[L,TOWM]

You [mis]place a lot of faith in the courts, FRiend... A similar law has already survived court scrutiny:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1698803.html

And SCOTUS let it stand.

[WayneS]

That’s a good point. The Deerfield ban appears to be modeled after, if not worded the same, as the Highland Park ban which the supreme court refused to hear.

[i_robot73]

>
You [mis]place a lot of faith in the courts, FRiend... A similar law has already survived court scrutiny:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1698803.html

And SCOTUS let it stand.
>

“...Heller does not purport to define the full scope of the Second Amendment. The Court has not told us what other entitlements the Second Amendment creates or what kinds of gun regulations legislatures may enact. Instead the Court has alerted other judges, in Heller and again in McDonald, that the Second Amendment “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 786 (plurality opinion); Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27 & n. 26. Cautionary language about what has been left open should not be read as if it were part of the Constitution or answered all possible questions. It is enough to say, as we did in Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641, that at least some categorical limits on the kinds of weapons that can be possessed are proper, and that they need not mirror restrictions that were on the books in 1791...”

Yep, because the Courts have YET to get around to reading the last FOUR words of the 2nd: “shall NOT be infringed”, let alone pick-up a dictionary and thesaurus.

[Bonemaker]

Illannoy now has preemption. Localities can’t do this. But I don’t trust judges least of all from criminalannoy.

[editor-surveyor]

.
When?
.