• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Illinois town votes to ban assault weapons, fine violators up to $1,000 a day

Dude, I cited Heller above, and it says otherwise



Directly from Scalia opinion in Heller



Which is a huge point of my argument for people the just stupidly yell any sort of regulation is unconstitutional. Scalia even said there are limits. There are limits to all the rights, as I"ve argued. In fact, the above shows it supports my decision.

Another part taken directly from Scalia opinion is bolded. Again, that supports limiting assault rifles as dangerous and unusual. Also, the fact the Fed Circuit in fact ruled exactly that way.

So at the moment, the current standing by the courts is an assault weapons ban is constitutional

Take nearly any weapon that is currently available for sale to the public, and it will fall under the quoted statement of "in common use at the time".
 
This reminds me of the Jim crow laws of the south.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Except that was about Civil Rights and this is about Civil Rights. If you start confusing Civil Rights with Civil Rights, then you end up voting a straight DNC ticket for the rest of your life.
 
Take nearly any weapon that is currently available for sale to the public, and it will fall under the quoted statement of "in common use at the time".

Well then, making guns illegal other than one shot muskets is constitutional! ;)


Obviously not, since handgun ban was considered unconstitutional, since obviously the courts ruled that.

it should be noted however that the SCOTUS rulings state that limits to the 2nd amendment are allowable. So all those that like to claim otherwise are wrong, or who just say "shall not be infringed" are wrong. If it wasn't, mentally ill people and felons could own guns, guns could be allowed to be taken on planes, schools, court rooms, etc.
 
It's stupid law that CAN'T be enforced. The first time they do, they'll hopefully get slapped with a Fed. Civil Rights violation.

You are an attorney? So, why cant it be enforced?
 
It's a good thing this band was enacted. A quick look at the crime stats for Deerfield shows that there are multiple shootings each night with assault weapons.

...and I'll bet that every single of them was carried out by criminal who will instantly hand over her weapons just because this was passed. We all know that criminals just love to obey the law and you can bet that they will be lining up to surrender their weapons and every single one of them will be riding either their unicorn or their hypogriff to get there.
 
I seriously doubt that. More likely, they involve handguns, and perhaps some rifles.

Indeed, I should have used the sarcasm switch. Deerfield IL is well-to-do, with a much lower crime rate than average and zero murders from 2012 to 2016.
 
Deerfield Il, is not the type of town to attract gun nuts. Its an upper middle class neighborhood, with homes owned mostly by professionals.

It's also the type of town to be taken advantage of by criminals that know they are anti-gun, are less likely to be armed or have guns in their homes for protection, and be easier pickins'.


Are they building a wall around the town to keep all the armed (including with ARs) people out?
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assault-rifles-fine-violators-1000-per-day/

The Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Illinois voted on Monday to ban the possession, sale, and manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to "increase the public's sense of safety." What's more, CBS Chicago reports, anyone refusing to give up their banned firearm will be fined $1,000 a day until the weapon is handed over or removed from the town's limits.

The ordinance states, "The possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

_____________________________________________________

(my first "breaking news" post. I hope I got it right)

SO, for all those who contend;

"common sense" regulations and
"NO, No one is coming after your guns"
and "What's so wrong with a national Firearms Owner ID card (FOID) ".

Here is your answer. CONFISCATION.
Note in the language they say SENSE of public safety, not the REALITY of public safety.
It is all about feeling safe, and not whether you were in actual harm's way or not.
Strictly emotional.

First they all knew who had the guns with their FOID system, now local communities can legally take them away and make someone an instant criminal overnight. Well, not really overnight. It goes into effect June 13th, 2018.

For you sportmen and hunters who think you are OK because you do not own an "assault weapon", guess again. You just might if they expand this to include ALL semiautomatic rifles regardless of caliber, or any repeating rifle. Once it is on the books, they can modify it any way they choose.

This is proof positive of the slippery slope we gun owners have been talking about since day one.
The town of Morton Grove, IL tried to ban all handguns once, but it got shot down as being too broad.
So now they have narrowed their target and have won.

There is no buyback. You have to get rid of them or you will become a criminal, though your only crime was to buy one. Nothing else.
They don't need any other reason. The fact you own one is all they need to paint you as a criminal with their broad brush.

The slippery slope DOES EXIST, and here it is in all its naked glory out in the daylight for all to see. Full blown CONFISCATION.
THIS is why we do not give and inch to these hate groups.
They ARE coming after us and have already started here.
Their intent is to CONFISCATE our legally owned property, FINE us, and IMPRISON us.
This is the first shot across the bow.

There will be a lawsuit over this, and the city will lose. I have what they call an assault weapon, and it is great for hunting. I have a Mossberg Hunter AR-15, and use 225 FMJ ammo for the range and home defense, and NATO 556 boat tail hollow point rounds for hunting, as they are more accurate than the 225 rounds. If I lived in that city, I would file a lawsuit in a heartbeat, and I would easily win.
 
You are an attorney? So, why cant it be enforced?

Because it's unconstitutional... What's even stupider is that the cost fighting the lawsuits that will be filed (with the first one including a cease and desist order to stop the city from enforcing this law) will so far outweigh the fines that this will not only not remove any firearms from the city, but it will end up costing the city a butt-load of money. It's a bad law that will end up putting a lot of money in lawyer's pockets and nothing else. Hmmmm... I wonder how many lawyers are on their city council.... :twisted:
 
It's also the type of town to be taken advantage of by criminals that know they are anti-gun, are less likely to be armed or have guns in their homes for protection, and be easier pickins'.


Are they building a wall around the town to keep all the armed (including with ARs) people out?

There are plenty of guns that a homeowner can own. Did anyone say that people had to turn in ALL of their weapons?
 
This reminds me of the Jim crow laws of the south.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Find a black person who lived through Jim Crow. Then tell him or her that you can identify because you can't buy an AR-15 in Deerfield, Illinois. Record their reaction and post it here.
 
Because it's unconstitutional... What's even stupider is that the cost fighting the lawsuits that will be filed (with the first one including a cease and desist order to stop the city from enforcing this law) will so far outweigh the fines that this will not only not remove any firearms from the city, but it will end up costing the city a butt-load of money. It's a bad law that will end up putting a lot of money in lawyer's pockets and nothing else. Hmmmm... I wonder how many lawyers are on their city council.... :twisted:

Just how do you determine what is or isnt constitutional? Isnt that up to the SC?
This same law was enacted in a number of surrounding suburbs, and I dont hear anyone complaining.
 
Well then, making guns illegal other than one shot muskets is constitutional! ;)


Obviously not, since handgun ban was considered unconstitutional, since obviously the courts ruled that.

it should be noted however that the SCOTUS rulings state that limits to the 2nd amendment are allowable. So all those that like to claim otherwise are wrong, or who just say "shall not be infringed" are wrong. If it wasn't, mentally ill people and felons could own guns, guns could be allowed to be taken on planes, schools, court rooms, etc.

The "common use at the time" from the Miller decision is referring to the time in which the regulation was written, not when the amendment is written. Since firearms like the AR-15 are commonly owned for self-defense(2m+ in the US), you can't ban them. You can ban M-4 since its not commonly owned, hence the reason full automatic weapons have been banned since 1935 w/o challenge.
 
There are plenty of guns that a homeowner can own. Did anyone say that people had to turn in ALL of their weapons?

I spoke to the entire (implied and stated) description of the town....scared, very anti-gun, so then likely a low gun-ownership population, with alot of $$.
 
I spoke to the entire (implied and stated) description of the town....scared, very anti-gun, so then likely a low gun-ownership population, with alot of $$.

You cant lump 30-35,000 people into a single convenient basket and make general statements.
 
There will be a lawsuit over this, and the city will lose. I have what they call an assault weapon, and it is great for hunting. I have a Mossberg Hunter AR-15, and use 225 FMJ ammo for the range and home defense, and NATO 556 boat tail hollow point rounds for hunting, as they are more accurate than the 225 rounds. If I lived in that city, I would file a lawsuit in a heartbeat, and I would easily win.

Why would they lose when the current standing in the courts (as I mentioned above) is an assault weapons ban is constitutional. Granted, maybe if SCOTUS takes it up it could change, but currently the standing is it is not unconstitutional
The "common use at the time" from the Miller decision is referring to the time in which the regulation was written, not when the amendment is written. Since firearms like the AR-15 are commonly owned for self-defense(2m+ in the US), you can't ban them. You can ban M-4 since its not commonly owned, hence the reason full automatic weapons have been banned since 1935 w/o challenge.

Are you people not reading? The courts have ruled the Massachussets (link below) and Maryland (linked above) assault weapon ban is constitutional. You can't get any more of a slam dunk argument.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ssachusetts-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKCN1HD2CW

The Supreme Court announced Monday it had declined to hear two Second Amendment cases, leaving intact gun control laws in Maryland that restrict the types of weapons that can be bought, and in Florida that largely prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in the open.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/27/scotus-upholds-ban-assault-weapons-open-carry/
 
Last edited:
You cant lump 30-35,000 people into a single convenient basket and make general statements.

:lamo :lamo

What do you think the AR ban did? :doh

And seriously...it is pure advertisement for criminals.
 
I spoke to the entire (implied and stated) description of the town....scared, very anti-gun, so then likely a low gun-ownership population, with alot of $$.

This is what I have been discussing. Work at your local level, DONT !@##$ with the constitution or federal law as one county city state does NOT speak on behalf of the nation.

If this county is scared and the WILL of those people want this type of draconian laws, then so BE it, BUT do NOT force your Agenda on my city, state, Federal or constitutional level. Your choice you own it. NOT my choice so stay out of my constitutional rights.
 
I looked thru the thread...does it say that this particular ban means that no one in town can own an AR? Are current ones grandfathered?

If not, who's paying for the expensive property these people own if they have to get rid of them?
 
:lamo :lamo

What do you think the AR ban did? :doh

And seriously...it is pure advertisement for criminals.

So criminals think that if you dont have an AR-15 you become fair game? Other types of handguns dont count?
There are only about 1/3 of Americans who own a gun and out of that 1/3, how many have AR-15's.
 
To those who say I'm wrong,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ult-weapons-en-banc-4th-circuit-idUSKBN1612PU

That's how the country works, the courts determine what is constitutional or now. Now, that might not be final, but don't deflect to some stupid stuff and say I'm wrong when it the current standing of the courts is assault weapons ban is not unconstitutional.

And someone sed Heller as their argument, see the bold, even Scalia made an argument for assault weapons ban in the Heller ruling.

It just proves I'm right that it is stupid to claim banning of particular weapons is unconstitutional when it doesn't prevent owning of other types of guns

end..... scene

You are correct, no appeals court has yet held an assault weapons ban as unconstitutional. And until such time that there is a conflict between two circuits of the appeals court, I believe the Supreme Court majority wishes to dodge the issue and decline to hear cases; some of them hoping judicial restraint will prevail.

None the less, it is likely that sooner or later some aspect of these sweeping anti-gun measures in one of the circuits will force it to the Supreme Court, upon which the opinion will likely pivot on who (at that time) is on the court.

However, you are wrong to assume that what is Constitutional is a matter of ONLY a court's belief; even the Supreme Court has rendered opinions overturning their own prior opinions, based on new views. The question here is if the Court's opinion ignores the Constitution and prior doctrine or not.

Finally, in regards to Deerfield, if their new ordinance also bans all semi-automatic rifles (as is being reported), regardless of whether or not they are assault rifles, then that has not yet been tested anywhere, to my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
So criminals think that if you dont have an AR-15 you become fair game? Other types of handguns dont count?
There are only about 1/3 of Americans who own a gun and out of that 1/3, how many have AR-15's.

Wow, you really have a reading comprehension problem dont you?

I spoke to the entire (implied and stated) description of the town....scared, very anti-gun, so then likely a low gun-ownership population, with alot of $$.
 
I looked thru the thread...does it say that this particular ban means that no one in town can own an AR? Are current ones grandfathered?

If not, who's paying for the expensive property these people own if they have to get rid of them?

This was always another question I wondered about.

If you take someones "property" do you have the right to receive compensation for a tangible asset?

Secondly, we enjoy playing on terms, much like the ATF rulings if we remove items that classify an item as a fire arm, SAY you can have my lower receiver, of my AR, YET, EVERYTHING else, I am able to keep, As they are NOT considered and AR, Am I allowed to keep ALL other components, to included, my butt stock, extension tube, buffer spring, bugger, grip, FCG, pins, upper receiver, BCG, handguards, barrel, muzzle device etc?

Those are NOT considered an AR, and are NOT subject to ATF rulings....
 
Find a black person who lived through Jim Crow. Then tell him or her that you can identify because you can't buy an AR-15 in Deerfield, Illinois. Record their reaction and post it here.
Why would their opinion matter? Are you insinuating that a black persons civil liberties are more important than everyone elses?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom