Anti-gun extremists use lies to justify rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinios....

[2aguy]

A judge put a stay on the Deerfield law.......it is likely that it won't last because it is in violation of the preemption laws of the state.....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.

But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.

You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...

There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.

Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......

We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...

This is truly ignorant nonsense.

The Heller Court made no determination with regard to the constitutionality of assault weapon bans; the case concerned solely the banning of handguns in the District of Columbia.

The Heller Court did not establish a standard of judicial review with regard to firearm regulatory measures.

And McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, saying nothing about what level of judicial review was to be used when examining firearm regulatory measures or the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.

As long as states and local jurisdictions don’t attempt to ban the possession of handguns, as long as residents of a given state or jurisdiction have access to firearms, states and jurisdictions are at liberty to place restrictions on particular classes of firearms.

You don't know what you are talking about......

Heller.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


And because gun banners like you have a hard time reading english.....Scalia explains it again in Friedman v Highland Park....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

------------------------




The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Let's look at the trigger words. HANDGUNS. HOME. Not Exclusive. Normal. Lawful.

Now, let's look at what the City tried to do. Just a fast overview. They tried to have EVERY firearm be required to be Registered. And every firearm to have to be stored unloaded and have trigger guards making them worthless for home defense. It went as far as requiring some to be disassembled and outlawing others. The Supreme court bounced the parts that I listed above as going to far. But it did support the part of taking your firearm into the street as it had no bearing on your home defense. It did NOT overturn the AR ruling either. Not all of the law was overturned, just those parts I listed.

Please stop misrepresenting the Heller Case. It gets people killed when someone that normally would not break any laws decides that you are right and then confronts the cops who WILL kill them over it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A judge put a stay on the Deerfield law.......it is likely that it won't last because it is in violation of the preemption laws of the state.....

Only because it demands the total destruction of the AR. It can be amended to read that those that have a designated storage with reduced mag capacity will be allowed and it will fly. But to confiscate them all and destroy them will not happen. Both sides forget there is a huge difference between Regulation and Banning.