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

a reply to: TinySickTears

Okay, but in every post I've made on this thread you have not seen me use even a single political reference, correct?

No mention of left or right, liberal or conservative, no mention of a president (current or former).

The OP is about a legal action taken by an IL city regarding certain firearms ownership which flies in the face of the Constitutionally granted Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment (and very likely the 4th Amendment as well, if it is to be enforced). Given the location, there has been ample opportunity for me to inject politics into this, but i have refrained up to this point.

Ask yourself this, and answer as truthfully as you can...what good is served by the enactment of legislation pointed out by the OP?? What good is served in IL or the city in question by enacting laws against law abiding taxpaying citizens? What did they do wrong to deserve these laws?

You like music right? Maybe even a musician? How would you feel if someone in your city enacted a law (out of the blue) which said it was illegal for you to possess a guitar with more than 3 strings, punishable by fines, imprisonment or both? You didn't do anything wrong did you? You didn't whack someone over the head with your 6 string, but you're being punished...for what?

ETA...Now ask yourself, who is the political party enacting these laws?

a reply to: TinySickTears

BTW...I went back and found the thread you were referring to (at least I'm pretty sure it's the one).

I never even posted on that thread (that i can see anyway). I think you may have had me confused with someone else. i see your posts there. In any case, I answered your question here, but for the record I wasn't involved in the other post at all.

I would have posted the same thing I did here, but I was confused when you said I didn't respond to your question. I guess I could go do that, but the thread is 15+ pages deep now, I'm not sure how much it would mean.

a reply to: TinySickTears

I don't have the answers on how to fix but it needs fixed
Seems like people, not just us here but I'm the world too are more interested in their 'side' being right and making sure the other is wrong than fixing #.

Once upon a time, there was an old house. The owner took care of the house all his life and made sure it stayed in good condition. Finally, the owner got old and had to move out, so he sold it to someone else. They didn't take as good care of the house, but it was in such good shape before them that it was still a good house, with a little mold around some hidden areas. Then it was sold again; this owner let termites build close to the house. By the time they sold it, the paint was starting to peel. The next owner decided to fix it, but they ignored the rot they found and simply painted over it. The house was starting to settle sideways a bit when the next owner took over, so this owner decided foundation work was too expensive and planted flowers instead to cover the cracks.

This went on through many owners. The house still looked very good. As a matter fact, it looked better than it had in years. When the roof would wear out, someone would just add more shingles... there were 12 layers of shingles on the roof. The foundation had open holes now where it had settled, but flowers covered them from view. 17 coats of paint hid the rot underneath. The floor was propped up from underneath with pieces of wood to keep decaying joists form sagging.

One day, a big hole in the floor caved in. Termites had eaten away at the joists and the wood holding them up. The owner decided to hire a professional to fix the floor, but then found out the foundation was giving way and there was nothing to build onto. That night, the roof began to sag from the weight of all the shingles and the water they held between layers. Leaks appeared and started to ruin the ceiling. The owner hired a roofer, but as soon as he placed a ladder against the side of the house, the layers of paint gave way and it crashed through a rotten wall.

The owner blamed the previous owner. The previous owner blamed the owner before him. That owner blamed the owner before them. Eventually, blame went all the way back to the first owner who had taken such good care of the house; he was long dead and could not defend himself. While the owners were busy blaming each other, the house kept decaying until it finally fell in upon itself and was abandoned and condemned. The owners still blamed each other.



We need more paint, more flowers around the foundation, and another layer of shingles. Ignore the termites in the back yard. Carpenters are too expensive. Maybe we need nicer porch lights?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

We all know the best option is to tear that place down and rebuild.

Trouble is.....that foundation has roots.

a reply to: Gothmog

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


Hey! I live in Illinois, I obey the law, and I'm a tax paying citizen!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I know you didn't say it.
I said that in my post to you in this thread

I will get back later. Very busy

originally posted by: JinMI
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.
l

I do.
Obama picked 2 ideologues for SCOTUS.
As well as 200 other sitting judges

a reply to: TheRedneck

And to my earlier point, here again we have examples of "wouldn't" and "didn't".

Not a single example of "couldn't".

Regardless of how many laws were enacted about fixing foundations, walls and roofs, none of those laws would have meant spit in the dim light of 'wouldn't' and 'didn't'.

This law only makes criminals out of law obeying citizens. Do you think the criminals semi autos are registered?

This law simply backs up the fact Illinois is a Ass Backward state....

Why does anyone besides the thugs who cant afford to leave still live there?

a reply to: SailorJerry

they are a town not a state or a country they have no legal right to do this. neither does chicago or nyc people need to remind city mayors and council members of this. if state says it allows you to have a gun who are they to impose a cruel and unusual punishment on you as a daily fine?

Do they want to be ground zero for the start of the next civil war?

Because that's how you become ground zero for the next civil war.

LOLOLOLOL who am I trying to kid..... The people in that state let Chicago wipe their ass with the constitution for years with their unconstitutional gun ban, they're not going to care enough about this to do anything of substance.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

www.taurususa.com...
the one above would . the ordinance bans shotguns with revolving chamber this is a shot gun with a revolving chamber.

originally posted by: americanbuffalo1
a reply to: Gothmog

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

Hey! I live in Illinois, I obey the law, and I'm a tax paying citizen!

[ raises hand ] Me!

I'm a law abiding citizen, jumped through every hoop, went to each class and paid every fee to get my concealed carry...and now they want to f*** with me some more.
No wonder so many are deserting this sinking ship. I hadn't planned on moving till Spring 2019 at the soonest...I may have to revise those plans.

originally posted by: SailorJerry
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.

Can you explain how that bans "ALL firearms"?

You might be correct, but I don't see that from what is posted.

A normal shotgun would not be banned by that definition? Correct? Only Semi-Automatic shot-guns or ones with a revolving cylinder?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: JinMI
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.
l

I do.
Obama picked 2 ideologues for SCOTUS.
As well as 200 other sitting judges

The court has been majority conservative for quite some time now.

a reply to: nepatitan

It's now time obviously to abolish the 2nd amendment. We should have abolished the 22 nd amendment as well when there was still time to elect President Obama for 2 more terms. Now we have mad King Donald and his paranoid hordes clamoring for the right to kill. And by the way gun nuts, that is all a gun does-- it kills.

originally posted by: idoubtmore
And by the way gun nuts, that is all a gun does-- it kills.

WRONG!!!!

I also use mine to open beers and turn on the TV.

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

Traitor...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm old too (73) and you're not wrong, the end is near for guns in this nut country. All you people that love guns, if the cops ever come to your house over any sort of complaint ( a fight with the wife etc) and they find any sort of gun, if they arrest your sorry ass you will face an enhancement and be looking at another 5 yrs. Its happened to me twice. I hate guns, useless killing devices. Time to banish the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm old too (73) and you're not wrong, the end is near for guns in this nut country. All you people that love guns, if the cops ever come to your house over any sort of complaint ( a fight with the wife etc) and they find any sort of gun, if they arrest your sorry ass you will face an enhancement and be looking at another 5 yrs. Its happened to me twice. I hate guns, useless killing devices. Time to banish the 2nd amendment.