Deerfield, IL passes AWB, $1,000 fine per day
This could potentially be Boulder's fate if people dont show up to that meeting this week.
https://t.co/mpQprKxdIl?amp=1
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/...city-magazines
Quote:
Deerfield Village, IL bans possession of assault weapons and high capacity magazines
Apr 04, 2018 9:04am MDT by linguist2011
That’s right, folks you read that right. The simple act of owning an “assault weapon” will soon be illegal in Deerfield Village, with violators facing heavy fines.
But surely, the law abiding citizens will be able to keep their property if they register it with the city, right? Nope, no grandfathering at all. There is also no mention of any form of compensation for the surrendered firearms and magazines. Residents just have to “turn ‘em all in” or else become criminals. Compliant capacity magazines being provided free of charge to replace the “high capacity” magazines that were surrendered? Not a chance. So let’s say you own a handgun with “high capacity” magazines. You’ll have to surrender the “high capacity” magazines and use YOUR OWN MONEY to buy 10 round magazines, assuming the manufacture even makes 10 round mags in the first place. Otherwise your handgun is now useless.
I guess we live in a country where the government can force you to surrender your legally acquired property without so much as a penny in return. Even Australia didn’t go that far. At least they provided some compensation for the guns they confiscated. I guess Deerfield didn’t get the memo.
The funny thing about this egregious act of government overreach is that I was assured by many many gun controllers that it would never happen. “Nobody is going to take your guns,” they exclaimed over and over. “You’re just being paranoid!,” they chided when I questioned their narrative due to their support of Australia-style forced buybacks.
So gun controllers, is this really the kind of legislation you support? I know many of you hate the idea of civilians owning “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines in the first place. But are you really willing to go that far to stop it? No grandfathering, no compensation, no nothing. Do you REALLY think that this is the progressive thing to do? If Trump just forced people to surrender what they legally own, people on the left would call him an authoritarian or a fascist, and they would be right. Not that I would ever support it myself, but wouldn’t you have been happy with simply banning the sale of new “assault” weapons/ high capacity magazines?
I think the biggest question gun controllers will have to answer is how you will react to the inevitable progun backlash. How will you tell a gun owner that “nobody is going to take your guns” when there is a city right here in America that is doing just that. And no, it doesn’t matter that this is only happening in one city. Because tomorrow it could be more. And before you call me paranoid for suggesting that, remember that you probably would have call me paranoid for suggesting that one city would be taking peoples’ guns away. And look how that turned out.
The NRA is just going to love this. Didn’t anybody tell you gun controllers that the worst thing you can do for yourself is to give merit to your opponent’s claims? So now, the next time a gun controller recites the “nobody is going to take your guns” line, the NRA will point to Deerfield where gun controllers did just that. And then what will you do? Will you downplay the incident and swear that MOST gun controllers don’t want to take your guns? Or maybe you will retort that “nobody needs an AR-15” and claim that gun owners have no reason to be upset because the government deigned not to completely ban guns. How you respond is up to you, but the standard “nobody is going to take your guns” line along with accusations of paranoia isn’t going to convince any gun owner who has been paying attention.
I know that I was lumping all gun controllers together, and I know that not all gun controllers support this kind of draconian legislation. But the fact remains that progun people such as myself will be referring to the Deerfield case as solid evidence that the slippery slope on gun control maybe isn’t such a fallacy after all. Whether you love or hate the NRA, you have to admit that even gun control that DOESN’T take peoples’ guns galvanizes their supporters. So just think of what happens now that there is gun control that DOES take peoples’ guns. So gun controllers, its time for you as individuals to choose: Do you stand with the Deerfield legislators who would force at least partial disarmament upon law abiding gun owners without any form of compensation? Or do you support more mild gun control measures such as UBC, training requirements and disarming domestic abusers? You can sound off in the poll below, and remember that if you click no, that still leaves plenty of room for other gun control measures. As a progressive and as a law abiding gun owner, it is my sincere hope that you choose the latter option. But no matter what you choose, you’re going to have to come up with something better than “nobody is going to take your guns.” Because you said that before, and look how that turned out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
