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: 2
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SailorJerry
There sadly is no simple solution I dont think


The solution is that the Supreme Court, now that they've judged it's an individual right, need to define what constitutes 'firearms'. Laws like these would be nullified and it would take major Federal legislation to create new ones that are as restrictive.




posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
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.


Not a conspiracy theory at all, they read the same judgements that we do and are using the language laid out to make their case as per the courts precedent. It's a smart move on their part, using the narrative handed down in the rulings. You would do the same thing.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




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.


This I know, my point is they are trying to do it by increments. little here, whittle off some there. etc

Youre right though, they have just made themselves a HUGE target, and criminalized a lot of people in their city in doing so.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry




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.


I wonder if the bad guys will follow the rules this time.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

On the upside, now that THIS law is passed criminals will finally turn those pesky assault weapons in.

But, do people get to keep their protection pistols? I just read that term the other day. I want one.

Where do I get this protection pistol? Is it on isle 4 of Lowes with the protection shovels and protection machetes?

They keep changing the names of things to see if something will stick. Assault Weapons stuck, so they are looking for the next good made up word.

Sorry.. that was more a rant.

S&F and carry on!!!





posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't know if I would (or wouldn't) do the same thing on such an erroneous claim.

It may simply be the only leg they've to stand on.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: SailorJerry




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.


I wonder if the bad guys will follow the rules this time.


Technically that doesn't cover single shot weapons, bolt action, revolvers? and pump action or lever action rifles.

That's probably next.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

I would say this ordinance just devalued the homes in that community by about 75 percent. I mean, who would want to live there? If the police and city leaders are willing to trounce on one right.... how big a stretch is it to stomp on another? Just saying....




posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry


This is exactly the kind of crap I and others have been complaining about whenever a democrat says they want "common sense gun legislation".

Where is the common sense in changing the definition of "assault rifle" to include whatever weapon you want to ban? In who's screwed up world does that equate to common sense?

"We demand a ban on assault rifles!"
"they were partially banned in 1934 and completely banned in 1968."
"We demand the ban of assault rifles using our definition."
"What exactly does that mean?"
"It means regular rifles. Oh, and semi auto handguns. Oh, and shotguns that use a cylinder. Really, its anything we think is scary. Agree with us or we will think you are scary and ban you too..."

Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for the purchase of a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~ Benjamin Franklin
edit on 3-4-2018 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yep, they literally changed the Wester dictionary term the other day.

That's like changing the term self defense to self assault.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TreetopControl


The authorities will have to go door-to-door and search each home to find people to fine.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TreetopControl


The authorities will have to go door-to-door and search each home to find people to fine.[/quote

That will be when things get interesting...lol



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   

and are not “reasonably necessary to protect an individual’s right to self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” those weapons will be banned from the village.

So , they took it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution ?
I thought only the Supreme Court could do that.
Wouldnt that be considered being a domestic threat to the Constitution in itself ? By definition ?

Although , it is Illinois.
Is there any law-abiding citizens left there ? Consider Chicago.


edit on 4/3/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

That is the tactic of choice... redefinition. Get an agreement to a simple, common-sense law and then redefine the wording to make it extreme. It's easier and faster to change Webster's Dictionary than to pass a law no one wants.

They've been doing this to the Constitution for quite some time. Pick a word, move the definition a bit, then a bit more... "Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" became "Separation of church and state" which became "Church cannot interfere with state" which became "Church must not exist with state." The next thing anyone knew, it was illegal for a judge to have a cross on his desk or for a grieving parent to place a cross beside the road where a child had died in an accident. Definitely not the original intent, nor the original wording... actually the opposite... but that's the beauty of redefinition.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That sounds to me, and, I think, to most people, that the people have an inherent, God-given right to carry and own firearms that is outside the venue of the government. But that was changed... the introductory phrase, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state" was redefined. "Well-regulated" meant well-supplied and maintained in 1783, but today it means "controlled by the government." "Militia" referred to the citizenry of the time who took up arms in a time of need to fight for American independence from Britain; but obviously it couldn't mean that, because today a "militia" is more like our National Guard, thus it only means people in the military. "Arms" was redefined to not include all arms, because obviously no one in 1783 could have foresaw the Uzi... and think of the children! Once that door was opened, it was easy to walk through it... semi-auto weapons can be converted and they look scary and mean, so they shouldn't be included either... and semi-auto handguns are also semi-auto, so they need to go. Next, someone will point out that all firearms expel the kind of gas that operates semi-auto weapons, so they should be banned as well, lest someone come up with a way to convert them.

Never mind anyone with a small mill/lathe/drill can make a fully automatic weapon in their garage.

Ooooops, forget I said that... someone will try to ban garages.

At the same time, they are busy arguing that keeping and bearing arms can be done just as well at home, so 'gun-free' zones, translated as 'easy target zones' by every criminal with intent on shooting some place up, start popping up. It's no problem, they say, because the police have guns! The police will protect us! But the police have no duty to do so according to the Supreme Court, can't physically be everywhere, and when one was in the right spot to protect someone in Parkland, they hid outside until it was all over and 17 children died.

No law, no Amendment can protect us from an overzealous group of pundits when they redefine the words used. The ones we need to fear are not those shooting the guns; one return shot can stop them. We need to fear anyone who wants to take simple language and try to claim it says something different. They are the enemy. They are the traitors. They are the criminals in spirit. And they MUST be called out, and called out immediately upon the slightest attempt. We are close, very, very close to waking up a slave in a land our forefathers fought for us to have, as has been foretold.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SailorJerry


So they criminalize legal gun owners.

Yeah.

Authoritarian leftists.


Sure sounds like it. Just think of all the money they will make with this. Taxation without representation.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I guess the criminal element will know where the pickings are good.

From my cold, dead hands, folks. From my cold, dead hands.
And that's not negotiable, by the way.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Not to worry knives are just as effective as guns so what are you lot worried about......



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 03:24 AM
link   
i dont care if the constitution forbids this. it needs to be done and i am glad it is being done



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
i dont care if the constitution forbids this. it needs to be done and i am glad it is being done


Im sure you wont mind then when they come for constitutional rights you DO like.

And no it doesnt need to be done just because emotional anti gun SJWs think so, it serves no purpose to remove them, and if it passes I will be keeping a running log of their crime rate just to prove it doesnt
edit on 4-4-2018 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 03:45 AM
link   
If they can do away with second amendment rights on a whim, your first and other rights can be taken away on a whim as well. Then you really have no rights and you are a subject of whomever is in control.




top topics



 
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join