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: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 06:18 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.


en.wikipedia.org...

It means that a corporate town has elected officials as in a publicly traded company. An unincorporated town would just have their own arrangements for selecting a mayor, head of police and so on.




posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: idoubtmore

You are absolutely ridiculous...lol Please cite the study that shows this... There are over 300 million guns and 100 million people with guns in this country, please PLEASEEEEE show me where these children killing themselves are...

Jaden



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JinMI


The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.



I wonder if they'll revisit this now that Gorsuch is in.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

No, it’s not ALL guns. They can still use pump shotguns, single action pistols and bolt action rifles.

I agree, this is screwed up, bigly.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
I wonder if they'll revisit this now that Gorsuch is in.


No. The similarities are too close, I think they are waiting on a larger body, such as Cook County, to make its way through the courts. Knocking down or supporting a local government on this issue will still leave too many unanswered questions.




edit on 4-4-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
So tired of the term "assault" to describe firearms... Assault is an action. Then to define an incorrect term as a classification of a law. Then to constently change the definition is just comical.

The amount of idiots "in charge" is unreal.

They think they have a lot of criminals now, after this "ban" they will have many more. smh.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Some interesting things regarding your comment, which I appreciate because I've not heard of a corporate town.

Deerfield is a village, one of which is not corporate, per Wiki anyway:
en.wikipedia.org...

Also, there are some very interesting ties to some other big players in the CT space:

Deerfield is home to the headquarters of Walgreens, Baxter Healthcare, Business Technology Partners, Caterpillar, APAC Customer Services, Fortune Brands Home & Security , Takeda Pharmaceutical Company's US HQ, Consumers Digest, and Mondelēz International. Deerfield High School is one of the top high schools in the state, ranking #5 in 2012.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...



www.deerfield.il.us...



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
i truly hate democrats , they are ruining this country day by day. insanity is spreading like wild fire .



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
As long as my concealed 460 is legal I'm good...

The funny part in CA when they limited mags to 10 people just went out and bought .45s...lol stupid Government...


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



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:55 PM
link   


that little town has just popped up on the radar of scum


Whatever, you guys are so ridiculous with this harebrained idea that people go around looking for places without a lot of guns and then rush in to attack them.

How many gangbangers even read the news, it's just an excuse to justify having way too many guns in this country.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

No justification necessary.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Don't like them, don't own them. You've no right to decide for anyone else.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

People so blasé about the abolishment of one right would, in my opinion, feel the same about any other right.

I mean, how can you actively defend any right when you are dead-set on getting rid of them?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

That certainly seems the case.


Person 1: "Hey, I hate the words you say and the way you talk, you should be shut down and baaannnned!"

Person 2: "I feel the same way!"

Persons 3-12: #metoo!

Persons who heard "#metoo": "#ustoo!"

Government: "We'll abolish DB's speech rights!"

The Bleating mob: "Yay! We win....err won or something!"

DB: *sad face*



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Person One: Free speech!

Person Two: Meh. Okay.

Person One: I'm using my free speech to claim that guns should be banned!

Person Two: So you're using one right to ban another right?

Person One: Shut up racist! Baby Killer!



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

In seriousness, without the 2nd, how will any of the other 9(26) rights be upheld?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

In seriousness, without the 2nd, how will any of the other 9(26) rights be upheld?



Dunno.

What I do know is that anyone who wants a right banned has no moral obligation to defend any other right.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

That's an interesting, and important, question.

I wonder if any of the anti-2nd's can answer that?

I'm sure we'll be depending upon the good intentions of the takers out there. Of course, the cops will also be there, ten minutes after you needed them to be there...but it won't matter, 'cause you'll be dead. ...and, of course, governments are always so absolutely trust-worthy. ...and you've got a spare room, surely you've room for a soldier or two? If you don't, that's alright, they'll just take your whole home.

Nope... I'm sure everything will be sunshine and daffodils.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

They will have to trust government to do the right thing.

They won't have any other alternative.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Loud voices will prevail!

LEOs are work for the government. The good ones that believe in rights of individuals and such will be pushed aside our out of the order, thus losing their firearms. And so it will go up the ladder. It's a brisk walk into tyranny if ever there was one.

IMHO of course.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Really? Where do the vast majority of these shooting occur? Schools, churches, other soft targets, such as malls. I can, off the top of my head, recall hearing of one mass shooting attack on a police station. So, go ahead, tell me again, these shooters don't take into account that the targets are much less likely to shoot back.

As for justifying, not required to justify. The right exists, and is protected by the Constitution. I know the thought of all those scary, scary guns out there terrifies you...too bad.
edit on 4/4/2018 by seagull because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join