Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Your moment of Zen
Next Post: Rauner accused of “blatant cover up”
Posted in:
* WGN TV…
Members of the village board in the northern Chicago suburb of Deerfield have voted unanimously to ban certain semi-automatic firearms.
The amendment to the village’s gun ordinance restricts firearms that village leaders define as assault weapons along with high-capacity magazines. That includes the AR-15, which has been used in mass shootings.
Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney. He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.
Street said the new law is modeled after one approved by Highland Park in 2013. That ban survived a legal challenge by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand when it declined to take up the appeal.
Unlike Highland Park, Deerfield opted not to enact a total ban on assault weapons during a 10-day window that Illinois lawmakers’ gave home-rule municipalities in 2013 before the state’s new Firearm Concealed Carry Act eliminated their ability to do so.
However, Deerfield trustees did enact an ordinance defining assault weapons and requiring the safe storage and safe transportation of those weapons within the village. That measure, which was enacted during the permitted time frame, preserved Deerfield’s right to amend the ordinance in the future, Street previously said.
“This is not only held constitutional by the Seventh Circuit but similar laws have been ruled constitutional in California, the District of Columbia and Maryland,” Rose said last month.
* NRA…
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced support for a lawsuit brought by Guns Save Life challenging the Village of Deerfield, Illinois’ gun confiscation ordinance. The lawsuit challenges Deerfield’s recent attempt to criminalize so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” within village limits.
“Every law-abiding villager of Deerfield has the right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones with the firearm that best suits their needs,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA. “The National Rifle Association is pleased to assist Guns Save Life in defense of this freedom.”
By amending an existing 2013 ordinance, the Village Board of Trustees has now empowered local authorities to confiscate and destroy all so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” possessed within village limits. The amendment also imposes a daily fine ranging between $250 and $1,000.
“We are going to fight this ordinance, which clearly violates our member’s constitutional rights, and with the help of the NRA I believe we can secure a victory for law-abiding gun owners in and around Deerfield,” said John Boch, president of Guns Save Life.
…Adding… Bob Morgan, the Democrat hoping to replace Rep. Scott Drury, sent this out in response…
The people of Deerfield and Highland Park have spoken loud and clear that weapons of war have no place in our communities. I commend the members of the Village Board of Trustees for standing up for their neighbors and fully support them in their fight against the extremists of the National Rifle Association. You can stand on the side of common sense and the safety for our families, or you can stand with the NRA. I know what side I’m on.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:56 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Your moment of Zen
Next Post: Rauner accused of “blatant cover up”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The amount of mental gymnastics that must go in to a pro-gun organization calling itself “Guns Save Life” is painful to think about.
Comment by 33rd Ward Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:02 pm
Whatever the motives of the village council members were, Deerfield is going to have an expensive court case on its hands. This exercise in virtue signaling is definitely going to cost the taxpayers.
Having read the text of the ordinance, I think that it is likely to be struck as “overly broad” by the courts some day in the future. It may be litigated for a long time and finally be resolved in an appellate level court.
Comment by Practical Politics Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:11 pm
I don’t suppose we need to rehearse all of the arguments on each side at the national level. Since this is a state-level blog, what do you all think the implications are in Illinois. Does this reflect the suburbs flipping as part of a suburban-led “blue wave,” or would that be overstating the significance? Would Dems lose downstate votes in equal numbers to make it a wash? Probably not in Illinois. Perhaps that would be the calculus in PA, MI, and WI.
Comment by HistProf Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:15 pm
@33rdward, not much gymnastics needed when you’re an organization that fantasizes and glorifies legal murder.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:19 pm
==said John Boch, president of Guns Save Life==
Is GSL saying you need multiple guns to protect yourself or are members alerted to come to the defense (or form a posse) for a single individual?
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:22 pm
The authorities are now empowered to confiscate and destroy assault weapons and high capacity magazines possessed within village limits. If they lose this case at a later date it’s going to cost Deerfield dearly replacing the value of these weapons, they are not inexpensive.
Comment by jimk849 Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:26 pm
Perhaps in discovery, Boch can explain about all those guns and ammunition he brags about continually “losing.”
–He’s (Boch) also got the reputation for being a terrible boat driver, tragically losing most of his guns and ammo in a series of boating accidents, including boats lost in the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Michigan and most recently, Lake Bloomington.–
Tragic, his bad luck, always losing boatloads of guns and ammunition. Not terribly responsible, even by the most generous interpretation. Hopefully, none of those guns have fallen into the wrong hands.
Or maybe that’s the point of the exercise.
http://www.gunssavelife.com/blog/
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:28 pm
Virtue Signalling as I find it on the web, “refers to the public expression of an opinion on a given topic primarily for the purpose of displaying one’s moral superiority before a large audience to solicit their approval.”
The term would not accurately apply to the passage of an ordinance. It would, however, apply to the post by Practical Politics pandering to the NRA.
Comment by Bigtwich Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:28 pm
Waste of money.
Clearly unconstitutional, except to those who are doomed to misinterpret it.
It’s like watching traffic laws being written by folks afraid of cars and don’t drive.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:35 pm
So if someone is passing through Deerfield on the tollway on their way to Wisconsin are they in violation and can the Deerfield police do automatic search of vehicles within those boundaries?
Comment by DuPage Bard Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:43 pm
For you rookies out there… Deerfield is serious about everything they do. You will get a speeding ticket for going over the limit by 2 miles an hour. So, I’m sure Deerfield will fight whoever in court on guns.
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:45 pm
I have no idea how the courts will rule on this, but I do know that Deerfield evidenced “bad faith” in amending their earlier ordinance.
I am also very tired of people defining the NRA as some soulless organization. Like many organizations is was started and maintained by individuals, of which I am one. The organization does what the membership dictates, not the reverse.
I am also tired of politicians that seek solace in “feel good” actions that do little or nothing in combating the problems which we all are concerned about.
Comment by Chance Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 6:16 pm
Some villages pay law firms to draft ordinances and then pay the same firms to defend their words in court. Seems like a scam if sloppy writing can bring more work. I don’t know who wrote Deerfield’s law, but I hope they did a good job.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 6:17 pm
Either way, the Village board wins. They not only take a popular position for that town, but they get to demonize the NRA in the process.
They have the money to do this. It is about a broader agenda.
IMHO, these well meaning ordinances have a tendency to adversely affect law-abiding citizens as opposed to the criminal element.
Comment by Richard Afflis Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 6:18 pm
==The people of Deerfield …..have spoken loud and clear==
The board of trustees has spoken, Mr. Morgan. It is less clear that “the people” have spoken or that “the people” are willing to spend their tax dollars to defend without a referendum. We shall see.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 6:22 pm
This issue typifies the increasingly polarized country in which we live. Neither side willing to sit down and discuss possible solutions.
Oh well, we had a good run.
Comment by SSL Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 6:28 pm
===I am also very tired of people defining the NRA as===
Get used to it. Either that, or withdraw from reading campaign stories. NRA polls horribly in that part of the world, and other parts.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 6:42 pm
===It is less clear that “the people” have spoken===
You ever spend any time on the North Shore, bucko?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 6:51 pm
Yes. Thanks for asking. For over 30 years I’ve lived on the North Shore in the 10th district. This was not handled well. It may ultimately be proved to be the will of the majority of the people of Deerfield and the ban and fines may prevail. But it was handled very poorly without time for citizen input and is reminiscent of Mayor Daley bulldozing Meigs in the middle of the night.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:03 pm
- jimk849 - Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:26 pm:
The authorities are now empowered to confiscate and destroy assault weapons and high capacity magazines possessed within village limits. If they lose this case at a later date it’s going to cost Deerfield dearly replacing the value of these weapons, they are not inexpensive.
If they indeed go house to house searching for guns, I’m more worried that there will be cost in lives and families destroyed. Actually, I think they won’t invoke the ordinance until the courts are done with it because I imagine that GSL and the NRA have either already sought or about to seek a restraining order preventing the ordinance from taking effect until the courts sort it out.
As has been previously mentioned here, this ordinance is going to be very costly for the taxpayers and could end up very messy for all concerned. It is also going to just flame the divisions between both sides of the issue. Without a doubt this will end up helping Rauner as it is already energizing gun owners throughout the state.
BTW Rich, people who are on the side of an issue that is unpopular with others around them are often smart enough to decide there is no point in revealing their true feelings. There may be many more gun owners in those areas than you realize.
That our country is divided and growing more divided is both scary and true. This is worse, by far, than the divisions the Viet Nam war created. We aren’t very far from approaching the same level of division that existed prior to the Civil War.
Comment by Chance Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:25 pm
@ DuPage Bard
>>> passing through Deerfield on the tollway on their way to Wisconsin
There’s a federal law that you could claim protection under, WRT to interstate travel.
If you are on your way to Zion, however, you are probably forked.
Comment by Black Flag Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:29 pm
Local control is a great thing. I’m sure the vast majority of North Shore folks love this. But it comes with a cost, tens of thousands of Illinois residents that own these type of weapons will now never consider living or even shopping there.
Comment by Texas Red Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:30 pm
@ SSL
>>> Neither side willing to sit down and discuss possible solutions.
Solutions to what?
Comment by Black Flag Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:31 pm
@ Texas Red
Local control over civil rights matters is never a great thing, else we’d have places where you can’t have a mosque, can’t have a meeting, can’t have people of colour after dark, can’t have a rifle.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:37 pm
@ Texas Red
that was me.
Comment by Black Flag Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:37 pm
Frankly I don’t know how much more clear, the controlling DC v Heller majority opinion could have been on this subject. _Absolutely_ Deerfield can ban an AR-15. From _Heller_. They explicitly state the decision is about handguns, then go on to say _Heller_ does not contradict “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.”
So what’s a “dangerous and unusual weapon”? Next sentence, Justice Scalia’s opinion mentions the M-16, as an example of “weapons most useful in military service.” You -can- ban the M-16 in other words. They admit this is all very odd reasoning, seeing as the point of this is to allegedly defend the public against an intrusive government, and handguns aren’t likely to be very effective at stopping the US military. But they, err, stick to their guns:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
I know this is a ton of text to drop. But frankly I’m tired of the NRA posters endlessly trying to snow people that there’s even a loose case for assault-style weapons protected under the Second Amendment, under this Supreme Court current jurisprudence.
Until you guys knock out Kennedy, and replace him with another Clarence Thomas, of course Deerfield can do this. It’s not even a tough call.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:48 pm
–The amount of mental gymnastics that must go in to a pro-gun organization calling itself “Guns Save Life” is painful to think about.–
Probably shouldn’t arm police officers, security, or our military for that matter. Thanks for the incite.
Comment by Paul Powell's Shoe Box Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 7:59 pm
===Local control is a great thing. I’m sure the vast majority of North Shore folks love this. But it comes with a cost, tens of thousands of Illinois residents that own these type of weapons will now never consider living or even shopping there.===
They didn’t before. No loss from the North Shore’s perspective.
Comment by Graduated College Student Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:04 pm
I agree that no owner of a forbidden firearm would dream of moving to such an oppressive town. But I’d add that a Deerfield owner who hides one and prays he’ll never have to use it for self protection, would never dream of using it to protect someone outside his home. The effect comparable to confiscation seems negligible and the town becomes a more dangerous place to live.
Comment by Gene Ralno Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:08 pm
@anon 5:19 p.m. there is no such thing as “legal” and “murder.” Try a dictionary next time.
Comment by INI Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:10 pm
When the CCL language was added, so was State preemption on regulating assault weapons, including overriding home rule. A very narrow window of about 20 days was given to municipalities to pass new local regulations. Deerfield did pass a regulation in that window … but it was not a ban.
If I’m looking at this correctly, the argument is going to come down to whether Deerfield is allowed to modify their previous regulation to effectively become a ban. My guess is GSL and the NRA will argue Deerfield had their chance to do a ban back in 2013, and didn’t, so the later action fails because of the State preemption. As noted, Deerfield is going to argue they preserved their right to a future ban by regulating during the limited time period.
It’s going to come down to the exact language, the intent of the General Assembly, splitting hairs and technicalities.
My guess is GSL wins on a technicality with a divided decision.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:14 pm
–Clearly unconstitutional, except to those who are doomed to misinterpret it.–
I guess that would include the Supreme Court.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-assault-weapon-20151207-story.html
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:24 pm
–But it comes with a cost, tens of thousands of Illinois residents that own these type of weapons will now never consider living or even shopping there.===
That’s not a “cost,” that’s the point of the ordinance. How do you not get that?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:26 pm
Since my other comment hasn’t shown up yet, I think it will come down to interpeting the State’s preemption clause and the GA’s intent. This whole issue is going to be decided on technicalities.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:28 pm
Black Flag - solutions to problems. Such as the division that exists between gun advocates and gun control advocates.
Or haven’t you noticed the headlines.
Comment by SSL Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:34 pm
Chance, if you are so tired, I have to wonder why you don’t go to bed. Isn’t it past your bed time?
Comment by wondering Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:41 pm
Texas Red, do you see that as a problem?
Comment by wondering Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 8:46 pm
For the record, whether the Deerfield statute violates some impediment the -state- has put in place, I’ll declare ignorance on. Fair enough.
But there’s nothing in the US Constitution yet preventing this.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:09 pm
Late to the party here, but I’m partial to this argument: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/firearm-localism
Law prof essentially argues that urban and rural areas have pretty much always had different needs and wants re: gun policy, and we ought to let communities make choices that are right for them. Local policies like this are probably the best way to handle differences in opinions on guns.
Comment by Actual Red Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:34 pm
Umm, SCOTUS has already ruled on assault rifle bans..and have agreed that it’s legal. Or did you miss that when Highland Park banned them?
Comment by Union Thug Gramma Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:36 pm
I’m certain that any criminal having such a weapon will read about this ordinance and stay out of Deerfield, especially if city fathers post signage coming in to town prohibiting these weapons. Gun free zones work for the criminal mind.
Comment by Come on Glenn Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:39 pm
Word: –He’s (Boch) also got the reputation for being a terrible boat driver, tragically losing most of his guns and ammo in a series of boating accidents, including boats lost in the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Michigan and most recently, Lake Bloomington.–
Tragic, his bad luck, always losing boatloads of guns and ammunition. Not terribly responsible, even by the most generous interpretation. Hopefully, none of those guns have fallen into the wrong hands.
LOL–I have an Onion article that describes this perfectly. It would not fit the sites expectations drop me a line at archpundit@gmail.com if you want me to send it.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:49 pm
Constitutional issues aside, I suspect that the number of Deerfield residents who will be personally affected by a ban on semi-automatic rifles is comparable to the number of Tucson residents who would be personally affected by a ban on snow blowers.
Comment by CEA Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:49 pm
–But it was handled very poorly without time for citizen input and is reminiscent of Mayor Daley bulldozing Meigs in the middle of the night.–
Yeah, just like that.
I remember the open meeting, public comment period and unanimous vote before Daley bulldozed Meigs.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:58 pm
-ZC-, the State did a preemption of home rule and any assault weapons ban back in 2013, allowing pre-existing bans or bans passed within 10 days before / after the effective date in 2013. Deerfield passed a safe storage for assault weapons regulation, but not a ban, in that window. That was perfectly legal.
The legal question is whether that State preemption clause prevents Deerfield from modifying their safe storage regulation (after the allowable window) to an outright ban.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:13 pm
- Union Thug Gramma-
See my comment to -ZC- at 10:13pm. It comes down to a question about State law, not Federal.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:24 pm
Adding … Highland Park passed their ban within the State allowed window, so citing them is irrelevant to this situation.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:26 pm
Chefs better be thinking how they will carve the turkeys on Thanksgiving day when large knives could be next thing to be confiscated.
Comment by cc Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:02 pm
–I’m certain that any criminal having such a weapon will read about this ordinance and stay out of Deerfield, especially if city fathers post signage coming in to town prohibiting these weapons. Gun free zones work for the criminal mind.–
The always-brilliant “criminals-will-break-the-law-so-the-law-is-stupid” routine.
Yes, criminals break laws. Can’t get anything by you.
That’s not a reasonable argument to discard laws. It’s a responsibility to enforce them.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:08 pm
“We (small towns dwellers from the heartland) are going to fight this ordinance, which clearly violates our member’s constitutional rights, (like GSL has any members north of Champaign) and with the help of the NRA (kissing up to NRA & positioning himself to be the next paid lobbyist in IL now that NRA fired Todd Vandermyde) I believe we can secure a victory (victory?? Patton? Colonel Kilgore?) for law-abiding gun owners (”law abiding” the favorite line of Richard Pearson at ISRA) in and around Deerfield,” said John Boch, president (for life) of Guns Save Life.” Give me a break.
Once upon a time, Champaign County Rifle Association DBA Guns Save Life started as a county sprout of ISRA, from which they de-chartered because Richard Pearson & ISRA did their usual: nothing. Now Boch has become his old nemesis Pearson, and a couple years ago he conned the GSL board into paying him a part-time salary to blow hot air. He can afford to keyboard commando full-time, since his wife works for U of I Champaign, without which support he would starve.
This lawsuit will go nowhere, the Highland Park assault weapons ban has already been flubbed by ISRA, creating bad case law for the gun guys. Boch is a mouth with legs in love with his own voice who is using this deal to get in front of the camera and self promote.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 12:24 am
@ Anonymous 12:24–
I was at the March for Our Lives rally in Chicago in March. There were folks there from Guns Save Lives there, attempting to do a pro-gun counter-protest.
I don’t know where the GSL folks were from, but they weren’t very successful. Thankfully, March for Our Lives folks ignored them.
Comment by Lynn S. Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 1:57 am
The amount of mental gymnastics that must go in to a pro-gun organization calling itself “Guns Save Life” is painful to think about.
Good point, why even do the police carry them because all they do is kill people and never save anyone with one.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 6:06 am
Bob Morgan, the people of Highland and Deerfield, better park your vehicle, as cars, trucks and even motor cycles have been used as weapons of war by themselves, mowing down human beings.
Better add your steak knife to that list of weapons of war as well.
BTW, in June 2005, the US Supreme Court Ruled, police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 6:14 am
-If they indeed go house to house searching for guns, I’m more worried that there will be cost in lives and families destroyed. -
Nothing says law abiding gun owner like shooting an LEO there to enforce a legally enacted law. Remedies come in the court, not by shooting cops.
I’m at the point where I think these laws being passed will help us separate out the law abiding gun owners from those who will kill American citizens based on fantasies. Which we all agree is the point of gun control legislation.
Comment by Colossus Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 7:14 am
If the Courts uphold the Deerfield ban then they will have to strike down state law that was written during the Conceal Carry Act. Under conceal carry municipalities were given a window to pass an assault weapons ban before all gun laws fell under the exclusive guidance of state law. Called preemption. Highland park and chicago fall under this category. Also, if preemption is struck down I would have to look and see if the whole Conceal carry act is struck down.
Comment by Suburban Hillbilly Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 7:29 am
===Bob Morgan, the people of Highland and Deerfield, better park your vehicle, as cars, trucks and even motor cycles have been used as weapons of war by themselves, mowing down human beings.===
The difference being that that is not the primary designed use of those things. Guns are primarily designed to kill.
===Better add your steak knife to that list of weapons of war as well.===
It’s a lot harder to instantly kill someone with a steak knife, and they have a list of non-lethal uses. Let me know how that Armalite Family weapon works at cutting your steak on the dinner table.
===BTW, in June 2005, the US Supreme Court Ruled, police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you.===
Not surprising, but you know what, if the police don’t do their job, they don’t have a constitutional right to taxpayer money, capiche?
Comment by Graduated College Student Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 7:35 am
ZC
Scalia stating that M16’s can be banned is not stating that ar-15’s can be. While they are similar in appearance the fact that one is Automatic and the other is Semi-automatic is a clear difference. I’d say he was referring more to the banning of fully automatic firearms. The standard he lays out is firearms in common use, which the AR15 would clearly be as it is the most popular Rifle sold in the U.S., are protected.
All that said, Wordslinger is right that the court has not clarified this, They haven’t ruled the AR is or is not protected. They have refused cert in several cases allowing lower court judgements to stand but have not issued an opinion either way.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 8:02 am
==It’s like watching traffic laws being written by folks afraid of cars ==
Oh please. That’s just a ridiculous statement.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 8:18 am
==Every law-abiding villager of Deerfield has the right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones with the firearm that best suits their needs==
This is why I dislike groups like Guns Save Life. It’s that stance that we should be allowed to have whatever kinds of weapons we want.
As for Mr. Boch, you ever read some of the things he’s written? He’s waaaay out there.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 8:25 am
–Chefs better be thinking how they will carve the turkeys on Thanksgiving day when large knives could be next thing to be confiscated.–
That’s so compelling. You’ve got game.
What an astonishing revelation, that many objects can be used as a weapon, rather than the intended purpose they were designed for.
What can you do with an AR-15 other than what it was designed for, which is to blast lead into live flesh?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 8:35 am
The legal issue is not the AR-15.
The legal issue is the State has preempted local assault weapon bans … and allowed a limited period for local bans.
That period is past. Deerfield did not put in a ban at that time, just some regulation.
c
The question is can Deerfield enact a ban by modifying their previous regulation, or is a ban at this late date forbidden by State preemption?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 9:21 am
I’m probably going to catch flack for this (pun intended) but …
The over the top, all or nothing rhethoric used by GSL is no more outrageous than the language used by a lot of gun control groups. Both sides use extremist language designed to appeal to their base.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 9:26 am
I’m ok with the Deerfield law. But handguns are statistically far more lethal than assault weapons. In other words, handguns are used in shootings more.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 9:39 am
“The over the top, all or nothing rhethoric used by GSL is no more outrageous than the language used by a lot of gun control groups.”
Citation needed
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 9:44 am
-Mr JM-
Use the Google …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 9:49 am
GSL does have members far to the North of Champaign. There is even a very active Chicago chapter.
I will write again, not every gun owner is willing to self identify without a good reason. Try attending and matriculating from the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine as a Life Member of the NRA and see what happens if you let it be known. Many M.D.s own guns as do many Psychologists but they almost never discuss it publicly. The exception is those that belong to DRGO and serve on their Board of Directors. Even most of their members keep their names non public.
Someone called me out for being “tired”. While one definition does include sleepy the alternate definition includes bored or fed up with. I’m not sleepy, I’m just fed up with grade school propaganda.
Full Disclosure: In addition to being a Life Member of the NRA, I am also a Life Member of GSL.
Comment by Chance Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 9:54 am
Those that ramble on that the AR-15 has no useful hunting or other purpose such as home defense are anything but correct. The AR-15 is a very versatile rifle where the upper,lower, bolt and magazine can be swapped out very easily to accommodate different calibers. The standard .223/5.56mm is just fine for target shooting and small varmints. Bigger game such as deer swap out for a 6.8 SPC, for even bigger game try a .458 upper. These swaps can be done in very short order and the uppers can cost about half of a decent “hunting” rifle dedicated to a single caliber. There’s .300 AAC Blackout, 6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowolf, .50 BMG, .410 shotgun and yes even the plinker .22 LR.
Comment by TheGoodLieutenant Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 10:04 am
From 430 ILCS 65/13.1 (c)
An ordinance enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly may be amended.
Comment by Just Retired Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 10:39 am
=== If they lose this case at a later date it’s going to cost Deerfield dearly replacing the value of these weapons, they are not inexpensive. ===
As someone else pointed out, there are probably just a handful of affected guns within the village limits.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 11:12 am
This ordinance is pretty worthless anyways. There is no gun registry and the village does not know who owns “assault rifles.” Unless your out and about, walking around town with your “assault rifle,” nobody is going to know. If it comes down to a situation where someone breaks into your hours and use it to defend yourself and are caught, then you can pay the $250-$1,000 fine and get rid of it.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 11:20 am