An Illinois town just banned assault weapons.

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Galileo, Apr 8, 2018.

  1. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "If the 18,000 residents of the Chicago suburb don't forfeit or secure weapons that fall under the ban by June 13th, they will be charged from $200 to $1,000 a day as a penalty."
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html

    "Secure" means disassemble your weapon so that it is in a non-functional state. The NRA plans to support a lawsuit challenging the law. Good luck with that given recent rulings about the Second Amendment and assault weapons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2018
  2. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good luck enforcing it.
     
    6Gunner and DoctorWho like this.
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The united state supreme court stated that it is unconstitutional for government to require firearms be rendered inaccessible, or otherwise non-functioning, in a manner that interferes with the right to self defense.
     
    6Gunner and Rucker61 like this.
  4. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The lawsuits are not just beginning in this case. The other question is how are you going to enforce it? Money says the residents buy even more weapons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  5. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    According to recent rulings, assault weapons aren't covered by the Second Amendment. So your point is irrelevant.
     
  6. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So the gun owners there are not law abiding?
     
  7. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's called the RESISTANCE. What's good for the goose so to speak. Besides ALL weapon bans have had marginal compliance and even less enforcement. What does that say about LEO?
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  8. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The rulings being referred to by yourself are invalid on the basis of violating binding precedent set in the Heller, McDonald, and Caetano rulings, which have gone out of their way to state that the second amendment extents to all implements that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the ratification of the united states constitution, and could not have been imagined by the first congress.

    Beyond such, the rulings referred to by yourself have stated that the prohibitions on so-called "assault weapons" are justified on the basis that the public perceives a greater measure of hypothetical safety, even if such safety does not exist. Such is no basis for a legal ruling. Feelings are immaterial and irrelevant.
     
  9. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I suggest that you read Ronstar's posts about Scalia's Supreme Court accepting a ban on assault weapons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  10. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suggest that both you and Ronstar read what SCOTUS themselves said in Missouri v Jenkins and Maryland v Baltimore Radio Show:

    "Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. However, as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins,[22] such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]" In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. (1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  11. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And every one of those "recent rulings" prove that the courts have become corrupted and today act as nothing but agents of authoritarianism and tyranny.
     
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The posts by the member in question have indeed been read, and they remain factually incorrect, despite the constant denials and claims to the contrary.
     

Share This Page