lose since neighboring Highland Park did the same thing and the United States Supreme Court did not hear the case.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wouldn't or couldn't?

I'm going to look into it.

ETA: Wow, you're absolutely correct and I don't quite understand.

www.supremecourt.gov...

www.chicagotribune.com...
edit on 3-4-2018 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SailorJerry

Here is the document:
www.deerfield.il.us...

I find it peculiar that it is worded as such:
"Whereas the corporate authorities of the village of Deerfield...."


Also, I think anyone being issued a fine has the ability to take Deerfield to court based on stomping on their second amendment rights.


To me I take that as the authorities can carry but thats it, im sure thats what you get from it too.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.


+31 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry


So they criminalize legal gun owners.

Yeah.

Authoritarian leftists.


+19 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

So burglars can rob homes in Deerfield with impunity now.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
They need to test the water temp before
they cannonball?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Also, I think anyone being issued a fine has the ability to take Deerfield to court based on stomping on their second amendment rights.


They'll probably lose since neighboring Highland Park did the same thing and the United States Supreme Court did not hear the case.


Hey Mason thanks for coming bud.

Yeah I dunno, on one hand I KIND of think you are right and I thought about that too, but the environment has also changed and theres now this frenzy with the marches and the kids and the people all the sudden up in arms.

So on the other hand I feel it could be possible.

But whether it does or not, it just shows that they are trying, by incriments.

We just had some of the democrats try to draft a bill that banned anything with a magazine of any kind. And even more now coming out saying we need to repeal the 2nd so.

They seem to be getting bolder, maybe its just a phase, but it doesnt feel that way to me, it feels to me like they are feeling empowered to push harder.

But im old and could be wrong



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SailorJerry
Hey Mason thanks for coming bud.

Yeah I dunno, on one hand I KIND of think you are right and I thought about that too, but the environment has also changed and theres now this frenzy with the marches and the kids and the people all the sudden up in arms.

So on the other hand I feel it could be possible.

But whether it does or not, it just shows that they are trying, by incriments.

We just had some of the democrats try to draft a bill that banned anything with a magazine of any kind. And even more now coming out saying we need to repeal the 2nd so.

They seem to be getting bolder, maybe its just a phase, but it doesnt feel that way to me, it feels to me like they are feeling empowered to push harder.

But im old and could be wrong


What I would keep my eye on, and why I think the Supreme Court didn't take the case, is the Cook County ban which has a broader impact. That one hasn't worked it's way through the Illinois court system yet.

ETA: The Supreme Court still owes some kind of judgement on what types of weapons a citizen can own vis a vis the Second Amendment since the previous two rulings only said a citizen can own firearms without defining 'firearms'.







edit on 3-4-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

Well now...

They say it right in the article: to increase the public's sense of security. Not the actual security mind you but just their sense of it.

I wonder what their plan of action is to ensure all the fine citizens of Deerfield are in compliance? Or the law will be acted upon if and whenever a violations simply presents itself?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Well, you could own a pump rifle or shotgun, also a lever action rifle or a bolt action rifle. I guess the ones who made the law has those three types of guns in their house. I don't understand why a plain jane semiautomatic rifle would be banned.


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Coming for the guns before people come for their pizza.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




What I would keep my eye on, and why I think the Supreme Court didn't take the case, is the Cook County ban which has a broader impact. That one hasn't worked it's way through the Illinois court system yet.


Ill definitely have to look more into that


And I agree with you on the definition of firearms, but I have two minds of it, I dont think there should have to be a definition because we should be able to own what we want (except Nukes etc you get my point)

But on the other I feel like if its NOT defined they will continue to try and exploit or otherwise make loopholes BECAUSE it isnt , to take away piece by piece.

There sadly is no simple solution I dont think



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: SailorJerry

Well now...

They say it right in the article: to increase the public's sense of security. Not the actual security mind you but just their sense of it.

I wonder what their plan of action is to ensure all the fine citizens of Deerfield are in compliance? Or the law will be acted upon if and whenever a violations simply presents itself?


Good question , or how they are going to stop that flow of illegal weapons from Chicago coming to their area because they know no one is armed.

If this passes through, i shall be keeping an eye on their crime rate.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, you could own a pump rifle or shotgun, also a lever action rifle or a bolt action rifle. I guess the ones who made the law has those three types of guns in their house. I don't understand why a plain jane semiautomatic rifle would be banned.


lol or a musket I guess?

its quite possible they left those out because they just didnt think about it. who knows!
edit on 3-4-2018 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The closest thing we've gotten so far is:

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.


Now I have my own CT angle to this as to why opponents of gun rights as they are have utilized the phrase "weapons of war," to such a seemingly large extent where it applies to semi-automatic rifles.

I don't know if King meant one in the same or not but I do see the agenda being pushed either way.
edit on 3-4-2018 by JinMI because: Words R hardd



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry
Revolvers are not banned. Neither are pump shotguns or lever/bolt action rifles. the majority of pistols are not banned under their ordinance though. Mostly they wrote that to target rifles or semi-auto SMG's with barrel lengths that make them technically a pistol.

Its pretty bad though, and that little town has just popped up on the radar of scum from their urban core as a new hotspot for theft. After all, the gang members and petty thugs still have their rifles and shotguns and high capacity magazines and such.

ten Florida mayors, all from the Miami-Broward are are suing the governor and AG to try and overthrow our states pre-emption on the second amendment. We added a $5,000 fine and removal from office as punishment for the politicians that would try and do similar things here in Florida. We will fight this in court of course against those traitors to our nation. But we need the countrie's help!

We cannot afford to allow rabidly fanatical democrats take control of this state through their seditious ways. The fate of the nation could be in jeopardy with a blue Florida.




top topics



 
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join