Town Bypasses Constitution, US Citizens Given 60 Days to Turn in Guns Or Become Criminals
As the state promises gun rights activists they’re not coming for their guns, behind the scences they’re pleading for it to happen. And now the feared gun grab is occurring.
Residents in Deerfield, Illinois have 60 days to surrender their “assault weapons” or face fines of $1000 per day per gun. The gun ban ordinance was passed on April 2nd with residents left with few choices of how to dispose of their valuable “assault weapons.”
Upon careful reading of the ordinance, residents will be left with revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns to defend their homes and families from criminals who could care less about the law. Fines for not disposing of the weapons range from $250 to $1000 per day per gun for those who choose not to comply with the city’s ordinance.
While a fine may seem reasonable to some, as TFTP has reported on multiple occasions, failure to pay fines always results in police action. It is not far-fetched to predict major turmoil and arrests in the event of non-compliance. One example of the so-called “assault weapon” is the Ruger 10/22 which can accept magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Even though the 10/22 is not listed in the list of guns the village wants to see banned, the gun cannot legally be possessed in the village. Residents have been instructed to either sell their guns, transfer the ownership to someone who lives outside the village, surrender their guns to Deerfield’s sheriff, or begin paying the fines.
Deerfield mentioned a number of cities where mass shootings took place, including Sutherland Springs, TX where 26 people were killed in the First Baptist Church. That shooting was actually stopped by a man who used the very gun Deerfield voted to ban.
No mention was made of that fact in the ordinance. Also included in the gun ban were semi-automatic pistols which can accept higher than 10 round magazines. That’s virtually all full size semi-automatic pistols.
Even though the village trustees ignored the pleas of residents to leave their guns alone, and passed the ordinance anyway, many residents were encouraged to ignore the gun ban and engage in civil disobedience. Joel Siegel, a resident of Lincolnwood, warned the village’s residents that governments all across the world have moved to confiscate guns then turned around and ran roughshod over the people. He said,
“There’s an ancient and honored American tradition called disobeying an unjust law…I have urged (people) to listen to their conscience and if so moved do not obey this law.”
Deerfield Mayor Harriet Rosenthal implied the students from the local high school helped sway her decision to bring about the ordinance.
“Enough is enough,” Rosenthal said adding, “Those students are so articulate just like our students. There is no place here for assault weapons.”
The statement mirrors the knee jerk reaction to ban guns following a nationwide public outcry of students who supposedly feared for their own lives following the recent mass shooting in Florida.
Opponents of the gun grab vow to fight the action in court while others praised the trustees decision to ban semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. Ariella Kharasch, a Deerfield High School senior said she wants more action to be taken on both a local and national level.
“This is our fight…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.,” Kharasch said.
Predictably, law enforcement and retired law enforcement members of the community are exempted from the ban. Currently, in the U.S., law enforcement kills around 1,200 citizens per year. Ironically, that number is actually four times higher than those who die from rifles.
As TFTP has reported, cops have killed 450 percent more people than have died in the past forty years of mass shootings.
We are the Free Thought Project — a hub for Free Thinking conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability. All of our content was created by our team of artists and writers. Learn more about us on our website thefreethoughtproject.com.
This is going to be interesting. My bet is, nothing is going to happen. Maybe some small scale demonstrations, but in the end the sheeple will obey. And I am afraid other cities will follow the "good" example. Whatcha gonna do 'bout it? Start a shootout with SWAT? Or vote harder?
LOL
Kudos!
Looks to be a total money grab.
I will say though, a double barrel shotgun would make a perfectly good self defense weapon, it won't stop a swat team, the only defense against that is, another swat team. ;)
Legally a drama but absolutely LOVE the initiative of this town. That gun madness is getting way out of hand over there. As a European nurse fixing shooting victims in the OR this type of violence is something that I will never understand I guess.
I really genuinly hate guns
I believe this is treasonous
I pray the people will resist and set an example.
Side note: I found this statement "Currently, in the U.S., law enforcement kills around 1,200 citizens per year. Ironically, that number is actually four times higher than those who die from rifles. " I see the point it's trying to make, but it's important for the sake of accurate perception, logic and reasoning to account for the fact that they are placed in situations where this is more likely necessary than almost all other civilians.
That is true, good points, although, i will say that these cops put themselves in that position by volunteering to do something most of them know deep down is immoral
Hmmmm. I agree that many forms of policing are overstepping, but protecting the sovereignty of others lives is the one moral aspects I appreciate cops for, and their intentions. If I was about to get raped and an officer stepped in and stopped it, I certainly wouldn't tell him that deep down he knows that's immoral. I don't think protecting others from harm is against sovereignty. And I'd like to believe that a majority of police have that intention at their core. The problem arises in that they have been given too much power over aspects of life that do not have to do with that.
wow... I'm from Illinois and the state and many of its inhabitants are inane. But still, wow.
I think it is the obligation of the government to act in the best interest of the citizens. If the proliferation of guns is now a threat, the government have the right to withdraw such in the best interest of the state they have sworn to protect.
I know you can probably name several obligations the state, any and every state or form of government, has to serve it's citizens that it does not fulfill. The proliferation of personal arms possessed by law abiding citizens--the only people that obey laws to not possess firearms--does not cause harm. Ever.
In every case in which a firearm causes harm, the law has been violated. I do not count the wounding or killing of criminals as harm, but rather as a good. Preventing their crimes is a good thing, and preventing them from committing crimes in the future by killing them is a good thing too. Also, some laws are unjust and cause harm. This is not the fault of citizens, or firearms, and only just law can be considered as law. Unjust laws aren't lawful at all.
In fact the opposite is true. The better armed law abiding citizens are, the safer and more peaceful their communities are, because criminals are less able to commit crimes against them. Especially the criminals with badges or titles.
Laws do not affect what criminals do. They're criminals. By definition, they don't obey laws.
If you can think of a way that criminals can be prevented from obtaining and using weapons by any form or kind of law, I will personally nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize, because you will have devised something that has never before existed in the universe.
Do think beyond rhetoric to the actual effects the words have.
Otherwise, let's just pass a law that makes it illegal to be sad, or poor, so everyone will be happy and rich.
Thimk.
once again, very well said
I’m mostly surprised that it reached Supreme Court so fast and they made judgement. Just 5 days. That says something.
I have not seen word of this.
I'll have to check that.
It'd be a total reversal of all the rulings to date. I think it would also be a record for swiftly ruling.
Thanks!
Edit: my research indicates this has not been rules on by any court yet.
I must confess that they have not taken cases to rule on similar to this, and have let federal appeals court rulings in favor of assault weapons bans stand.
This is pretty ominous, however, I am confident they haven't ruled in this case.
Sorry! It was for Highland. I went to verify I thought I came across something for Deerfield but it must have been highland because I find no mention of it.
I don’t believe they are going to win this. It’s been brought up in md, va, already Illinois and they lost. It’s not about a weapon it’s about type, really.
It's also useful to point out that disarmament inevitably leads to pogroms and genocide.
Also, that weapons cannot be legislated away. People can just print firearms now. We have been able to make edged weapons since we discovered how to chip rocks. Knife bans won't work either.
Except that people that obey the law will obey the law, leaving only criminals, defined as those that do not obey laws, to have every kind of weapon they desire to commit their crimes with. Laws banning personal arms only disarm those that should have the weapons to protect them from criminals, who will not obey the laws.
Had it not been for citizens armed with personal weapons, there would be no Deerfield, no Illinois, no America, at all.
There is nothing more anti-American than banning personal arms. Except maybe seizing those arms good people refuse to relinquish. That's just Nazism, plain and simple.
Thanks!