Rejoice gun ban advocates! Just try to keep it in your pants, okay?

YES! Now this is "gun grabbing". Not control, grabbing like kids that just busted open a pinata.
It's only one town, but even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. So....Deerfield Illinois is trying for a COMPLETE BAN on "assault weapons" as they define them.
Finally - Deerfield hasn't had a gun homicide since.......forever but now they will extend that to infinity!
The dozen or so people in Deerfield owning assault weapons will have until June to get rid of them. Now if they want to get shot they have to travel into Chicago, just a few minutes away. Any thoughts?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...assault-weapon-ban-lawsuit-tl-0412-story.html

Unconstitutional, fails first challenge.

I would have thought so, but the article says the main argument is about an Illinois law that supposedly made such bans illegal. Which would seem to suggest that they weren't too obviously unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, in gungrabbing Canuckistan, here's a sample of what qualified and registered owners can lay their hands upon.

Shockingly, very few of these types of gun are involved in crimes other than rural domestic murders.

hmmm......maybe people are the main factor in gun violence and not the guns themselves. Just a theory mind you. But considering Deerfield has almost zero gun crime (I used to live minutes from there, and have had family members who worked there for years) and probably has only a handful of "assault weapon" owners this is the most pointless "feel good"gun control measure to come down the pike in a long time.

Tick... tick... tick...

"qualified and registered"
just means people like me can't get one legally.

same goes with ammunition. no license, no bullets.

we've been over how it isn't much harder to get a license here than in more moderate states.

If you bothered to read the linked article, moron, you would know that it's about the first challenge, and the case brought by both sides. Instead, shithead, you chose to ignore it. Are you afraid to discuss the issue?

The village of Deerfield IL (pop 18,000) amended a 2013 statute limiting the use of assault rifles. The amendment called for an outright ban. It is being challenged on a technicality that it is outside a 10 day window allowed by the IL legislature in 2013 for such legislation to be enacted, allowed by IL's concealed carry act.

In case this is too subtle for you, what it means is they already had a law restricting assault weapons 5 years ago.

In practice it means about as much as a dry county's ban on alcohol: an inconvenience.

In the big picture, fuckhead, it's an indication of the rising tide of sentiment against gun fanatics and their self serving fetish.

so what do you mean by "people like me" can't get these guns anyway?

yes "gun fanatics" being any private citizen who owns or uses a gun not related to their security or cop job.

Any that refuse to discuss meaningful gun control, at least. That accounts for all of the gun owners here, except one.

You mean the same gun owners who accuse anyone who thinks some restrictions on certain weapons and the way they are purchased might be a good thing is a "gun-grabber?"

I don't mind the moniker "gun-grabber," but yes, those would be the ones.

So your argument is "federal law outweighs states rights as long as it does what I want"?

all u want to know about the fat hairy gun loving guitar hero

Well, maybe more than you want to know.

Jesus, who pissed in your Cornflakes this morning, champ?

Puffins here, mate. It's a persona I've adopted to get attention. Seems to be working.

I don't want to ban all guns.
I just want to take away gunforge's guns to make them sad, and feel like their pee-pees shrunk.
Then I want to videotape the sobbing, and edit it into a dance remix.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

The fact that levels of gun violence in the US are quite proportional to the number of guns the psychos in your population have access to (not saying that your population has more violent people than any other) is entirely a coincidence.

Yeah, would=be mass murderers will just use Ginsu knives instead. "If Ginsu knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have Ginsu knives"

#FloridabrokeSteve.

Isn’t this just a case of preemption?

In many States, the State Legislature passed preemptive laws to prevent every tiny hamlet from making up their own set of laws and oridinances for their own little kingdoms.

The most common example here were erratic speed limit changes that created speed traps for non-locals. So, the Legislature declared preemption over all US, AL, and County roadways. Every speed limit change must now be done by ALDOT and approved by the District Engineer.

Florida did the same thing with guns. Every city wanted to do their own thing. Obviously, Miami in the 80’s wanted more restrictions than, say, Pensacola. So, you had this Byzantine set of rules, laws, and restrictions. Eventually the Legislature declared that enough was enough and set one law for the whole state and tagged it with a preemption notice forbidding counties and municipalities from doing their own thing.

That makes sense. But that would imply that none of the individual rule sets are obviously unconstitutional, right? You don't need preemption to stop small communities from breaking the Constitution.

is this Deerfield incident your idea of "meaningful gun gun control?" Just curious.

maybe the article wasn't clear - or maybe my thoughts & sentiments weren't clear. I will try this approach:
1) Deerfield is safer than 89 percent of the locations in the US. Yes, that includes tiny towns in Iowa, Idaho, Vermont, etc.
2) Deerfield has almost no gun violence annually & zero gun homicides in recent memory.
3) Deerfield gun owners are the best example of "law abiding responsible gun owners" as you will ever find.
These are the last people you would need to take guns (of any type) from if you are actually trying to prevent crimes/save lives/make the world a better place.
Granted if stirring up shit to make a misguided political statement is their aim (no pun intended) in the gun control issue then they hit the bulls-eye.
4) Unless there is a 100 percent check of every person & vehicle coming into Deerfield 24/7 365 days a year and a 100 percent check of every property assault
weapons will exist in Deerfield. Deerfield, the town with no gun homicides from any gun, let alone an "assault weapon".
5) Take a peek at the facts about Deerfield and tell me if it's The Wild West and that there is any logical need to ban assault weapons. Try to keep a straight face if you can. I stand corrected! It's safer than 82 not 87 percent of the locations. Still not a violent hell-hole full of crazed gun owners ready to snap.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...assault-weapon-ban-lawsuit-tl-0412-story.html
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/deerfield/crime

Is there any form of gun control that you don't conflate with gun grabbing? Just curious.

I already outlined my ideas in other threads. Background checks, mandatory training & testing for example are not gun grabbing. Pulling a technicality out of your ass after five years that would (if it goes through) limit otherwise law abiding citizens from owning certain types of weapons that (at least in Deerfield) have never been used in a gun crime
is the very definition of gun grabbing. I hope this shit blows up epically in their face and exposes this punk ass move as the political shenanigans that it is. But hey, those gun homicides in nearby Chicago will stop though, right? Well maybe not but Deerfield will be (somehow) safer than it already is.