https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/de...rnd/index.html
I have no idea what the Supreme Court implications are or if it meets the Scalia test. Maybe waco can weigh in.
Distance from Morton Grove to Deerfield - 10 miles.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/de...rnd/index.html
I have no idea what the Supreme Court implications are or if it meets the Scalia test. Maybe waco can weigh in.
Distance from Morton Grove to Deerfield - 10 miles.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hem/488987002/The ordinance goes into effect June 13 and makes it unlawful to possess, sell, transport or store assault rifles. The weapons are defined as semi-automatic rifles able to accept a large magazine. The ordinance also bans certain models, including the AR-15, the AK-47 and Uzis.
I tolja, large capacity magazines were going to be the defining characteristic. So it begins.
CaustiicNN told you that story? DUH, don't we have congress here anymore?
Old redneck hillbilly borned and raised on a redwood stump.
That will never stand up to a challenge
Look no further than Chicago to see how well gun control works. Much BS about nothing.
It is on a specific characteristic, not an entire firearms ban on a category of guns.
I think it will pass the Scalia test.
how would they go about banning guns that were already own with in their area? they are outlawing ownership, the national assault weapon ban did not make it illegal to own that which you already had
They are not outlawing ownership:
According to the ordinance, which the the Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved Monday night, it is unlawful for a person "to carry, keep, bear, transport or possess an assault weapon in the Village," except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."
ok, that wording is in-congruent. possess unless you possess it in a box???
Yes. I'm not seeing where you are headed on this point. They are essentially making the weapon non-functional unless you take the time to put it back together and start shooting.
I don't see that it would stop a shooting since anyone who has one of these so-called assault weapons would simply put it into a functioning state and use it, so at most, this is about inconveniencing someone.
But it is the first measure that defined an assault weapon based on the magazine capacity and functionality and I think more is coming.
sorry, I cop to not reading your article because I caught the story on the TV today and of course they didn't give that wording. OK, well, I guess there is no real difference between this and the fed law from the 90s then huh
No prob.
I don't read most of the stuff I post either...
lol