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

a reply to: SailorJerry

just seeing what matters to who is all

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Not to worry knives are just as effective as guns so what are you lot worried about......

Knives are good for assault, they're not much use for defense against a criminal with a gun.

originally posted by: orionthehunter
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.

Yeah, they will probably ban talking because of "Assault Words".

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I'm just taking the piss based on all the guns Vs knives debates on the site lately.

According to the Left, "no one is trying to take your guns", but you'll notice the usuals aren't here to defend this. Crap like this is why J.B. Pritzker, the current Democratic leader in the Illinois Governor race, makes me very nervous. If you see any of his ads, he panders HARD to Leftists and uses all the feel good buzz words, but if you read between the lines, he sounds like he's ready to do this state wide.

www.sj-r.com...

As governor, I will also prioritize community programs like CeaseFire that interrupt violence at the local level. I would oppose attempts to legalize silencers in Illinois, support legislation that creates a Lethal Violence Order of Protection, and sign a gun dealer licensing bill.
To stop the flow of illegal guns into Illinois, I will work with stakeholders to create a consortium of states to stop gun trafficking across state lines, and support amending Illinois’ “lost and stolen law” to discourage illegal gun trafficking. I will work to create a dedicated gun crime investigation unit within state police that coordinates with local police departments to focus on illegal gun trafficking and gun crime.
We also need an inter-agency working group to evaluate our progress in providing prohibiting records to the federal NICS background check system.
While I support hunter’s rights, we need universal background checks and a lethal violence of protection order so that families can step in to protect loved ones from harming themselves and others. I also support banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines in Illinois to help prevent mass shootings.

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.

Good luck with that!!

Please do notify me when they start that operation because I definitely want to watch!!

ETA...oh, and never mind that pesky little 4th Amendment thingy, it's just "noize" too.

a reply to: SailorJerry

So they are trying to start a civil war? That's what this leads to. It's all well & good to take away guns, the implications will obviously be violence if authorities actually follow this law. Good thing I don't like guns. They are just making people buy more guns for upcoming world war 3.

a reply to: SatansPride

Well, the sad and unfortunate reality is, they may just find out the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the process. The Bill of Rights was put in place for a reason, and it is just such action as pointed out by the OP which is the reason why.

I wonder if this will start a trend of sanctuary cities?
Cities refuse to enforce immigration laws so if major gun control laws start popping up what's to stop cities from ignoring those laws.

a reply to: SailorJerry

I was taken aback when I read this

It also includes conversion kits and goes on to name specific rifles such as the Uzi

In what universe is an UZI a rifle? that's like comparing a Prius to a Ferrari. and as for this

So just in case you cant read, thats ALL firearms

I wouldn't go that far, I dare say a few bolt action rifles would be exempt in certain circumstances, but I do agree that most of these guns on the list should not be in the hands of civilians, you don't need a Kalashnikov to protect your cabbage patch from rabbits. A Winchester and a Glock would suffice for hunting and personal protection.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I wonder if this will start a trend of sanctuary cities?
Cities refuse to enforce immigration laws so if major gun control laws start popping up what's to stop cities from ignoring those laws.

When laws become lawless then everyone becomes a criminal.

Good plan. /sarcasm

a reply to: TinySickTears

Is this how you view your Constitution and Bill of Rights...just as some superfluous document which can be changed on any whim based on how some people 'feel' on any given day???

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

The point is the judge used the phrase, it became part of the ruling. Them using it is incorporating that phraseology into their campaign.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

Is this how you view your Constitution and Bill of Rights...just as some superfluous document which can be changed on any whim based on how some people 'feel' on any given day???

That's literally the definition of an amendment.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They did define it, to some extent, in the Heller case.

“In common usage” was the phrase they used, and they said that handguns were “in common militia use” or words to that effect.

Basically they said if it’s a firearm that’s in common use in a given time period, it can’t be banned.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: TinySickTears

Is this how you view your Constitution and Bill of Rights...just as some superfluous document which can be changed on any whim based on how some people 'feel' on any given day???

I will address this comment once you address the comment in the other thread. That's fair cause you are one that like to talk how important the constitution is when it comes to gun rights but when it comes to the military at the border and military action it seems like no big deal

I know you didn't make the comment but you didn't address it either which is just as bad.

You re addressing my comment here though.

Matter of fact nobody that argues the same basic side as you did.
Totally glossed over.

So the comment was
I don't care if the constitution forbids it. It needs to be done.

And none of you guys that talk about how important it is said #.
Which says s lot

originally posted by: Shamrock6
They did define it, to some extent, in the Heller case.

It would appear, based on some of the arguements against these ordinances, that the tact that is being taken is the Supreme Court needs to fully define what constitutes a firearm in regards the Second Amendment. I've read many of the briefs revolving around these cases and that seems to be the strongest point of contention now that it has been determined the Second is an individual right and not a collective right.

One of these cases will most likely be taken up at some point by the Supreme Court and we will have a complete ruling on the definition.

The dissents by Thomas and Scalia make clear they feel the 'common usage' aspect was violated but the majority of the court did not. I still think, and it appears other do as well, that it needs to be defined by the Court so as to make perfectly clear what a 'firearm' actually is in relation to the Second.

Here's a fairly neutral article on the subject.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, they tip-toed through the land mines with that ruling! (And they knew it too...cowards)

Even so they tried their damndest to rule the other way, but knowing they would create an absolute firestorm they ruled the way they did and qualified the crap out of everything in an attempt to still get their agenda across.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Which comment are you referring to???

I will be glad to address it if you would kindly point out what you are referring to.

ETA...reading your initial paragraph again, if your question is how I feel about the use of regular US military forces on the US Border for immigration control, then I would say the same Constitution prohibits such action (unless of course it is a military "invasion" at our border in which case I would say it is expressly required).

Does that answer your question?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They’ve consistently ruled for an individual right to bear arms so no, they haven’t tried to rule the other way. Despite the spin job Stevens tried to do in his op-ed, SCOTUS has always ruled the 2nd is an individual right rather than a collective one, and has done so going back all the way to Dred Scott.