cybermgk Posted October 15, 2018 at 02:17 PM Share Posted October 15, 2018 at 02:17 PM The ordinance bans rifles, pistols and shotguns. Are you saying that their bogus definition labeling rifles, pistols and shotguns as "assault weapons" is correct?No. But since they defined 'assault weapon' within the ordinance, that's the only one that matters when interpreting the intent. I don't like the term--these types of weapons don't assault anyone. I'm out. But, that is part of 357's point. The REAL meaning of an Assault Rifle does matter, as in select fire automatic rifles designed for military use. (Those are already illegal to buy, particularly in Illinois). The Ordinance's attempt to redefine that term is central and germaine to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 15, 2018 at 02:48 PM Share Posted October 15, 2018 at 02:48 PM But, that is part of 357's point. The REAL meaning of an Assault Rifle does matter, as in select fire automatic rifles designed for military use. Ok. The Ordinance's attempt to redefine that term is central and germaine to the discussion. The ordinance doesn't use that term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted October 15, 2018 at 03:15 PM Share Posted October 15, 2018 at 03:15 PM But, that is part of 357's point. The REAL meaning of an Assault Rifle does matter, as in select fire automatic rifles designed for military use. Ok. The Ordinance's attempt to redefine that term is central and germaine to the discussion.The ordinance doesn't use that term. No, it uses Assault weapon, and does so on purpose to align the twwo together erroneously, and you darn well know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crufflesmuth Posted October 16, 2018 at 01:19 AM Share Posted October 16, 2018 at 01:19 AM The ordinance adds weapons not previously classed as 'Assault Weapons', to that term. So essentially, according to Deerfield, ANY semiautomatic pistol with any removable magazine in addition to any rifle that is semiautomatic. This **** needs to be beaten to death by SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 16, 2018 at 03:07 AM Share Posted October 16, 2018 at 03:07 AM He he he, Kavanaugh will get another crack at a AWB, but this time he won't be writing the dissent There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. … It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. - Judge Kavanaugh - https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 16, 2018 at 03:23 AM Share Posted October 16, 2018 at 03:23 AM Some amazing parallels between Heller II and Deerfield Heller established that traditional and common gun laws in the United States remain constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court simply pushed back against an outlier local law – D.C.’s handgun ban – that went far beyond the traditional line of gun regulation... After Heller, however, D.C. seemed not to heed the Supreme Court’s message. Instead, D.C. appeared to push the envelope again, with its new ban on semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles have not traditionally been banned and are in common use today, and are thus protected under Heller. Put simply, it would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semiautomatic rifles. - Judge Kavanaugh - https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted October 16, 2018 at 04:23 AM Share Posted October 16, 2018 at 04:23 AM But how long will it realistically take to get to the Supreme Court?AND I can see two major municipalities in Illinois that would prefer Deerfield back down than let it go that far to have their “ordinances” on “modern rifles” shot down. (pun intended :-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 16, 2018 at 04:31 AM Share Posted October 16, 2018 at 04:31 AM Illinois has a history of generating landmark Second Amendment cases due to the idiocy of its politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crufflesmuth Posted October 16, 2018 at 10:34 PM Share Posted October 16, 2018 at 10:34 PM But how long will it realistically take to get to the Supreme Court?AND I can see two major municipalities in Illinois that would prefer Deerfield back down than let it go that far to have their “ordinances” on “modern rifles” shot down.(pun intended :-) ) Those two municipalities can shove it where the sun don't shine. I hope the plaintiff's appeal all the way to SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 17, 2018 at 04:58 AM Share Posted October 17, 2018 at 04:58 AM Yes it takes a very long time for violations of our Second Amendment rights to be overturned. The wheels of justice turn slowly but they grind exceedingly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted October 18, 2018 at 05:39 AM Share Posted October 18, 2018 at 05:39 AM But how long will it realistically take to get to the Supreme Court?AND I can see two major municipalities in Illinois that would prefer Deerfield back down than let it go that far to have their “ordinances” on “modern rifles” shot down.(pun intended :-) )It's not only two municipalities, this is another copy and paste from the others and there's a strategy and a conspiracy to deprive Americans of their 2nd amendment rights with unconstitutional laws based on lies and propaganda and bribes. Millions of people have been waiting for relief from the Supreme Court since 2006 and millions more since 2013 in states like Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Colorado from laws passed in the middle of the night by politicians beholden to Bloomberg to impose his agenda on us. You are mistaken but they're not backing down and are trying to impose these bogus laws in the whole state of Illinois and at the federal level. It's not costing Deerfield anything and doesn't have to pay legal fees. ''On Monday, May 7, the Deerfield Village Board unanimously approved the pro bono services of both the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the “Brady Center”) and Mr. Christopher Wilson, managing partner of the Chicago office of Perkins Coie (“Perkins”) to assist in the representation of the Village in the two lawsuits filed in the Lake County Circuit Court challenging the Village’s Assault Weapons Ordinance.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 18, 2018 at 11:05 AM Share Posted October 18, 2018 at 11:05 AM One good thing about this case, unlike many other Illinois constitutional infringements, is that the judge issued a restraining order. So it is possible that as the case makes its way through the courts the village will continually be under a restraining order until the law's is eventually ruled unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted October 18, 2018 at 05:26 PM Share Posted October 18, 2018 at 05:26 PM My honest opinion....There are too many "assault-type/military style" weapons out in the wild for them to be banned. The ATF rules are archaic. Technology (YouTube, forums) and advancements (especially on the AR platform) has rendered most rules moot. *Braces have made the term "rifle" antiquated. All of my AR's are pistols. *.458 SOCOM will blow up the term "high capacity" mag. Going forward, all 5.56 mags should be stamped .458 SOCOM and we should consider ourselves "lucky" that a 10 round .458 mag just happens to hold 30 rounds of .223/5.56/.300BLK, and that it only takes about 20 seconds to swap complete uppers. *80% lowers allow for AR's to be put in the hands of anyone (good or bad) with no way to confirm any type of build date. With so many AR's in the public's hands already....any type of ban would have to have a grandfather clause. An 80% lower makes a grandfather clause useless since anyone could build one at any time. You can't ban the top selling semi-automatic rifle in America. It will eventually reach the SC and such weapons will be allowed (IMO), and trying a blanket ban of all semi-automatic, mag fed weapons is comical at this point. Such a ban is the only way to capture all "assault-type" weapons, but such a ban would be challenged and struck down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted October 18, 2018 at 07:30 PM Share Posted October 18, 2018 at 07:30 PM One good thing about this case, unlike many other Illinois constitutional infringements, is that the judge issued a restraining order. So it is possible that as the case makes its way through the courts the village will continually be under a restraining order until the law's is eventually ruled unconstitutional.One good thing about this case, unlike many other Illinois constitutional infringements, is that the judge issued a restraining order. So it is possible that as the case makes its way through the courts the village will continually be under a restraining order until the law's is eventually ruled unconstitutional.Let's hope it doesn't fall in the hands of a liberal activist judge like the last couple of times. There's split circuit decisions and the Supreme Court needs to take and strike down these unconstitutional laws for good and leave no loopholes like in 2008 and 2010. Some cities and towns think they are their own country and can pass any laws they want and ignore the Constitution and people's rights. There's hope now with Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted October 18, 2018 at 08:19 PM Author Share Posted October 18, 2018 at 08:19 PM Anyone have an update from yesterdays court hearing?Keep your on on this thread.http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=68553Nothing at the moment, shows there was a hearing 10/12 and nothing new is scheduled.No new documents have been files yet.Updated the original referenced post. Next court event is 1/18/2019 http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=68553&p=1177802 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.