Posted on Apr 4, 2018
Town Bans Assault Weapons. Anyone Who Doesn’t Get Rid of Theirs Will Be Fined $1,000 a Day
3.37K
79
15
6
6
0
Question though- saw this on facebook:
"Members of the Village Board of Trustees in Deerfield, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, voted on the ordinance and unanimously approved the ban, which goes into effect on June 13, according to a report by the Chicago Tribune."
"The ordinance reads: “The possession, manufacture, and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is not reasonably necessary to protect an individual’s right to self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”
Would this be used as case law in the Supreme Court if it was "hypothetically" upheld, to enact in other parts of the United States?
"Members of the Village Board of Trustees in Deerfield, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, voted on the ordinance and unanimously approved the ban, which goes into effect on June 13, according to a report by the Chicago Tribune."
"The ordinance reads: “The possession, manufacture, and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is not reasonably necessary to protect an individual’s right to self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”
Would this be used as case law in the Supreme Court if it was "hypothetically" upheld, to enact in other parts of the United States?
Town Bans Assault Weapons. Anyone Who Doesn’t Get Rid of Theirs Will Be Fined $1,000 a Day
Posted from tribunist.com
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Supreme Court
Constitution
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
16
16
0
District of Columbia v heller (2008) is fairly straightforward. It ruled on a few things, notably on the individuals right to own a firearm with no connection to militia service and also for the individuals right to own a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, like self defense.
The term “assault weapon” is broad and vague. I’m sure a good attorney could argue that it would still fall under the term “firearm”. It would seem to be then, until the day comes that a majority on the Supreme Court exists to overturn Heller, and countless other examples of precedent that continue to uphold the second amendment, people need to realize that guns aren’t going away.
Just like the first amendment, the second is not absolute. You can’t walk into a crowded theater and yell “ fire”, and you can’t walk into your neighborhood gun shop and buy a HIMARS. While I’m sure the folks in Deerfield mean well, trying to eliminate violence by eliminating guns is like trying to eliminate spelling errors by eliminating pencils. That’s just not how the world works. By passing legislation that’s inevitably going to challenged in court, they’ll be spending money on attorneys for years to come that could be better spent on their community and finding actual ways to actually decrease violence.
The term “assault weapon” is broad and vague. I’m sure a good attorney could argue that it would still fall under the term “firearm”. It would seem to be then, until the day comes that a majority on the Supreme Court exists to overturn Heller, and countless other examples of precedent that continue to uphold the second amendment, people need to realize that guns aren’t going away.
Just like the first amendment, the second is not absolute. You can’t walk into a crowded theater and yell “ fire”, and you can’t walk into your neighborhood gun shop and buy a HIMARS. While I’m sure the folks in Deerfield mean well, trying to eliminate violence by eliminating guns is like trying to eliminate spelling errors by eliminating pencils. That’s just not how the world works. By passing legislation that’s inevitably going to challenged in court, they’ll be spending money on attorneys for years to come that could be better spent on their community and finding actual ways to actually decrease violence.
(16)
(0)
10
10
0
9
9
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google