Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.
and with all the guns in Chicago that should be the safest city in America. alas it's not. damn those irresponsible gun owners.
Well, they should just activate the national guard to defend the borders of their city from allowing anyone in.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.
and with all the guns in Chicago that should be the safest city in America. alas it's not. damn those irresponsible gun owners.
Well, they should just activate the national guard to defend the borders of their city from allowing anyone in.
Or a wall around it to keep anyone from getting out!
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.
and with all the guns in Chicago that should be the safest city in America. alas it's not. damn those irresponsible gun owners.
Well, they should just activate the national guard to defend the borders of their city from allowing anyone in.
Or a wall around it to keep anyone from getting out!
And have Texas pay for it. Or Illinois can pay Texas in pop tarts for building it?
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1506 I couldn't find anything about the minutes, but found the actual bill. It looks like you were right. My complaint was more with CNN not accurately reporting this, and not the bill itself. The heading and the contents of the article seemed to contradict. Based on the content, I assumed it was an intentional misleading heading. Turns out the headline in the CNN article may have been right, but then the content was very wrong. It looks as if they were citing an old version of the bill, the portions about safe storage have been removed. The article quotes those exceptions as still current, which would make it not a ban on assault rifles, but more just how to properly store them.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.
and with all the guns in Chicago that should be the safest city in America. alas it's not. damn those irresponsible gun owners.
A great response. And one that is lost on those struggling with gun dependency.
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.
and with all the guns in Chicago that should be the safest city in America. alas it's not. damn those irresponsible gun owners.
Well, they should just activate the national guard to defend the borders of their city from allowing anyone in.
Or a wall around it to keep anyone from getting out!
And have Texas pay for it. Or Illinois can pay Texas in pop tarts for building it?
We’ll send the illegal cheap labor up there to do it, as long as they stay on the inside.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1506 I couldn't find anything about the minutes, but found the actual bill. It looks like you were right. My complaint was more with CNN not accurately reporting this, and not the bill itself. The heading and the contents of the article seemed to contradict. Based on the content, I assumed it was an intentional misleading heading. Turns out the headline in the CNN article may have been right, but then the content was very wrong. It looks as if they were citing an old version of the bill, the portions about safe storage have been removed. The article quotes those exceptions as still current, which would make it not a ban on assault rifles, but more just how to properly store them.
Strike throughs in the bill deleted original language while underlined was added language. It’s all explained in the 120 pages of town council minutes linked in the original CNN article that you originally cited as being a dud. It further explains that those qualifiers of assault weapons being broken down or safely stored are for the purposes of transportation and not possession. Pages 79-90 something are the relevant pages of the document. The rest is about a Sonic drive through requesting an awning, a massage parlor requesting a license and development plans for a particular street, plus arcane budget and salary information, treasurer’s report.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1506 I couldn't find anything about the minutes, but found the actual bill. It looks like you were right. My complaint was more with CNN not accurately reporting this, and not the bill itself. The heading and the contents of the article seemed to contradict. Based on the content, I assumed it was an intentional misleading heading. Turns out the headline in the CNN article may have been right, but then the content was very wrong. It looks as if they were citing an old version of the bill, the portions about safe storage have been removed. The article quotes those exceptions as still current, which would make it not a ban on assault rifles, but more just how to properly store them.
Strike throughs in the bill deleted original language while underlined was added language. It’s all explained in the 120 pages of town council minutes linked in the original CNN article that you originally cited as being a dud. It further explains that those qualifiers of assault weapons being broken down or safely stored are for the purposes of transportation and not possession. Pages 79-90 something are the relevant pages of the document. The rest is about a Sonic drive through requesting an awning, a massage parlor requesting a license and development plans for a particular street, plus arcane budget and salary information, treasurer’s report.
Yes, I know what strikeouts mean. This is what the CNN article states about the law: "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." "
That is not what the bill actually states. Which is why the CNN article is not accurate. There is no exception for possessing an assault rifle when it is "broken down" or "in a non-functioning state" anymore.
CNN is the one that needs a crash-course on strikeouts, they reported that as still optional in the article. Which is why I called it a dud.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1506 I couldn't find anything about the minutes, but found the actual bill. It looks like you were right. My complaint was more with CNN not accurately reporting this, and not the bill itself. The heading and the contents of the article seemed to contradict. Based on the content, I assumed it was an intentional misleading heading. Turns out the headline in the CNN article may have been right, but then the content was very wrong. It looks as if they were citing an old version of the bill, the portions about safe storage have been removed. The article quotes those exceptions as still current, which would make it not a ban on assault rifles, but more just how to properly store them.
Strike throughs in the bill deleted original language while underlined was added language. It’s all explained in the 120 pages of town council minutes linked in the original CNN article that you originally cited as being a dud. It further explains that those qualifiers of assault weapons being broken down or safely stored are for the purposes of transportation and not possession. Pages 79-90 something are the relevant pages of the document. The rest is about a Sonic drive through requesting an awning, a massage parlor requesting a license and development plans for a particular street, plus arcane budget and salary information, treasurer’s report.
Yes, I know what strikeouts mean. This is what the CNN article states about the law: "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." "
That is not what the bill actually states. Which is why the CNN article is not accurate. There is no exception for possessing an assault rifle when it is "broken down" or "in a non-functioning state" anymore.
CNN is the one that needs a crash-course on strikeouts, they reported that as still optional in the article. Which is why I called it a dud.
Except you called the law a total dud, not CNN. And you leave out the key words as they relate to the exemption, “for the purposes of transportation.” The more relevant and salient points are repeated throughout, “it shall be illegal to own, posses, manufacture assault weapons.” How does that language, repeatedly stated, make the bill a dud?
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1506 I couldn't find anything about the minutes, but found the actual bill. It looks like you were right. My complaint was more with CNN not accurately reporting this, and not the bill itself. The heading and the contents of the article seemed to contradict. Based on the content, I assumed it was an intentional misleading heading. Turns out the headline in the CNN article may have been right, but then the content was very wrong. It looks as if they were citing an old version of the bill, the portions about safe storage have been removed. The article quotes those exceptions as still current, which would make it not a ban on assault rifles, but more just how to properly store them.
Strike throughs in the bill deleted original language while underlined was added language. It’s all explained in the 120 pages of town council minutes linked in the original CNN article that you originally cited as being a dud. It further explains that those qualifiers of assault weapons being broken down or safely stored are for the purposes of transportation and not possession. Pages 79-90 something are the relevant pages of the document. The rest is about a Sonic drive through requesting an awning, a massage parlor requesting a license and development plans for a particular street, plus arcane budget and salary information, treasurer’s report.
Yes, I know what strikeouts mean. This is what the CNN article states about the law: "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." "
That is not what the bill actually states. Which is why the CNN article is not accurate. There is no exception for possessing an assault rifle when it is "broken down" or "in a non-functioning state" anymore.
CNN is the one that needs a crash-course on strikeouts, they reported that as still optional in the article. Which is why I called it a dud.
Except you called the law a total dud, not CNN. And you leave out the key words as they relate to the exemption, “for the purposes of transportation.” The more relevant and salient points are repeated throughout, “it shall be illegal to own, posses, manufacture assault weapons.” How does that language, repeatedly stated, make the bill a dud?
I didnt leave anything out, I copied and pasted the entire paragraph in my post
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."
CNN does not relate it to just transportation, they include possessing and keeping in the same sentence. If the bill was what CNN actually quoted it as being, it would still be 100% legal to own an assault rifle in that town. When I called it a dud, I was referring to the heading compared to the contents of what CNN stated the bill to be. Reading the actual bill I wouldn't call the bill a dud, just CNN reporting of it.
Its not even a big deal worth debating over. It's just a pet peeve of mine how Fox gets slammed so hard for being bias and inaccurate (and I don't disagree with that when it comes to a lot of their programming), when other news sources are just as bad in my opinion, but seem to get a free pass. I thought the heading was misleading, turns out the heading was fine but content was just inaccurate. Just as bad journalism in my opinion.
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Not everyone. Just the left.
This might be the dumbest post you've ever made.
Hahaha doesn't even make the playoffs!
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Not everyone. Just the left.
Still afraid of Hillary I see?
Maybe after she can make it up or down a set of stairs without falling or passing out.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Not everyone. Just the left.
This might be the dumbest post you've ever made.
Says a guy who thinks he will get my guns.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Speaking to a lot of people who live in Deerfield through our firearm rights group. NOBODY is going to comply. Good.
I guess it’s somewhat refreshing that some don’t even pretend to care about gun violence. Makes a bit of a change from those who pretend to care but then shoot down every suggestion as unreasonable.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Not everyone. Just the left.
This might be the dumbest post you've ever made.
Says a guy who thinks he will get my guns.
Hahaha see Dyer, you can't be underestimating, the ante is always upped!
Speaking to a lot of people who live in Deerfield through our firearm rights group. NOBODY is going to comply. Good.
You going down to parade around town with your 8 AR15s slung over your shoulder in a show of solidarity? Surround the town hall and police station and stomp your feet?
Speaking to a lot of people who live in Deerfield through our firearm rights group. NOBODY is going to comply. Good.
I don't even need a picture of these brave warriors/patriots. I can totally see them in my mind.
Let's see how defiant they are if the authorities offer them Golden Corral buffet vouchers for their machine guns? They'll cave. They'll cave real quick.
Speaking to a lot of people who live in Deerfield through our firearm rights group. NOBODY is going to comply. Good.
You going down to parade around town with your 8 AR15s slung over your shoulder in a show of solidarity? Surround the town hall and police station and stomp your feet?
As is their right under the law. Good luck with it though as the Deerfield ordinance was modeled on another town’s similar ordinance and the Supreme Court has ruled that firearms can be regulated. We’ll see how it plays out in the courts.
"Cause it's all or none." Anybody watched that Frontline peace on the NRA from a few years ago? Tells you all you need to know about the gun advocate side. No compromise, ever.
Seriously what happened to america? my dad tells me stories of walking into hardware shops in the 50's and 60s and seeing hundreds of military ww2 surplus weapons for sale for literally less than $20 a pop with zero background check. "you over 18? yeah. cool, enjoy this (insert military surplus rifle from ww2)." I mean these weapons were apart of the most destructive war in history and there wasn't any of the mass shootings that we see today. and yes some of those were semi-automatic with high capacity mags. what the heck happened to america?
The NRA sold everyone on the concept of fear. Back then, nobody bought them. Everyone used to leave their back door unlocked, remember? Now? Everyone is a threat. Just ask Unsung.
Not everyone. Just the left.
This might be the dumbest post you've ever made.
Says a guy who thinks he will get my guns.
And with just one post, you've managed to outdo yourself.
It's too late. President Obama and his U.N. troops have the list of registered gun owners and are even now massing on the Deerfield border ready to come in and take away the guns.
It's too late. President Obama and his U.N. troops have the list of registered gun owners and are even now massing on the Deerfield border ready to come in and take away the guns.
It's too late. President Obama and his U.N. troops have the list of registered gun owners and are even now massing on the Deerfield border ready to come in and take away the guns.
Armed with rocks?
Armed with brains.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/1506
I couldn't find anything about the minutes, but found the actual bill. It looks like you were right.
My complaint was more with CNN not accurately reporting this, and not the bill itself. The heading and the contents of the article seemed to contradict. Based on the content, I assumed it was an intentional misleading heading.
Turns out the headline in the CNN article may have been right, but then the content was very wrong. It looks as if they were citing an old version of the bill, the portions about safe storage have been removed. The article quotes those exceptions as still current, which would make it not a ban on assault rifles, but more just how to properly store them.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
This is what the CNN article states about the law:
"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." "
That is not what the bill actually states. Which is why the CNN article is not accurate. There is no exception for possessing an assault rifle when it is "broken down" or "in a non-functioning state" anymore.
CNN is the one that needs a crash-course on strikeouts, they reported that as still optional in the article. Which is why I called it a dud.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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."
CNN does not relate it to just transportation, they include possessing and keeping in the same sentence. If the bill was what CNN actually quoted it as being, it would still be 100% legal to own an assault rifle in that town.
When I called it a dud, I was referring to the heading compared to the contents of what CNN stated the bill to be. Reading the actual bill I wouldn't call the bill a dud, just CNN reporting of it.
Its not even a big deal worth debating over. It's just a pet peeve of mine how Fox gets slammed so hard for being bias and inaccurate (and I don't disagree with that when it comes to a lot of their programming), when other news sources are just as bad in my opinion, but seem to get a free pass. I thought the heading was misleading, turns out the heading was fine but content was just inaccurate. Just as bad journalism in my opinion.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I don't even need a picture of these brave warriors/patriots. I can totally see them in my mind.
Let's see how defiant they are if the authorities offer them Golden Corral buffet vouchers for their machine guns? They'll cave. They'll cave real quick.
Where have I seen something like this before?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©