Deerfield Bans Assault Weapons But Residents Don’t Want To Talk About It.

[Binder2]

This lawsuit is ONLY about preemption, NOTHING else. There is NO constitutional challenge because Gun Saves Lives is not in for that kind of fight. (Look at how long the challenge is going for the Cook Count Ban) .

 

If GSL wins, good for them. Honestly I don't expect them to. But if they do manage it, expect to see preemption removed from the FCCA. Deerfield's loss could easily trigger that happening. Part of the "deal" about preemption was if you got something on the books, you could modify it later.

[chislinger]

This lawsuit is ONLY about preemption, NOTHING else. There is NO constitutional challenge because Gun Saves Lives is not in for that kind of fight. (Look at how long the challenge is going for the Cook Count Ban) .

 

If GSL wins, good for them. Honestly I don't expect them to. But if they do manage it, expect to see preemption removed from the FCCA. Deerfield's loss could easily trigger that happening. Part of the "deal" about preemption was if you got something on the books, you could modify it later.

But Deerfield doesn't have an existing AWB on the books.

[InterestedBystander]

delete...wrong thread

[Binder2]

 

This lawsuit is ONLY about preemption, NOTHING else. There is NO constitutional challenge because Gun Saves Lives is not in for that kind of fight. (Look at how long the challenge is going for the Cook Count Ban) .

 

If GSL wins, good for them. Honestly I don't expect them to. But if they do manage it, expect to see preemption removed from the FCCA. Deerfield's loss could easily trigger that happening. Part of the "deal" about preemption was if you got something on the books, you could modify it later.

But Deerfield doesn't have an existing AWB on the books.

 

 

They had a Assault Weapon Transport law that was clearly passed as a response to the FCCA. That is why both sides can win. The problem is that the FCCA gave everyone a deadline to get "something" that could be modified at a later date. Well if it turns out no-one can modify their placeholder laws, what do you think is going to be the response of the general assembly?

[Hatchet]

 

 

This lawsuit is ONLY about preemption, NOTHING else. There is NO constitutional challenge because Gun Saves Lives is not in for that kind of fight. (Look at how long the challenge is going for the Cook Count Ban) .

 

If GSL wins, good for them. Honestly I don't expect them to. But if they do manage it, expect to see preemption removed from the FCCA. Deerfield's loss could easily trigger that happening. Part of the "deal" about preemption was if you got something on the books, you could modify it later.

But Deerfield doesn't have an existing AWB on the books.

 

 

They had a Assault Weapon Transport law that was clearly passed as a response to the FCCA. That is why both sides can win. The problem is that the FCCA gave everyone a deadline to get "something" that could be modified at a later date. Well if it turns out no-one can modify their placeholder laws, what do you think is going to be the response of the general assembly?

 

You just said it. They created a transport law not an AWB law. They converted a transport law into a ban law. Which isn't allowed. Otherwise any town could take a jaywalking law and turn it into a AWB.

[steveTA84]

Ah well, screw em. Me and my “assault weapon” had to pass through (yes, I have a CCL).

 

http://i.imgur.com/kBIWT0T.jpg

[tricolor]

I think that Deerfield is desperately hoping that the preemption bill passes the legislature. I also think that they expected to virtue signal and grab headlines then get cover from the general assembly, making any lawsuits moot. Which is why we'll see a big push for preemption in the GA before the end of the session.

 

Here's hoping their music stops and they are left without a chair...

[Binder2]

"They converted a transport law into a ban law. Which isn't allowed." Why not? That transport law was CLEARLY a placeholder and it "regulated" Assault Weapons. And that's the thing, there was no requirement for a ban, just a "regulation". They just did not want to have to defend a AWB until the Cook County (then later Highland Park) cases worked their way though the system.

 

You guys starting to get it. But I think Deerfield could care less if the have a AWB on the books. What Harriet Rosenthal really wants to do is be seen fighting the NRA. So if Deerfield WINS the suit, she is a hero for standing up to the NRA. And the kicker is if they LOSE the case, it just HELPS with in overturning preemption. Is is NOT a civil rights suit, so they are not risking very much at all.

[thedrickster]

 

 

That's why things have gotten to this point because people "don't want to get in the middle of it."

 

 

FACT!

 

If my city passed this law, I'd be more than willing to discuss it and say how stupid and ridiculous the law is...without admitting what I own or don't own. And I don't care what my neighbors think. Perhaps some would be emboldened to speak out after hearing what I've said.

 

 

Important though, to recognize this isn't the 1990s "gun debate". AWBs, etc. are now a Social Justice crusade with all the associated trappings/baggage. In terms of "getting in the middle", Gun Owner isn't a protected class so feel free to thought experiment that out to its logical conclusion.

 

Don't believe for a minute that this is a "debate" amongst two opposing but reasonable sides seeking truth and compromise. It's culture war and we're the target.

[steveTA84]

 

 

That's why things have gotten to this point because people "don't want to get in the middle of it."

 

FACT!

 

If my city passed this law, I'd be more than willing to discuss it and say how stupid and ridiculous the law is...without admitting what I own or don't own. And I don't care what my neighbors think. Perhaps some would be emboldened to speak out after hearing what I've said.

Important though, to recognize this isn't the 1990s "gun debate". AWBs, etc. are now a Social Justice crusade with all the associated trappings/baggage. In terms of "getting in the middle", Gun Owner isn't a protected class so feel free to thought experiment that out to its logical conclusion.

 

Don't believe for a minute that this is a "debate" amongst two opposing but reasonable sides seeking truth and compromise. It's culture war and we're the target.

Couldn’t agree more

[Euler]

Don't believe for a minute that this is a "debate" amongst two opposing but reasonable sides seeking truth and compromise. It's culture war and we're the target.

I believe that some people honestly believe that anyone who owns a firearm is a latent murderer. I think there is a small chance to "talk them off the ledge." The floor of a political arena isn't where that's going to happen, though.

 

But yeah, there are also some who absolutely know better and are waging a culture war. These are the people driving bans, using the other type as witless pawns.

[steveTA84]

 

Don't believe for a minute that this is a "debate" amongst two opposing but reasonable sides seeking truth and compromise. It's culture war and we're the target.

I believe that some people honestly believe that anyone who owns a firearm is a latent murderer. I think there is a small chance to "talk them off the ledge." The floor of a political arena isn't where that's going to happen, though.But yeah, there are also some who absolutely know better and are waging a culture war. These are the people driving bans, using the other type as witless pawns.

I currently work on the North Shore and have patients that are from all over that area. Yes, a good portion of them think gun owners are killers that just need that extra push to flip out. I keep my mouth shut (work and all) but god I want to say something lol

[Jacksinthe]

 

 

Don't believe for a minute that this is a "debate" amongst two opposing but reasonable sides seeking truth and compromise. It's culture war and we're the target.

I believe that some people honestly believe that anyone who owns a firearm is a latent murderer. I think there is a small chance to "talk them off the ledge." The floor of a political arena isn't where that's going to happen, though.But yeah, there are also some who absolutely know better and are waging a culture war. These are the people driving bans, using the other type as witless pawns.

I currently work on the North Shore and have patients that are from all over that area. Yes, a good portion of them think gun owners are killers that just need that extra push to flip out. I keep my mouth shut (work and all) but god I want to say something lol

"Over 100 million gun owners in the country and only 13 thousand homicides, including justifiable. If gun owners were the problem I'm pretty sure we'd know by now"

[steveTA84]

Every. Single. One of them that I talk with who brings it up, every time, says how many children have to die before we finally ban guns???? I shrug it off, but I what I want to say I cant post here, because as I am slowly learning on this forum, sometimes things are better left unsaid lol. Ill keep the poo flinging in other forums

[drumgod]

The response I've been giving the "for the children" types lately is: If you really wanted to save the lives of children you would be pushing for the legal driving age to be raised to 21. Many more children are killed every year in auto accidents than by gunfire but you're not doing anything that... Why?

[cybermgk]

Every. Single. One of them that I talk with who brings it up, every time, says how many children have to die before we finally ban guns???? I shrug it off, but I what I want to say I cant post here, because as I am slowly learning on this forum, sometimes things are better left unsaid lol. Ill keep the poo flinging in other forums

Well, to that you start with, banning guns won't stop crazies from killing children. It hasn't stopped it in other countries. A truck running down children as they leave school would be just as bad. Actually that would be worse, as it would be harder to defend against. School Shootings, however CAN be defended against, and not by banning guns. It is the relatively unprotected state of schools, that allow School Shootings. Why are there no shootings in court and government buildings?.

 

Then, you go to the statistics. Tell them any given student has a 1 in 614 MILLION chance of being shot in school. That is a lower chance than winning the lottery (1 in 260 Million to 290 million, mega vs powerball). That's when you point out that they have a dramatically higher chance of dying just travelling to and from school, from a myriad of causes. Mention that they have a higher chance of dying from playing interschool sports, Strangulation, drug overdose, suicide, text related accident, car accident in general.

 

Then finish up with are they willing to live with the estimated 500,000 to 3 million defensive use of guns turning into crime induced deaths instead? If even 1% of the lowest estimate does, that is 5000 people (and could be as much as 20,000-30,000) killed each year because they no longer can defend themselves with their firearms. Many of those WOULD be children. But, considering 1% is rather low, the number would be more like 50,000 or more. Tell them to compare that to the 200 lives lost, total SINCE 1999 (or 11 per year).

 

They will soon get to showing they have no real interest in saving lives, but in grabbing guns.

[steveTA84]

 

Every. Single. One of them that I talk with who brings it up, every time, says how many children have to die before we finally ban guns???? I shrug it off, but I what I want to say I cant post here, because as I am slowly learning on this forum, sometimes things are better left unsaid lol. Ill keep the poo flinging in other forums

 

Well, to that you start with, banning guns won't stop crazies from killing children. It hasn't stopped it in other countries. A truck running down children as they leave school would be just as bad. Actually that would be worse, as it would be harder to defend against. School Shootings, however CAN be defended against, and not by banning guns. It is the relatively unprotected state of schools, that allow School Shootings. Why are there no shootings in court and government buildings?.

 

Then, you go to the statistics. Tell them any given student has a 1 in 614 MILLION chance of being shot in school. That is a lower chance than winning the lottery (1 in 260 Million to 290 million, mega vs powerball). That's when you point out that they have a dramatically higher chance of dying just travelling to and from school, from a myriad of causes. Mention that they have a higher chance of dying from playing interschool sports, Strangulation, drug overdose, suicide, text related accident, car accident in general.

 

Then finish up with are they willing to live with the estimated 500,000 to 3 million defensive use of guns turning into crime induced deaths instead? If even 1% of the lowest estimate does, that is 5000 people (and could be as much as 20,000-30,000) killed each year because they no longer can defend themselves with their firearms. Many of those WOULD be children. But, considering 1% is rather low, the number would be more like 50,000 or more. Tell them to compare that to the 200 lives lost, total SINCE 1999 (or 11 per year).

 

They will soon get to showing they have no real interest in saving lives, but in grabbing guns.

those are logical facts, these people don’t care about facts nor do they have much logic

[cybermgk]

 

 

Every. Single. One of them that I talk with who brings it up, every time, says how many children have to die before we finally ban guns???? I shrug it off, but I what I want to say I cant post here, because as I am slowly learning on this forum, sometimes things are better left unsaid lol. Ill keep the poo flinging in other forums

Well, to that you start with, banning guns won't stop crazies from killing children. It hasn't stopped it in other countries. A truck running down children as they leave school would be just as bad. Actually that would be worse, as it would be harder to defend against. School Shootings, however CAN be defended against, and not by banning guns. It is the relatively unprotected state of schools, that allow School Shootings. Why are there no shootings in court and government buildings?.

 

Then, you go to the statistics. Tell them any given student has a 1 in 614 MILLION chance of being shot in school. That is a lower chance than winning the lottery (1 in 260 Million to 290 million, mega vs powerball). That's when you point out that they have a dramatically higher chance of dying just travelling to and from school, from a myriad of causes. Mention that they have a higher chance of dying from playing interschool sports, Strangulation, drug overdose, suicide, text related accident, car accident in general.

 

Then finish up with are they willing to live with the estimated 500,000 to 3 million defensive use of guns turning into crime induced deaths instead? If even 1% of the lowest estimate does, that is 5000 people (and could be as much as 20,000-30,000) killed each year because they no longer can defend themselves with their firearms. Many of those WOULD be children. But, considering 1% is rather low, the number would be more like 50,000 or more. Tell them to compare that to the 200 lives lost, total SINCE 1999 (or 11 per year).

 

They will soon get to showing they have no real interest in saving lives, but in grabbing guns.

those are logical facts, these people don’t care about facts nor do they have much logic

 

Oh, I agree, but it gets them to show their true face, and that is they want to ban all guns. And, it usually gets them to say it in a very, less than calm and collective way. IF there is anyone around that is 'middle of the road', it shows them as well.

[cybermgk]

"They converted a transport law into a ban law. Which isn't allowed." Why not? That transport law was CLEARLY a placeholder and it "regulated" Assault Weapons. And that's the thing, there was no requirement for a ban, just a "regulation". They just did not want to have to defend a AWB until the Cook County (then later Highland Park) cases worked their way though the system.

 

 

The addition to law says nada about 'placeholders'

 

 

 

© Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly. Any ordinance or regulation described in this subsection © enacted more than 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly is invalid. 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. The enactment or amendment of ordinances under this subsection © are subject to the submission requirements of Section 13.3.

 

Yes, it does mention that regulations may be amended. But, as you can see it says any ordinances as described in subsection C, may be amended after the fact. Subsection C,is the above section. I.E. ordinances/regulations that "purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons". SO, it clearly states that unless there was an ordinance that "regulates the possession or ownership of assault weapons" in place up to 10 days after enactment, it is invalid. Any ordinance/regulation that DID "regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons" in place by that deadline can be amended afterwards.

 

IF, certain communities, reps, Senators didn't read the language, and thought otherwise, shame on them. A blank, position holder Ordinance, imho (IANAL) fails to qualify. Deerfield's, I will agree has some greyness to it, as it did put some restrictions on ownership.

 

That is just the verbatim of the law passed. To me, it is very obvious what the spirit/intention is. AWBs are the provenance of the state, period. However, we will not invalidate any ordinances already in place, and will give a short bit of time for municipalities to do so, or forever cede this authority to the state. Empty 'hold' bills', and similar, go against the spirit/intention.

[kwc]

 

Then, you go to the statistics. Tell them any given student has a 1 in 614 MILLION chance of being shot in school. That is a lower chance than winning the lottery (1 in 260 Million to 290 million, mega vs powerball).

This seems waaaayyyy too low.

 

According to the Dept of Education, there are around 51 million K-12 students in the U.S.

 

I have read that on average, 10 children have been slain in school shootings each year over the past quarter-century. If that is accurate, over a 13-year education for a typical child, 130 students will have been slain across the U.S.

 

That equates to around a 1 in 5 million chance annually or a 392,000 chance over a full secondary education of being killed in a school shooting.

 

And there are only 325 million people living in the entire United States.

[rmart]

That 1:614,000,000 number is quoted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/school-shootings-are-extraordinarily-rare-why-is-fear-of-them-driving-policy/2018/03/08/f4ead9f2-2247-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.186b8c28162d and includes all school shootings since 1999.

 

I'm not sure about the math but over a 20 year period that's a lot of kids making it through school without being shot.

[kwc]

I see... That article is a little more clear: the number represents the likelihood of being shot on any given day. Cumulative risk is actually much higher.

[cybermgk]

I see... That article is a little more clear: the number represents the likelihood of being shot on any given day. Cumulative risk is actually much higher.

Yes, and the point is, they have a much higher risk from a whole pantheon of everyday risks on a daily basis (getting to and from school, slipping in showers, sports injuries, etc. etc.).

[kwc]

I agree. 100 kids die per year riding bikes to school. So the relative risk of being a victim of violence is low, but IMHO it’s important for our schools and teachers to be ready.

[cybermgk]

I agree. 100 kids die per year riding bikes to school. So the relative risk of being a victim of violence is low, but IMHO it’s important for our schools and teachers to be ready.

Oh, no question. I have no problems with hardening our schools, preparing staff and students. It's when we try to take away rights for such an actual rare occurrence, that there is an issue.

[Giant Teddybear]

Full story at link...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tanyachen/deerfield-illinois-ban-assault-weapons-guns-parkland

The small village of Deerfield, Illinois, introduced a dramatic and sweeping assault weapons ban after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. Just don't ask them about it.

DEERFIELD, Illinois You can drive from one end of Deerfield, Illinois, to the other in about 15 minutes. Bookended by Panera Breads and surrounded by country clubs, theres a strip mall, a high school, and some renovated municipal buildings serving a community of about 18,000 with a median income of roughly $133,000. A train will take you into downtown Chicago in less than hour.

But theres one thing in this average suburban idyll that has residents afraid to talk: I'd rather stay out of it... I don't have an opinion... It's probably best I don't say anything at all anymore.

BuzzFeed News traveled to Deerfield to speak to residents about the gun ban, but encountered a village very much on edge. Many residents declined to speak, fearing backlash. Few who did talk wanted to use their full names. Several parents sent repeated messages or emails marked URGENT following interviews with their children, asking with an increasing level of concern that their names not be used. (Some names in this story have been partially or fully withheld in an effort to let subjects speak freely or at the request of parents).

I really dont want to be difficult, said one parent, but we are very sensitive about these things and also there are people who are acting irrationally about the ban.

Pro-gun residents in Deerfield are also biting their tongue. One local gun owner, Brian, initially was reluctant to be interviewed. But the NRA-certified private gun instructor soon began firing off reasons he thought the ban was "stupid."

Still, he said, "I don't want to get in the middle of it."

BuzzFeed News attempted to interview Deerfields mayor and several board members. Receptionists politely took calls, transferred them, and let them ring to voicemail. When BuzzFeed News showed up in person at the city offices, Assistant Village Manager Andrew Lichterman stepped out to shake hands, but said all information pertinent to the ban was available online, and officials weren't interested in commenting any further. When BuzzFeed News asked for clarification on the details of the ordinance, and queried how it will be enforced, Deerfield Police Commander Brian Budny said repeatedly to refer to the village's website.

Sounds like a good 2nd Amendment lawsuit.

 

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

 

[Gamma]

My take on their not wanting to talk about it: It sounds to me that they think we as gun owners will take revenge on their actions by shooting up their schools or some public gathering. It is just sad that many non gun owners have such low opinions of gun owners.

 

Of course they do, because that's what they think they would do if they had an "assault weapon". Also why no-carry stickers are their security blankets. It's a foundation of the mental dysfunction that fuels gun control:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

[Gamma]

 

 

Don't believe for a minute that this is a "debate" amongst two opposing but reasonable sides seeking truth and compromise. It's culture war and we're the target.

I believe that some people honestly believe that anyone who owns a firearm is a latent murderer. I think there is a small chance to "talk them off the ledge." The floor of a political arena isn't where that's going to happen, though.But yeah, there are also some who absolutely know better and are waging a culture war. These are the people driving bans, using the other type as witless pawns.

I currently work on the North Shore and have patients that are from all over that area. Yes, a good portion of them think gun owners are killers that just need that extra push to flip out. I keep my mouth shut (work and all) but god I want to say something lol

 

Look at the jpfo article I just posted. It's 18 years old, not much has changed.

[steveTA84]

Don't believe for a minute that this is a "debate" amongst two opposing but reasonable sides seeking truth and compromise. It's culture war and we're the target.

I believe that some people honestly believe that anyone who owns a firearm is a latent murderer. I think there is a small chance to "talk them off the ledge." The floor of a political arena isn't where that's going to happen, though.But yeah, there are also some who absolutely know better and are waging a culture war. These are the people driving bans, using the other type as witless pawns.

 

I currently work on the North Shore and have patients that are from all over that area. Yes, a good portion of them think gun owners are killers that just need that extra push to flip out. I keep my mouth shut (work and all) but god I want to say something lol

 

Look at the jpfo article I just posted. It's 18 years old, not much has changed.

 

Although the JPFO has been obsorbed into the SAF, their articles are freaking awesome and spot on. Wish the NRA felt as strongly as they do

 

Actually, if you watch the full town hall when they voted for this, a leader of the JPFO spoke and nailed it. Maybe they sent full dissolved

[kk5]

 

My take on their not wanting to talk about it: It sounds to me that they think we as gun owners will take revenge on their actions by shooting up their schools or some public gathering. It is just sad that many non gun owners have such low opinions of gun owners.

 

Of course they do, because that's what they think they would do if they had an "assault weapon". Also why no-carry stickers are their security blankets. It's a foundation of the mental dysfunction that fuels gun control:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

 

 

Awesome article, and you are right nothing has changed in 18 years