|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IL: Assault Weapons Ban by Local Ordinance is a Thing
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Deerfield, Illinois, is the second Chicago suburb to pass an assault weapons ban by local ordinance. While retired police are exempt, anyone possessing a banned gun in the village’s jurisdiction after June 13, 2018, will be fined $1,000 per day.
The village of Deerfield, Illinois, a suburb outside of Chicago, recently banned the possession, sale and manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines by public ordinance. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/29/2018)
|
Let me summarize U.S. v. Miller for emphasis:
1) reasonable relationship to the . . . efficiency of a well regulated militia
2) any part of the ordinary military equpiment
3) could contribute to the common defense
4) IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
