This tells me that it really was not challenged.
Fights on!
Posted on 04/03/2018 9:13:39 AM PDT by Simon Green
Owners of assault weapons living in Deerfield have until June 13 to remove the firearms from village limits or face daily fines after a ban was approved Monday night.
The Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved a ban on certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, amending a 2013 ordinance that regulated the storage of those items.
The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the legislation. One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers, according to Village Manager Kent Street.
Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney. He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.
Street said the new law is modeled after one approved by Highland Park in 2013. That ban survived a legal challenge by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U. S. Supreme Court let the decision stand.
Unlike Highland Park, Deerfield opted not to enact a total ban on assault weapons during a 10-day window that Illinois lawmakers’ gave home-rule municipalities in 2013 before the state’s new Firearm Concealed Carry Act eliminated their ability to do so.
However, Deerfield trustees did enact an ordinance defining assault weapons and requiring the safe storage and safe transportation of those weapons within the village. That measure, which was enacted during the permitted time frame, preserved Deerfield's right to amend the ordinance in the future, Street previously said.
Rose said the ordinance is based on one passed in 2013 by Highland Park that withstood a legal challenge of its constitutionality.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
How are they even going to know?
As unenforceable as that one city in Italy(?) that banned boiling live lobsters in your home.
This tells me that it really was not challenged.
Fights on!
Ignore this unConstitutional “law.” Civil Disobedience first, if that fails then - armed rebellion.
"Shall not be infringed"
NOW ENFORCE IT!
Enact the fourteenth amendment... section three I believe.
Illinois has total preemption...unless the filth have found some kind of loophole thanks to the previous Gov. Quinn (D).
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3642696/posts
Gun Grab - Boil the frog scenario
Fines for non-compliance (Boil the frog).
So they’ll go door to door to demand an inspection of the home to see if they have one?
Liberal! Come and get them...
Perfect example of boiling the frog gun grab.
The SC has ruled that criminals don’t have to declare they have weapons because it’s forced incrimination.
So if they make you a criminal by passing that law and then come around and asks you if you have one the SC says you don’t have to admit that you do.
Is there a Military Base there where these Select Fire “Assault Weapons” are stored?
Assault Weapon = What any inanimate object is called after someone hits you upside the Head with one.
So, owners of these firearms in Deerfield are now felons in their own homes, but have committed no crime.
Felons are not required to register their firearms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
Reminds me of how British General Gage ordered the citizens of Boston to turn in their firearms “for safe keeping”. They were never returned.
They better up their life insurance Cap.
“Heller” indicates that the federal government does not have the power under the Constitution to ban the possession of commonly owned firearms. “McDonald” applied that principle to the states and every government under them, via the 14th Amendment.
This could be a fun case...particularly if Ginsberg and/or Stevens retire (or are carried out), and Trump appoints an Originalist in his/her/their place(s). Fun, as in “totally rips the heart out of any law infringing upon the RKBA.”
This burns me up. Except for LEO's we are all second class citizens. Even CA allows former LEO's to get CCW permits in counties where they refuse to issue to any other citizen. Sorry, but retired LEO's are no different than retired military, retired civil servant, or just plain retired Joe Citizen.
How isn’t this considered Ex post facto violation?
It’s not right, though exemptions have been worded this way for quite some time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.