Congratulations to Deerfield!

[supprmann]

Congratulations to Deerfield!!!!! One down.........

 

http://deerfield.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/deerfield-backs-away-from-assault-weapon-ban

[Hi Impact]

Do we have a copy of the proposal to see if it squares with Heller?

[Talonap]

Not really down yet - they can still vote for their "Safe Storage" thing July first. Get a foot in the door for changes to come.

[miztic]

Not really down yet - they can still vote for their "Safe Storage" thing July first. Get a foot in the door for changes to come.

 

Yep, once the 'safe storage' BS is in there they can amend it however they like later into a ban.

[supprmann]

Not really down yet - they can still vote for their "Safe Storage" thing July first. Get a foot in the door for changes to come.

 

Yep, once the 'safe storage' BS is in there they can amend it however they like later into a ban.

 

True......but at least they backed away from a complete ban.......man.....you guys are a tough sell...LOL

[NakPPI]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-DMcRSVR0kyODVoRGtoekF0S0U/edit?usp=sharing

 

Ordinance attached above

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[gearsmithy]

Not really down yet - they can still vote for their "Safe Storage" thing July first. Get a foot in the door for changes to come.

 

Yep, once the 'safe storage' BS is in there they can amend it however they like later into a ban.

 

True......but at least they backed away from a complete ban.......man.....you guys are a tough sell...LOL

 

 

It's still too much...

[cm.stites]

The one good thing is the SAFE STORAGE does violate heller. so you can challenge that and then the whole kaboodle goes bye bye.and if that was thier plan to use for a future ordinance it would suck to be them

[gearsmithy]

The one good thing is the SAFE STORAGE does violate heller. so you can challenge that and then the whole kaboodle goes bye bye.

 

Should we be secretly pushing for"safe storage" then?

[NakPPI]

The one good thing is the SAFE STORAGE does violate heller. so you can challenge that and then the whole kaboodle goes bye bye.

 

It doesn't violate Heller. It specifically allows guns to be carried operable and has a self defense exception. I talked to the village attorney this morning. While this whole thing sucks, I don't think it's unlawful. Confirmed with a 2A attorney as well...

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[cm.stites]

The one good thing is the SAFE STORAGE does violate heller. so you can challenge that and then the whole kaboodle goes bye bye.

 

Should we be secretly pushing for"safe storage" then?

i wouldnt push for anything.. let bloombergs friend rosenthal seal her own fate.

[cm.stites]

The one good thing is the SAFE STORAGE does violate heller. so you can challenge that and then the whole kaboodle goes bye bye.

 

It doesn't violate Heller. It specifically allows guns to be carried operable and has a self defense exception. I talked to the village attorney this morning. While this whole thing sucks, I don't think it's unlawful. Confirmed with a 2A attorney as well...

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

if it requires ANY kind of locking device whether in the home or outside of it it does violate heller. section 15-87 clearly states that weapon must be stored in a locked container or with a mechanical locking device. the exception? by whos definition is a authorized user? anyone you want? so then they made an ordinance that isnt even enforceable? thier own wordiing as to making the firearm inoperable violates heller states, this Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional

[NakPPI]

The one good thing is the SAFE STORAGE does violate heller. so you can challenge that and then the whole kaboodle goes bye bye.

 

It doesn't violate Heller. It specifically allows guns to be carried operable and has a self defense exception. I talked to the village attorney this morning. While this whole thing sucks, I don't think it's unlawful. Confirmed with a 2A attorney as well...

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

if it requires ANY kind of locking device whether in the home or outside of it it does violate heller.

 

That's not what heller said.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Patriots & Tyrants]

 

Take that gun control!

[NakPPI]

 

 

From the village attorney:

 

We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times.  Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). 

This is what made the trigger lock requirement unconstitutional.  The Deerfield ordinance does not require that assault weapons be disabled at all times.  Indeed, it expressly allows such weapons to be carried in the home in an operable condition by the lawful owner or authorized user.  The Deerfield ordinance also has an express self-defense exception

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[supprmann]

I just heard that Buffalo Grove backed off last night as well.....

[cm.stites]

From the village attorney:

 

We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

This is what made the trigger lock requirement unconstitutional. The Deerfield ordinance does not require that assault weapons be disabled at all times. Indeed, it expressly allows such weapons to be carried in the home in an operable condition by the lawful owner or authorized user. The Deerfield ordinance also has an express self-defense exception

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

since when does the second amendment say for authorized users only? thats what deerfields ordinance clearly states the exception as. so whos to deterimine the authorized users? is it rosenthal that gets to determine? is it the firearms owner that gets to determine? is it the citys attorneys job to say whos authorized?

[NakPPI]

From the village attorney:

 

We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

This is what made the trigger lock requirement unconstitutional. The Deerfield ordinance does not require that assault weapons be disabled at all times. Indeed, it expressly allows such weapons to be carried in the home in an operable condition by the lawful owner or authorized user. The Deerfield ordinance also has an express self-defense exception

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

since when does the second amendment say for authorized users only? thats what deerfields ordinance clearly states the exception as. so whos to deterimine the authorized users? is it rosenthal that gets to determine? is it the firearms owner that gets to determine? is it the citys attorneys job to say whos authorized?

 

The owner of the gun or someone authorized by the owner? True, it's undefined, but do you really want to sue just to make them amend it to define the term?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[cm.stites]

(a) safe storage. it shall be unlawful to store or keep any assault weapon in the village unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device,properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other then the owner or other lawfully authorized user.For purposes of this section,such weapon shall not be deemded stored or kept when being carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

 

where does heller say your required to have a lock on your firearms when your not home?

[cm.stites]

From the village attorney:

 

We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

This is what made the trigger lock requirement unconstitutional. The Deerfield ordinance does not require that assault weapons be disabled at all times. Indeed, it expressly allows such weapons to be carried in the home in an operable condition by the lawful owner or authorized user. The Deerfield ordinance also has an express self-defense exception

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

since when does the second amendment say for authorized users only? thats what deerfields ordinance clearly states the exception as. so whos to deterimine the authorized users? is it rosenthal that gets to determine? is it the firearms owner that gets to determine? is it the citys attorneys job to say whos authorized?

 

The owner of the gun or someone authorized by the owner? True, it's undefined, but do you really want to sue just to make them amend it to define the term?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

id sue just to eliminate it all together once they are out of time to enact a different one heller didnt say you had to have a lock on your firearms the minute you left your home.... until they actually enact it you cant do anything about it anyways but once it is sure why not?? they clearly put inoperable in the ordinance .... why let them think they can violate any ruling they want.

[xd9subcompact]

Failed to find a definition of "kept" or "keep" or "under the control". I know that I "keep" guns in my home. I "keep" guns in my car sometimes. I have "kept" stuff in my house. I think that all of my stuff is "under my control", regardless of where I "keep" it.

[cm.stites]

Failed to find a definition of "kept" or "keep" or "under the control". I know that I "keep" guns in my home. I "keep" guns in my car sometimes. I have "kept" stuff in my house. I think that all of my stuff is "under my control", regardless of where I "keep" it.

good point..and whos to say with the way they wrote it if your child uses it in self defense while your not home your going to violate the ordinance...because of the technicality that they may not have a foid card which would make them a unlawful user.

 

 

the city lawyers just doing what hes paid to do with is pretend like they anything they try and pass is lawful.. its also the same city attorney that said they hadnt looked into the costs but 4 minutes later one of the board members said they had.(Farkas to be exact)

[xd9subcompact]

Depending on how he is paid, he might be willing to write anything that generates litigation.

[cm.stites]

Depending on how he is paid, he might be willing to write anything that generates litigation.

hahahaha very true if hes hourly haha.

[xd9subcompact]

Amazing. All of these years pass, not a hint of the need to pass any such at the local level. Now, they feel the need to pass "something" Act now!! Limited time offer!!!

[Xwing]

It's still a crappy ordinance. Hope it fails!!!

[McCroskey]

Hey everybody, some interesting comments going on at this article, care to chime in?

 

http://deerfield.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/deerfield-backs-away-from-assault-weapon-ban

[Patriots & Tyrants]

I didnt know Rham posts under a pseudonym on the patch...I needed a good laugh.

 

NRA shills aka hillbillies lol.....

[McCroskey]

Yeah, I got a kick out of that one. Gotta love the "tolerant" lefties, always the first to resort to personal attacks and ad hominems against those who disagree with them.

[Mr. Fife]

The only thing home rule does is allow a municipality to enact laws that are MORE strict than the state laws.

 

These politicians who want to pass an assault ban are trying to fool their own citizens by making them believe that the village will lose freedoms. The only "freedom" the village will lose is the "freedom" to put their good citizens behind bars for defending themselves and their famiies.

 

Don't let these political hacks fool you or anyone else. Freedom isn't about the "freedom" to put you behind bars. Freedom is about protecting you FROM these political hacks.

 

The laws were written to protect YOU from THEM.