You Can't Take Em 'Judge Blocks Chgo Suburb's Gun Ban Hours Before Going Into Effect .....

More defeat and failure for the leftness.




Zero hour was approaching for the law-abiding gun owners of Deerfield, Illinois. The village had banned the ownership of so-called assault weapons, which in reality meant AR-15 rifles and any other firearm that carried a detachable magazine capable of holding ten or more rounds. That’s how Deerfield defined a so-called assault weapon.


On June 13, the anti-gun ordinance passed by the Chicago suburb would have gone into effect. It was essentially a gun ban, and there were no exceptions. It’s either you turn them over, move, or risk facing a $250-$1,000/ day noncompliance fee. Yeah, the AR-15 and other rifles the anti-gun Left finds scary were banned, but it also included scores of handguns. Magazines holding 15 rounds are not uncommon. Luckily, a circuit court judge blocked this law 24 hours from going into effect. And yes, legal challenges were filed against this grossly unconstitutional law (via Vice News):


It’s not over. A proposed ballot initiative in Oregon would force AR-15 owners to register their rifles with the state, destroy them, or surrender them to the authorities. They would also have the option to transfer them out of the state. Boulder, Colorado also passed a law banning high capacity magazines and so-called assault weapons within the city limits. The anti-gun Left is waging a war against the Second Amendment and the Constitution. It will be greatly expanded if Democrats win the 2018 midterms, so don’t forget to vote. ….snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...alted-n2490096

 

How long before the ruling of the circuit court judge is overruled?

 

As soon as it gets to the 7th. They've already upheld a city ban in Friedman v Highland Park, stating "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit."

 

In other words, if the sheep want to embrace all kinds of idiotic behavior, no matter now inane, if it makes them feel safer "that's a substantial benefit."

What a load of crap.

 

It would seem somebody just came out of the closet as a Gun Ban advocate.

 

Then when it gets to the SCOTUS.

 

Pray tell whom?

 

Good. The 2nd amendment prevails.

 

"If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit."

Proof.

Bannerrhoid talk.

 

Worse than that, they apply that reasoning any part of the Constitution that is inconvenient until they see the opportunity to use it as a shield.

 

Yeah, that is bannerhoid talk. That's the majority opinion in Friedman v Highland Park. It isn't my opinion.

Are you accusing me of being a gun banner?

 

I am not accusing anyone, simply if it waddles, quacks, has a bill.......
Watch out for Elmer Fudd.....
Just sayin.....

 

Re:

So, briefly put, it is just a "feel good" measure that is not intended or expected to accomplish anything.

 

First off, yes you were accusing. At least have the balls to own it.
Second, you clearly have no clue if you think Rucker61 is a gun banner.

 

My understanding of the Deerfield case is that the Judge was not delaying the Deerfield gun ban on 2nd Amendment grounds but because the gun ban was tacked on to previous local gun ordinances that made no mention of banning anything.

As much as I would love to see this odious & clearly unconstitutional gun ban quashed, I'm afraid that it may be upheld upon appeal.

 

Re:

The way I understood "Rucker61's" Post #3 is that he was quoting the majority opinion in Friedman v Highland Park, not expressing his own opinion.

 

Some autocrat in some rinky dink township tried to do that in PA and the state quickly passed a state preemption law so that no local government can pass any gun control law. Our local rag of course considered it "common sense" to allow 500 some local governments to make their own gun laws.

 

Perhaps,
It was.

 

Dude, that was sooooo Gay.
Stay out of it.
And you post your fair share of Gun Bannerrhoid talk too,
Even I post a certain amount from time to time.

 

That's why I included quotes around the statement "If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit." It's a direct quote from the majority opinion. When people quote someone else, they use quotation marks to indicate that reference. Here's a quote from the dissent, which I do endorse:

"Still, the court FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK THOMAS, J., dissenting concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest balancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The entire purpose of the OP was to show the disdain in which I hold the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held jurisdiction over Friedman v Highland Park and would hold jurisdiction over the case in discussion.

 

Point taken, apologies etc...

 

Accepted, and thanks.

 

Public message board...I can post to whomever I please.

Nope....never once posted anything ADVOCATING any type of gun bans.

 

"... and any other firearm that carried a detachable magazine capable of holding ten or more rounds."

That is, all of them. This is FAR broader than any ban heard by any court, and cannot, under any rational and honest reading of the law, pass muster.

 

Then perhaps this one will finally be taken up by the united state supreme court.