America's Gun Violence

pjhawks said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Interesting.......

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/981955387166519296?s=19

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.

Source?

usa today reports differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/

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?
 

Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop

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.

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

pjhawks said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Interesting.......

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/981955387166519296?s=19

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.

Source?

usa today reports differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/

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?
 

Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop

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.

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

pjhawks said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Interesting.......

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/981955387166519296?s=19

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.

Source?

usa today reports differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/

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?
 

Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop

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?

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Interesting.......

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/981955387166519296?s=19

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.

Source?

usa today reports differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/

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?
 

Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop

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.

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Interesting.......

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/981955387166519296?s=19

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.

Source?

usa today reports differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/

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?
 

Link was in the original post I responded to. I just clicked on what was originally posted to get that misleading article. That CNN link originally posted is what states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" and not banned, even though the title for that same article says "An Illinois Town Just Banned Assault Rifles."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop

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?

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

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?

unsung said:

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.