• 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!

City Bans Ownership Of Some Weapons

rhinefire said:
From Daily Wire

Rulemakers in the village of Deerfield, Illinois, ​have voted unanimously to ban semi-automatic rifles, along with pistols and shotguns "with certain features," as well as with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The ban passed Monday night outlaws any weapon the village leaders deem "assault weapons," including AR-15s. But the ban also includes “semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with certain features.”
"This is our fight. This is our generation's fight, and we're going to keep fighting," Deerfield High School student Ariella Kharasch said at a public hearing, according to ABC-7 in Chicago. "Thank you for being part of that."

The new ordinance takes effect June 13. Residents who still have banned weapons after that date face up to $1,000 fines per day.
The new ordinance was modeled on a ban put in place in Highland Park, Illinois, which went to the United States Supreme Court. The high court let a lower court ruling allowing the ban stand.

"If Highland Park, if Deerfield, if more towns say no to this type of weapon, maybe the state of Illinois says no," said Deerfield Village Manager Kent Street. "Maybe the federal government says no."
Opponents said the ban would make residents less safe, ABC reported.
"You are the bureaucrats that Thomas Jefferson warned us about," said Deerfield resident Dan Cox.
“There were a lot of emotional arguments and not a lot based on fact,” said Daniel Easterday, according to CBS Chicago. “Deerfield is a very crime free community, and I don’t see how this is going to make it any more crime free.”
"Larry Nordal of Deerfield cited their rights under the Second Amendment and expressed fear that more restrictive laws would be passed in the future," the Chicago Tribune reported.
Click to expand...

Isnwill get tossed out on its ear along with all the other unconstitutional gun bans.
 
B'smith said:
Of course this version of "common sense" gun control "for the children" will do nothing to lower crime.

It's not intended to.

It's simply another step by brainwashed, puerile hoplophobes toward banning all privately owned firearms.

The only way I see this gun ban being enforces is if someone reports a gun owner (i.e one of their kids) or they're pulled over by the police for a traffic offense and the banned gun is visible or someone rats you out at a shooting range.

I can easily see situations in which an owner of a recently banned firearm can be blackmailed by their children as is the case in totalitarian countries.

For example, Little Johnny says:" Buy me a sports car, dad, or I'll report you for keeping your AR-15."

This moronic step toward totalitarianism is going to cause more problems than it will solve.
Click to expand...

Cincinnati had a ban that was destroyed by a preemption law. the democrats tried a complete ban but it didn't have enough votes-the police said they wouldn't want to get killed trying to enforce it. Well one spurned girl friend tried to get leverage by ratting out her boyfriend. A GOP judge threw out the case and said the law was most likely unconstitutional -it was legislatively evaporated before it came to that
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
It's wrongheaded thinking.
I could understand if they passed restrictions that called for new background checks and inspections, but it's stupid to just say that if you don't GET RID of firearms that you already bought legally and which you haven't abused, you're going to be punished. And it's too damn broad, too..."pistols and shotguns with certain features.”

WHAT features??

If they were to compile a gun list, I could even see that, but I'd rather it was a national list.
If you're good people, you needn't do anything. If you start acting like a lunatic, Deerfield PD stops by, and if they decide you're mentally squirrelly, they issue a referral to the local court who then makes a determination as to whether you keep your guns.

Oh and, by the way, if there's going to be any confiscating going on, the OWNERS must be paid FAIR market value.
These are their personal possessions, which THEY paid for with THEIR earnings.
Click to expand...

They have 0 right to do this. The constitution is clear and I hope this gets challenged sooner rather than later.
 
TurtleDude said:
Cincinnati had a ban that was destroyed by a preemption law. the democrats tried a complete ban but it didn't have enough votes-the police said they wouldn't want to get killed trying to enforce it. Well one spurned girl friend tried to get leverage by ratting out her boyfriend. A GOP judge threw out the case and said the law was most likely unconstitutional -it was legislatively evaporated before it came to that
Click to expand...

What amazes me is that these federal joke of judges know what heller says and they do everything in their power to ignore it.
The SCOTUS doesn't hear any new case on it because they have already ruled in it.
 
Chillfolks said:
How is this enforceable? Random house sweeps? Does the town have a gun registry and plan to go house to house looking for banned guns? Seems like window dressing legislation to make people's loins tingle about doing something.
Click to expand...

Well its going to be a jackpot law. Like when enforcement is looking for a reason to arrest someone after they already search their house. And whenever they find one of these guns its going to be an instant +1,000$. Or more.
 
Lutherf said:
I wonder what happens if someone in Deerfield gets their house robbed and chooses to defend themselves with a banned weapon?
Click to expand...

In Chicago there were cases of thugs being surprised by an armed homeowner with a handgun and the thugs threatened to report the gun. in a couple cases, I have been told the thugs got away==me I would have wasted them and watched the DA make an ass out of himself trying to prosecute

before Ohio had a CCW Law, two thugs came into a bar in "northside" a diverse neighborhood known for a large lesbian population. They brandished guns and threatened to kill people. A patron who was violating two state laws (carrying concealed and having a gun while drinking) pulled his weapon and I believe killed one thug and messed up the other. The country prosecutor didn't even take the case to the GJ noting given the records and actions of the thugs, he couldn't dream of a conviction, let alone an indictment
 
ludin said:
What amazes me is that these federal joke of judges know what heller says and they do everything in their power to ignore it.
The SCOTUS doesn't hear any new case on it because they have already ruled in it.
Click to expand...

I believe those subordinate judges who clearly ignore Heller and McDonald should be impeached and then tried for treason
 
Lursa said:
I was referring to the state high court. I didnt know if YOU meant SCOTUS.

And I find the grounds they used as ridiculous (from Rucker's post)
Click to expand...
Try again.

I wrote "SCOTUS." There is only one court with the acronym "SCOTUS." It's the Supreme Court of the United States. Not knowing that acronym is... a bit of an indicator. As is suggesting that an Illinois law could be overturned because of challenges to a completely unrelated law in Seattle.

And somehow, I doubt you actually read the ruling, and probably don't actually understand much if any of the legal background which makes it decidedly not ridiculous.
 
TurtleDude said:
I believe those subordinate judges who clearly ignore Heller and McDonald should be impeached and then tried for treason
Click to expand...

Impeach or held in contempt. I don't see how they can do it. Yet they do it every time.
 
maxparrish said:
You forgot to quote this case: BLACKMAN v. CITY of ALARMISM

"If it has no other effect, ordinances may increase the public's sense of safety. Robberies by blacks in this community might be rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. If a ban on swarthy people entering the town reduces the perceived risk from a robbery, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit"

That's why they pay the judges big bucks.. to endorse laws that make (some) people feel better.
Click to expand...

I would feel better if I were allowed to carry concealed everywhere. Why don't my feelings count?

If a municipality banned African American youths because they "were like" actual gangsters to allow their citizens to "feel safe", would any of those judges support that?
 
ludin said:
Impeach or held in contempt. I don't see how they can do it. Yet they do it every time.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see 5 years hard labor, loss of any pension, a felony record and no armed police protection ever
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Why do you keep repeating a phrase that has nothing to do with the OP or reply you quote, it sounds very....robotic.
Click to expand...

why people even bother with his nonsense is beyond me. Its the same irrelevant garbage over and over
 
Visbek said:
Try again.

I wrote "SCOTUS." There is only one court with the acronym "SCOTUS." It's the Supreme Court of the United States. Not knowing that acronym is... a bit of an indicator. As is suggesting that an Illinois law could be overturned because of challenges to a completely unrelated law in Seattle.

And somehow, I doubt you actually read the ruling, and probably don't actually understand much if any of the legal background which makes it decidedly not ridiculous.
Click to expand...

LMAO...and by no means do I expect people to get things like that right here. So yeah, I doubted it enough to question. (And anyone that has seen me discussing Roe vs Wade knows I know the SCOTUS acronym....I just couldnt be sure you did)

And I never said an IL law could be overturned because of challenges to a law in WA St. I gave an example of how a state did it and that it might be possible elsewhere.

You have a bit of a self-esteem issue I see. Sorry...I didnt see you as 'right all the time' before and I definitely dont now. You'll have to bolster your ego some other way.
 
ludin said:
They have 0 right to do this. The constitution is clear and I hope this gets challenged sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

It probably will.
As I said, it's the most "cosmetically" appealing idea, because it makes for high visibility..."Look we ARE banning guns!" but it doesn't solve problems all that well. I am not all that jazzed about banning specific guns.
I have already stated at least a dozen times elsewhere that I am much more in favor of making sure that unstable people who have guns get a visit and a referral to a court which can make a determination for or against an individual, with a path toward restitution or, barring that, compensation for firearms which are confiscated.
Gun owners will have to be paid a decent fair market price if they are forced to give up their weapons.

You don't get to just scoop up two or three thousand bucks worth of firepower and say, "Tough luck pal, say bye bye to your hard earned valuables."
 
holbritter said:
The message has been sent to surrounding Chicago areas.....the village of Deerfield is ripe pickings for criminals.
Click to expand...

Once they get past the twin shotgun blasts. they're home free. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom