Illinois town bans assault weapons

[Bearcatrp]

Here is another town in Illinois banning assault weapons.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerf ... index.html

[ex-LT]

They didn't just ban "assault weapons", they completely redefined the term. What they did was ban ALL semi-automatic firearms.

Own a Ruger 10-22? Congratulations, you now own an assault weapon. Turn it in or face a $1000/day fine.
Own a Remington 100? Ditto.
How about a 1911? It's ours now.
Winchester Model 100? Confiscated.

Every pro-2A group in the country should be beating down the doors of the IL Supreme Court, challenging this OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional ban.

[Rip Van Winkle]

It's only unConstitutional if the courts strike it down. I have no confidence that will happen.

The Supreme Court has already refused to hear 2 or 3 gun ban cases the lower courts have upheld.

[Ghost]

It's only unConstitutional if the courts strike it down. I have no confidence that will happen.

The Supreme Court has already refused to hear 2 or 3 gun ban cases the lower courts have upheld.

This

[Hmac]

In the end, I suspect that "assault weapons" will end up NOT being determined as being addressed by the second amendment. The most relevant question left to decide is exactly what an "assault weapon" is. The other important question is what will happen to "assault weapons" that are already out there. Will they be grandfathered? Nobody knows yet. I do suspect that we are about one assault weapon-inspired mass shooting away from outright confiscation. The sad part is...we all know that there will be another one.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/04/0 ... ss-lawsuit

Young’s ruling depended heavily on an analysis in late former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on possession of handguns.

From Young’s ruling:

“Another important limitation articulated by the Supreme Court is that the weapons protected under the Second Amendment ‘were those “in common use at the time.”‘ More specifically, Justice Scalia explained that ‘weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like’ are not protected under the Second Amendment and ‘may be banned.'”

Young noted that the AR-15 was developed for the military and adopted by the Army (and renamed the M-16) in 1964.

In his ruling, Young wrote that assault or military-style weapons are not within the scope of Second Amendment rights, and made a key distinction based on Heller:

“As noted…the Supreme Court explained in Caetano that ‘Heller rejected the proposition ‘that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected’ … Heller did not make such a rejection, however, in order to conclude that all weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

[Rip Van Winkle]

"Assault Weapons" will end up being defined by the broadest definition the anti's can make stick.

[Hmac]

"Assault Weapons" will end up being defined by the broadest definition the anti's can make stick.

And unfortunately, they're holding all the cards.

[mrp]

They didn't just ban "assault weapons", they completely redefined the term. What they did was ban ALL semi-automatic firearms.

Where did you hear that?

The didn't redefine the term. They had an existing ordinance which defined "assault weapons" based on features, as we're all used to seeing. That ordinance did not ban assault weapons, but regulated storage and transportation.

The revised ordinance does not change the existing definition of "assault weapon" at all. What it does do is ban their possession.

Also new is a ban on normal capacity magazines.

So, while it certainly sucks and I'm glad to see The SAF and now the NRA have filed lawsuits, there's a lot of bogus FUD flying around. People are saying it bans semi-automatic rifles, which is true - it bans SOME semi-automatic rifles (the ones you'd expect to see categorized as "assault weapons" if you've been paying attention to what states are trying to ban). It also bans SOME semi-automatic pistols - but again they're the ones you'd expect to see (MAC-10 and Uzi, not Glocks and Sigs.). And finally, yes it includes shotguns (e.g., Streetsweeper), but not your M2 or A5)

You can read the ordinance and see exactly what's changing here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/d ... story.html

[hard h2o]

From the article: 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."

So what did they ban exactly? Sounds like if I have it in a locked cabinet like all my firearms at the moment ("not immediately accessible to any person") or in a case while in transport like I do on my way hunting or to the range ("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.") then I would be good.

What am I missing?

[hard h2o]

I think the article is a bit misleading. They included the verbiage about transportation that I copied above but failed to note the verbiage from the actual law pertaining to storage that says: "It shall be unlawful to possess, bear, manufacture, sell, transfer, transport, store or keep any assault weapon in the Village."

Sorry I posted first after just reading the article.

Does this seem contradictory to anyone else?

Sec. 15-87. Safe Storage of Assault Weapons; Exceptions.
(a) It shall be unlawful to possess, bear, manufacture, sell, transfer,
transport, store or keep any assault weapon in the Village.

Section 15-88. Transportation of Assault Weapons; Exceptions.
(a) It is unlawful and a violation of this section for any person to carry, keep, bear,
transport or possess an assault weapon in the Village, except that this section does
not apply to or affect transportation of assault weapons that meet one of the following
conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or and
(ii) are not immediately accessible to any person; or
(iii) are 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

I am not sure but I think my firearms would be forever in "transportation mode" and never in "storage".

[Bearcatrp]

Non functioning state can mean allot. Upper and lower apart, trigger removed, etc. just hope it gets challenged and thrown out.

[mrp]

Section 15-88. Transportation of Assault Weapons; Exceptions.

That's probably in there to comply with the federal safe passage provision of FOPA. That exception does not help residents of Deerfield, though, as it's only transportation if you're going from one place where you can legally possess the firearm to another place where you can. If you're a resident, you're not travelling. If you've stopped to spend a few days, you're not travelling.

There are problems with some states (looking at you, New York and New Jersey) not respecting safe passage, and fixes have gone nowhere in congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/358/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22interstate+transportation+of+firearms%5C%22%22%5D%7D&r=2

The current law reads:

18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

[2in2out]

I really hope this is the one that goes all the way, is struck down and becomes precedent. We need a win to push back against the emboldened delusional anti's.

[jgalt]

It includes anything with a fixed magazine of more than 10 rounds.

You got an old semi-auto 22 that holds more than 10 rounds in the tube? Better get rid of it!

http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/06/my-familys-peashooter-is-an-now-an-illeg

[hard h2o]

It includes anything with a fixed magazine of more than 10 rounds.

You got an old semi-auto 22 that holds more than 10 rounds in the tube? Better get rid of it!

http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/06/my-familys-peashooter-is-an-now-an-illeg

I thought it excluded tubular magazines?