Gun Owners fight back against totalitarian gun ban passed in Illinois town

[Claudette]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

it may just be the fact that local government doesn't have the ability to regulate firearms to this level, and the State or County is the only level of government that could do this.

Home rule in a local government flows DOWN from the State constitution, executive, and legislature, not the other way around.

Local jurisdictions can implement measures as long as they don't directly conflict with existing state statutes, I believe.

True, but Chicago has proved how ineffective these laws are.

Yup. They have to strictest gun laws in America and have effectively disarmed all their law abiding citizens.

The only people in that city who carry guns are the gangbanger and criminals and you can bet your ass they didn't get their guns at a gun store and they never filled out any paperwork about a gun.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

They are infringing on our right. Bit by bit until the right is gone. Cities will determine what you can and can not have and punish you if you disagree. Banks and credit cards will stop you from buying a gun using your debit card. Taxing ammo to the hilt. Gov. passing laws and restrictions on who is allowed to own a gun.
The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...

The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...
This is where you folks have gone wrong. Instead of joining the debate sensibly to influence measures that you feel will work, you all keep jumping to this conspiratorial garbage that of course no one can prove is wrong, because it has never happened and never will. But hey, it sends gun owners into a tizzy and that's just as good, huh?

When they conspire openly, it is no longer a theory.

 

[2aguy]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

Becasue the guns they banned are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment, as codified by the D.C. v. Heller decision, the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision, as well as several others...they have violated the U.S. Constitution......the AR-15 civilian rifle and all other semi automatic rifles are the most popular rifles in this country, together they are over 16 million in private hands....they also ban the most popular types of shotgun and pistols........

 

[danielpalos]

Muster gun lovers who want an AR.

 

[skookerasbil]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

No worries.... they did the exact same assault weapons ban in New York and Connecticut in early 2013.... hardly anybody complied..... less than 4% in both states

 

[iceberg]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

Because....

Never mind.

 

[iceberg]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

They are infringing on our right. Bit by bit until the right is gone. Cities will determine what you can and can not have and punish you if you disagree. Banks and credit cards will stop you from buying a gun using your debit card. Taxing ammo to the hilt. Gov. passing laws and restrictions on who is allowed to own a gun.
The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...

The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...
This is where you folks have gone wrong. Instead of joining the debate sensibly to influence measures that you feel will work, you all keep jumping to this conspiratorial garbage that of course no one can prove is wrong, because it has never happened and never will. But hey, it sends gun owners into a tizzy and that's just as good, huh?

Kinda like instead of learning about guns and their differences, we just ban them all.

 

[MindWars]

If these liberal morons think Americans are going to give up their guns they live in another world. As we watch what has happened in EUROPEAN countries with countless women getting raped little girls included, murder rates off the charts..... AMERICAN'S AREN'T ABOUT TO GIVE UP JACK CHIT A.H.

Great Movement on Twitter
INCREDIBLE! This man is 100% correct! The overwhelming MAJORITY of gun owners in America are law-abiding citizens—restricting guns only prevents the law-abiding from protecting themselves and does NOTHING to solve the problem. #ImTheMajority #2a #DefendTheSecond




12.3K views
0:05 / 2:18
8:41 AM - 7 Apr 2018

 

[MindWars]

How Gun Ownership Protects Citizens From An Abusive Government

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

They are infringing on our right. Bit by bit until the right is gone. Cities will determine what you can and can not have and punish you if you disagree. Banks and credit cards will stop you from buying a gun using your debit card. Taxing ammo to the hilt. Gov. passing laws and restrictions on who is allowed to own a gun.
The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...

The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...
This is where you folks have gone wrong. Instead of joining the debate sensibly to influence measures that you feel will work, you all keep jumping to this conspiratorial garbage that of course no one can prove is wrong, because it has never happened and never will. But hey, it sends gun owners into a tizzy and that's just as good, huh?

Kinda like instead of learning about guns and their differences, we just ban them all.

You are brandishing the word Ban. They aren't banned. The law reads

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."

It isn't banned at all. You can have one or 2 or even a hundred but YOU have to have a Firearms License. That is not hard to get since it has the same requirement you must pass to register any firearm when you buy one without a firearms license. And it doesn't apply to normal hunting rifles and shotguns. it specifically targets rifles based on Military Assault Rifles like the M-16 and the AK-47. The only class of weapons that are specifically banned are Nuclear weapons. All other weapons are not banned, they are regulated through licensing and do have specific handling and storage requirement. BTW, the same firearms license that the town says you need for the AR-15 also allows you to own a real M-16 if there are no ordinances against owning the M-16. But to have that license, you will need a storage locker that is lockable that is heavy enough that it can't be carried off manually. MOST AR owners already have that. If you don't, you are a damned fool anyway. So stop with the "BAN" crap unless we are discussing Nuclear Weapons.

 

[iceberg]

Illinois town faces lawsuit after semi-automatic weapons ban

We all knew it was bound to happen. More than likely will end up at Supreme Court because we all should know how libtarded Illinois is and I don't expect much common sense from any of their courts.

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

They are infringing on our right. Bit by bit until the right is gone. Cities will determine what you can and can not have and punish you if you disagree. Banks and credit cards will stop you from buying a gun using your debit card. Taxing ammo to the hilt. Gov. passing laws and restrictions on who is allowed to own a gun.
The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...

The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...
This is where you folks have gone wrong. Instead of joining the debate sensibly to influence measures that you feel will work, you all keep jumping to this conspiratorial garbage that of course no one can prove is wrong, because it has never happened and never will. But hey, it sends gun owners into a tizzy and that's just as good, huh?

Kinda like instead of learning about guns and their differences, we just ban them all.

You are brandishing the word Ban. They aren't banned. The law reads

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."

It isn't banned at all. You can have one or 2 or even a hundred but YOU have to have a Firearms License. That is not hard to get since it has the same requirement you must pass to register any firearm when you buy one without a firearms license. And it doesn't apply to normal hunting rifles and shotguns. it specifically targets rifles based on Military Assault Rifles like the M-16 and the AK-47. The only class of weapons that are specifically banned are Nuclear weapons. All other weapons are not banned, they are regulated through licensing and do have specific handling and storage requirement. BTW, the same firearms license that the town says you need for the AR-15 also allows you to own a real M-16 if there are no ordinances against owning the M-16. But to have that license, you will need a storage locker that is lockable that is heavy enough that it can't be carried off manually. MOST AR owners already have that. If you don't, you are a damned fool anyway. So stop with the "BAN" crap unless we are discussing Nuclear Weapons.

since you got this - please tell me the functional difference between a .223 sporting rifle, semi automatic with a 10 round clip and an AR of the same capacity clip.

i'm anxious to see how we define these by their specific traits as "military".

i'll grab a soda while you regail me with this one.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Rather odd yes, how 'gun huggers' fight government with the courts, and not their guns as they always promise to do.

That is a good model gun licks, don't stray from that path. False bravado and cowardice has served the gun industry for decades so why break with tradition.

 

[iceberg]

Rather odd yes, how 'gun huggers' fight government with the courts, and not their guns as they always promise to do.

That is a good model gun licks, don't stray from that path. False bravado and cowardice has served the gun industry for decades so why break with tradition.

because that is the civil way to do things.

now, there are some assholes who've stormed gov buildings to be sure. and there are some that used weapons to stand their own ground. but hey, you get your shot in and sit back in that chair and feel all smug.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why would it end up in the Supreme Court when not all guns are banned?

They are infringing on our right. Bit by bit until the right is gone. Cities will determine what you can and can not have and punish you if you disagree. Banks and credit cards will stop you from buying a gun using your debit card. Taxing ammo to the hilt. Gov. passing laws and restrictions on who is allowed to own a gun.
The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...

The UN needs us unarmed before they take over...
This is where you folks have gone wrong. Instead of joining the debate sensibly to influence measures that you feel will work, you all keep jumping to this conspiratorial garbage that of course no one can prove is wrong, because it has never happened and never will. But hey, it sends gun owners into a tizzy and that's just as good, huh?

Kinda like instead of learning about guns and their differences, we just ban them all.

You are brandishing the word Ban. They aren't banned. The law reads

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."

It isn't banned at all. You can have one or 2 or even a hundred but YOU have to have a Firearms License. That is not hard to get since it has the same requirement you must pass to register any firearm when you buy one without a firearms license. And it doesn't apply to normal hunting rifles and shotguns. it specifically targets rifles based on Military Assault Rifles like the M-16 and the AK-47. The only class of weapons that are specifically banned are Nuclear weapons. All other weapons are not banned, they are regulated through licensing and do have specific handling and storage requirement. BTW, the same firearms license that the town says you need for the AR-15 also allows you to own a real M-16 if there are no ordinances against owning the M-16. But to have that license, you will need a storage locker that is lockable that is heavy enough that it can't be carried off manually. MOST AR owners already have that. If you don't, you are a damned fool anyway. So stop with the "BAN" crap unless we are discussing Nuclear Weapons.

since you got this - please tell me the functional difference between a .223 sporting rifle, semi automatic with a 10 round clip and an AR of the same capacity clip.

i'm anxious to see how we define these by their specific traits as "military".

i'll grab a soda while you regail me with this one.

The AR-15,like the M-16, is a piston gas system direct impengment. It doesn't even require it to be in contact with anything at the end of the stock to cycle. It's very, very fast since it was originally designed to be an automatic weapon as well. It uses Aluminum parts where it can get way with it keeping the moving mass down. The firing mechanism is the reason it responds so well to a bump stock where other semi autos don't. It's not that it fires faster it's that it doesn't need any backward force to allow it to fire. it's just too close to the M-16 in design overall. I think the biggest thing is, there is a Cult thing going on that there isn't with any other gun. This is why it's the weapon of choice for Mass Shootings. Overseas, it's the AK-47 and Variants.

The Mini-14 uses a gas operated rotating bolt and cannot use direct impengment. it's also fast. It's based directly off the M-14. But it uses quite a few steel action parts. The Mini-14 is one tough cookie. Bump Stocks won't work on the Mini-14. I guess we can call the Mini-14 the Gentleman's choice and the first choice for hunting.

As for the claim that the AR-15 is the highest sold civilian rifle/shotgun? Not even close.

AR-15 3+million (an estimate only since everyone's mother makes one)
Model 870 11+million
Marlin Model 60 11+million
Mossberg 500 10+million
Model 1894 7.5+million
M-1/2/3Carbine 6.5+Million
Model 1100 4+million

The Clear Winner is the Marlin Model 60 for Rifles and always has been for decades. The Clear Winner for Shotguns is the Model 870 for Shotguns. Most of us have owned or do own both. And they are still the clear winners in sales even today. The AR made the top 10 list but not the top 5 list. Most of us only own one type of a given weapon while you AR nutjobs will own more than one AR. If you look at the numbers own per person, the AR wouldn't even make the top 100 list. It's only popular because of the high profile crimes it is used on and the Cult nature.

 

[iceberg]

Well played.

 

[danielpalos]

Organize the town militia!

 

[Pop23]

Rather odd yes, how 'gun huggers' fight government with the courts, and not their guns as they always promise to do.

That is a good model gun licks, don't stray from that path. False bravado and cowardice has served the gun industry for decades so why break with tradition.

This one isn't using the courts:

Campus Rape Survivor: I Wish I'd Had A Gun To Defend Myself

“He had a knife, I had pepper spray,” Lopez-Rivas told News 4 JAX. “And even though I ran for blue lights that are scattered all around, [he was] faster, stronger, and I did not win. . . The way that I carry [my gun] now, I would have been able to prevent what happened to me.”

I applaud her, be prepared or be a victim

 

[danielpalos]

In 1796, the watch was reorganized, and the watchmen carried a badge of office, a rattle, and a six-foot pole, which was painted blue and white with a hook on one end and a bill on the other. The hook was used to grab fleeing criminals, and the rounded "bill" was used as a weapon. The rattle was a noise-making device used for calling for assistance.[4][5]

Boston Police Department - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

Organize the Night Watch!

 

[my2¢]

When the news first came out I read where the language in the ban is based on another town's ban that went to the Supreme Court and the court refused to hear it.

Chicago Tribune, December 7, 2015:

The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Monday to take up a challenge to Highland Park's ban on assault weapons protects similar restrictions in Chicago and other parts of Illinois and sends a message that municipalities have the right to determine how to best protect their communities, according to legal experts.

The lack of action was a blow to the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates who had hoped the high court would issue a ruling that once and for all clarified whether weapons such as AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis are protected under the Constitution.

The court's decision to reject the case comes on the heels of a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., in which AR-15-style rifles were used to carry out what officials have determined was a terrorist act.

The case placed Highland Park, a mostly affluent suburb on the North Shore, in the midst of the heated battle over Second Amendment rights, but city officials said their goal always has been simply to keep mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Conn., from happening there.

Supreme Court rejection of gun case considered a victory by Highland Park