Viewing 8 reply threads
  • Author
    • #49950
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 187
      • Comments: 428
      • Overall: 615

      Deerfield bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

      By Steve Sadin of Pioneer Press

      Owners of assault weapons living in north suburban Deerfield have until June 13 to remove the firearms from village limits or face daily fines after a ban was approved Monday night.

      The Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved a ban on certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, amending a 2013 ordinance that regulated the storage of those items.

      The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the legislation. One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers, according to Village Manager Kent Street.

      Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney. He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.

      Street said the new law is modeled after one approved by Highland Park in 2013. That ban survived a legal challenge by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U. S. Supreme Court let the decision stand.

      Unlike Highland Park, Deerfield opted not to enact a total ban on assault weapons during a 10-day window that Illinois lawmakers’ gave home-rule municipalities in 2013 before the state’s new Firearm Concealed Carry Act eliminated their ability to do so.

      However, Deerfield trustees did enact an ordinance defining assault weapons and requiring the safe storage and safe transportation of those weapons within the village. That measure, which was enacted during the permitted time frame, preserved Deerfield’s right to amend the ordinance in the future, Street previously said.

      Rose said the ordinance is based on one passed in 2013 by Highland Park that withstood a legal challenge of its constitutionality.

      “This is not only held constitutional by the Seventh Circuit but similar laws have been ruled constitutional in California, the District of Columbia and Maryland,” Rose said last month.

      The original resolution said that since Deerfield enacted its regulations, “assault weapons have been increasingly used in an alarming number of notorious mass shooting incidents at public schools, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation.”

      In the ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.

      The rationale mentions four recent shooting incidents that have claimed a total of 150 lives: The shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 dead; a massacre at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas that killed 26 people; the Las Vegas music festival shooting that left 58 dead and the Pulse Nightclub mass shooting in Orlando, Fla. that killed 49 people.

      Though the trustees had virtually no debate Monday night, more than 70 people attended the meeting. Of the 20 people who spoke, 14 were opposed to the ordinance and six supported it. Eight of 14 people who expressed opposition to the ban said they lived outside Deerfield.

      Opponents of the ban like Larry Nordal of Deerfield cited their rights under the Second Amendment and expressed fear that more restrictive laws would be passed in the future.

      “The ordinance to store firearms was only passed for one reason,” Nordal said. “That was to have an amendatory vehicle that could be used in the future for just this purpose so you could banish assorted firearms in the future. First it’s going to be assault rifles. (There will be) new bans in the future. It’s just a matter of time.”

      Ariella Kharasch, a Deerfield High School senior who favors the legislation, said she wants more action both on a local and national level.

      “This is our fight,” Kharasch said. “This is our generation’s fight. We’re going to keep fighting and this is part of it. Change happens gradually step by step. The fight does not end at the borders of our village.”

      Joel Siegel of Lincolnwood said governments in other countries have banned weapons and then proceeded to use weapons against defenseless citizens. He urged civil disobedience as a way to stay safe.

      “There’s an ancient and honored American tradition called disobeying an unjust law,” Siegel said. “I have urged (people) to listen to their conscience and if so moved do not obey this law.”

      Mike Weisman, a Glen Ellyn resident and a board member of the Illinois State Rifle Association said Deerfield should be prepared for a lawsuit like the one filed against neighboring Highland Park. That city received assistance with its legal defense from gun violence prevention organizations, according to Street.

      While the trustees did not discuss their reasons for supporting the ordinance at this meeting, Trustee Barbara Struthers said she knew of people who were opposed but chose not to come and speak because it would subject them to ridicule in the community. She wants none of that.

      “I’m going to vote for the ordinance but people who disagree with the gun owners should not be beating them over the head just because they disagree,” Struthers said.


    • #49984
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 43
      • Comments: 223
      • Overall: 266

      Well, isn’t that just scary as $%!+

      So any handgun that has a rail section on it that could accept a laser, could also have a detachable vertical grip put on and therefore would also be included as an assault weapon.

      It also looks like any lever action rifle with a tubular magazine is also an assault rifle.

    • #49995
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 76
      • Comments: 807
      • Overall: 883

      Ummmm isn’t Uzi a brand ?

      How exactly are they going to enforce the ordinance ? As far as knowing you have a particular arm in your home ?

      I suppose you’ll have to plug that Henry, Winchester , Marlin PCC to 9 rounds with a plug that requires disassembly to remove .
      Snakes in a basket I say , it’s getting there kids keep monkeying around and that 5 round M37 is gonna get used to get the snakes outta the basket and on to the grill .

    • #50011
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 187
      • Comments: 428
      • Overall: 615

      Interweb shows…

      UZI a registered trade marked name by IMI/IWI of Isreal
      (Hebrew: עוזי‬, officially cased as UZI)
      Noun uzi (plural uzis)

      The first Uzi submachine gun was designed by Major Uziel Gal in the late 1940s. The prototype was finished in 1950. First introduced to IDF special forces in 1954, the weapon was placed into general issue two years later. The Uzi has found use as a personal defense weapon by rear-echelon troops, officers, artillery troops and tankers, as well as a frontline weapon by elite light infantry assault forces.

      The Uzi has been exported to over 90 countries.[4] Over its service lifetime, it has been manufactured by Israel Military Industries, FN Herstal, and other manufacturers. From the 1960s through the 1980s, more Uzi submachine guns were sold to more military, law enforcement and security markets than any other submachine gun ever made.

      A type of compact submachine gun, having a caliber of 9 millimeters with ammunition housed in the grip of the weapon.

      So like Kleenex or Xerox it’s been appropriated to mean a general class of items.


      Developed by 26 year old lieutenant Uziel Gal(d. 2002 aged 78) of the IDF.
      Went into production 1955. 9mm Sub Machine Gun accurate to 150 metres.
      Mass produced under licend by FN of Belgium.
      Currently in use, Netherlands, Germany, U.S, Ireland.
      Particularly popular with Special forces and HRT’s.
      Other’s in same family…
      Mini uzi variant developed 1980.
      Micro uzi
      Uzi machine pistol

      Despite popular belief, it is unlikely that so called “Gangstas” would typically posses such a weapon.
      Owing to its cost (in excess of $6,000)
      Weapons commonly mislabelled as “uzis” include
      Scorpion vz 61 machine pistol
      Ingram Mac 10 and
      SWD/Military Armament Company Model 11/9
      (effective range of short sight radius is about 25 metres.
      Could explain why “ganstas” can’t hit intended victims at all.
      That plus their lack of firearms training and the inability to straighten their arms)



    • #50017
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 76
      • Comments: 807
      • Overall: 883

      The ownership/manufacture was more or less what I recalled . The FN seems new but not unfamiliar .

      Gansta an gonna chute no UZI . It gots dem sets ona wrong side . 🙂 😉

      I wonder who the judge is that is going to be willing to issue search warrants for an entire town for the purpose of enforcement of a city/town ordinance ?
      Can you imagine the incidental arrests and secondary warrants for illegal controlled substances because someone has expired prescription pain meds from a root canal, appendix , pulled muscle 3 yr ago . While not illegal of themselves they become catch 22 after the use by date and discretionary enforcement . Then it devolves into a witch hunt with a list of household items that can make whatever and bam the guy with a hot tub , a diesel truck , an art major and a thing for roses that does their own vehicle service is a bomb builder prepared to make an incendiary antipersonnel device ……..

      Nope don’t like where that rabbit hole goes .

    • #50331
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 187
      • Comments: 428
      • Overall: 615

      he Boulder City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to advance a ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines in the city.

      In recent weeks, the terms and scope of the council’s proposed ban have been hotly debated, including at a multi-hour public hearing before the council April 5, during a street protest on Broadway and through hundreds of emails to the council from citizens.

      What the council voted for on Tuesday is not final. In order to be adopted as law, it will need to be voted on again at a third reading that will likely take place in the next few weeks.

      It will become effective as soon as it’s adopted. At that point, according to rules the council has agreed on, citizens who own bump stocks will have to get rid of them within 30 days of adoption. They’d have to get rid of magazines with the capacity to hold 10 or more rounds by Dec. 31.

      After lengthy deliberation, the council landed on a law that is in some ways stricter than what City Attorney Tom Carr originally drafted, with many fewer exemptions than might have been included.

      Assault-style weapons, under a specific and technical definition Carr has written, could not be sold or possessed under this law.

      Once the law is formally passed — and assuming the language within it doesn’t change by the third reading — there will be exemptions only for police, federal officers and military personnel.

      Though there was some debate on this matter, a majority of the council seemed to believe that the spirit of the law should be to rid Boulder of AR-15-style weapons, and that broad exemptions — for concealed carry permit holders, for example — could undermine that aim.

      “I think, by and large, we’re focused on a type of weapon to keep it out of civilian society,” Mayor Suzanne Jones said. “Seems to me if you’re in the military or you need (an assault weapon) for your duties, that makes sense. I’m not sure, if you don’t need it for your duties, why you should have it.”

      The council talked at great length about whether gun owners who acquired their assault weapons prior to the new law’s effective date should be required to register those weapons with the city’s police department.

      There is great concern among some about the prospect of gun owners having to be listed on any city registry. Many have already threatened to protest the law, including the registration aspect of it.

      “I will not comply,” read signs waved by some in the audience at Tuesday’s meeting.

      After much conversation, the council seemed to agree to a paper registration system gun owners would have to get certificates for their weapons from the Boulder Police Department and keep their assault weapons and certificates together at all times.

      Police would keep no formal record through registry, however.

      Owners who purchased their weapons prior to this law’s effective date would have until Dec. 31 to claim their certificates.

      That approach to registration won out only after Councilwoman Mirabai Nagle argued against all registration-by-name.

      She won ground there when the council agreed to a paper registration system. She was strongly concerned about the susceptibility to hacking of a potential digital registry.

      Prior to the meeting, Nagle offered an alternative proposal that scrapped the concept of a ban and replaced it with age limits and various other requirements.

      She did not win support for that, but even once it was apparent that her alternative wasn’t going to gain majority support, she lobbied for an ordinance that reflected more of the wishes of gun owners she’s spoken to. Registration, she said, was at the top of their lists of concerns.

      “If this is the opposition side’s No. 1, big, huge thing, I think this would be a good step to get it towards the middle,” said Nagle, arguing for the exclusion of names on any potential registry.

      Prior to digging in to the fine details of the ordinance, the council had some extended debate over whether the pursuit was actually a meaningful one.

      “One of the things I’ve been concerned about with this proposed ordinance is that it creates an illusion of safety, a false sense of security,” Councilwoman Mary Young said. “I hope that if this ordinance passes, that people are aware that this is not going to be the be all to end all. It is, and will be, mostly a symbolic gesture.

      “That has been my concern. I would really like to see us do something that would actually not just address the assault weapons but also address other kinds of gun violence — the kinds of gun violence that students in Chicago have been asking us to address since before the Parkland (Fla.) kids were even born.”

      Nagle added, “I want a very safe community,” but said she felt the ordinance that came before the council on Tuesday was “divisive” and not reflective of compromise between different sides of the issue of gun control.

      Those sides have shown out in force consistently, since the council embarked on this policy push in the wake of the shooting in Parkland.

      Councilwoman Jill Adler Grano, who originally introduced the ordinance to the rest of the council, countered Nagle’s comment.

      “Compromise in itself is not a virtue,” she said.

      Others argued against Young’s suggestion that the measure is mostly “symbolic.”

      Said the mayor: “Just because we can’t solve an entire problem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps to progress.”

      “We can’t be certain that it’s purely symbolic here,” said Councilman Sam Weaver, arguing that the potential of the ordinance to delay access to deadly weapons could, in fact, prove to be meaningful in preventing future harm.

      Council members expect the city will be sued once they pass this law.

      Carr has said he believes that Boulder, as a home-rule city equal to the state on matters of local concern, has good standing.

      There is also some precedent in Colorado for such legislation, as there are existing bans in Denver and Vail.

      Still, Carr said, a suit could be coming.

      “This entire ordinance has some level of risk to it,” he said.

    • #50469
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 187
      • Comments: 428
      • Overall: 615

      May 16, 2018 09:42 AM

      Updated 4 hours 20 minutes ago
      BOULDER, COLO. A Colorado city has banned the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.

      City councilors in Boulder gave final approval to the ban Tuesday night. It was proposed in response to the high school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

      The law requires people who own magazines that hold 10 or more rounds or bump stocks to dispose of them or sell them by July 15. People who already own assault weapons will be able to keep them but must get a certificate proving prior ownership.

      During a public comment period before the vote, attorneys for the Mountain States Legal Foundation told councilors they would challenge the ban in court.

      Read more here:


    • #50505
      Rattlesnake Charlie
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 152
      • Comments: 679
      • Overall: 831

      Stupidity knows no bounds.

    • #50604
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 1
      • Comments: 293
      • Overall: 294

      Went for annual physical this morning, passed the psyc (mostly memory) test OK but one of the questions was ‘do you have guns in the house?’  refused to answer (thank you sen. Cornyn). Also asked if I had a radon detector – nurse didn’t know what radon is.  First time they’ve given me the test – probably had to make a fake test so they could sneak in the gun question.

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 2017 Goodsteel Forum. Designed by Covalent Designs, LLC.