MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

My Family's Peashooter Is Now an Illegal 'Assault Weapon' in This Illinois Town

Deerfield would fine residents up to $1,000 for owning one of a dizzying array of firearms.

.22 rifleDavid Coleman/Dreamstime.comThough my parents were hardly gun nuts, our family did keep on hand an old semi-automatic .22 rifle with a fixed 14-round capacity magazine.

A magazine that size added convenience to the two or three days a year that we would go target shooting, as it reduced the number of times one would have to pause and reload—a laborious process that required rounds to be fed individually into the rifle's tubular magazine.

What was a convenient target shooter for us is a now deadly assault weapon in Deerfield, Illinois.

This Monday, the Village of Deerfield—a suburban town some 30 miles north of Chicago—passed a sweeping ban on any semi-automatic weapons that come with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Also banned are semi-automatic rifles that both accept "high capacity magazines" and feature an adjustable stock, muzzle brake, or pistol grip.

The bill specifically bans AR-15s and a number of pistols and shotguns. After June 13, anyone caught within the town limits with one of these prohibited weapons will face up to $1,000 in daily fines per violation until said violation is corrected.

From USA Today to CNN, most media reports on the bill describe it as an "assault weapon" ban, which is perhaps understandable given that is how the authors themselves describe it. Few bother to note the incredibly common weapons that Deerfield officials have chosen to lump into this category. Weapons like my parents' rifle.

The sweeping nature of the law is matched by the sweeping social change the bill's authors expect it to engender. The legislation's text confidently declares it "may increase the public's sense of safety by effecting a cultural change which communicates the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."

Its authors likewise assert that the weapons they ban are "not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense."

A lot of the weapons that this ordinance would affect are not so much unnecessary for defense purposes as wholly inadequate for them. That includes my family's old rifle, which thanks to the small rounds it fired and the time it took to load would be pretty useless in scaring off home invaders.

Those same things that make the rifle a poor tool for defense also make it a poor tool for offense. Prohibiting it is both petty and overreaching.

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), made this point in response to the Deerfield ban, stating that "enacting bad public policy for the sake of 'doing something' is not the answer. Lawful citizens should not be forced to pay penance for the misdeeds of others."

The ISRA, in conjunction with the Second Amendment Foundation, filed a lawsuit against Deerfield yesterday, seeking to overturn its "assault weapons ban" as unconstitutional.

Should they succeed, the safety of Deerfield residents will not be diminished. But a few more families will be able to own an infrequently used sporting device without risking thousands of dollars in fines.

Photo Credit: David Coleman/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • KevinP||

    "Assault weapon" means a gun that looks scary to the uninformed, but functions no different than other firearms.

    The Assault Weapons ban was born in deceit - in the words of gun control activist Josh Sugarmann on the pages of the Violence Policy Center, a gun ban group:


    Quote:
    Assault weapons - just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

    Link:

    Assault Weapons and Accessories in America (Violence Policy Center)

    It is amazing how many people have been taken in by this fraud.

  • Agammamon||

    I remember the first time I heard of the VPC - it was coming across a paper they wrote on the (then) new SW .500 magnum and its revolver.

    They were against it because, according to the paper, criminals would be concealing this 9 pound, $3,000 dollar gun and then blowing through the body armor cops don't wear anyway.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    That somebody has made a ruling that flies in the face of plain language and comon sense is hardly surprising.

    "Shall not be infringed". It isn't obscure. It isn't hard. Taxes on guns are unconstitutional. Registration of guns is unconstitutional. Banning of guns (or any other single man weapon) is unconstitutional.

    Now, that may be a bad idea. The Constitution contained several. But the remedy is to amend the Constitution. Not to continue flouting the law of the land in order to virtue-signal.

    So, Gun Control advicates, either propose an Amendment, or stand exposed as scofflaws.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Well considering the 2A own author disagrees with you about the militia clause being the important part, I think you have no real argument (actually I know you have none because you are a psychotic troll who will now start crying about being bullied).

  • epsilon given||

    And *this* is exactly why you are a fraud. Semi-automatics have *never* been ruled outside 2A protection; indeed, Heller confirms that semi-automatic pistols, being in common use, *are* protected.

    That, and you claim to be a Libertarian, yet you are *eager* to ban guns.

  • A_Spellman||

    Knowing full well you're nothing but a silly troll, I'm still going to reply. Mainly because the sections of those court rulings you keep posting, especially the parts you bold-faced, prove the exact opposite of the point you're trying to prove.
    "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." This means that 1) Men are supposed to keep arms, and 2) they they are to bear, or own, weapons common at the time. The most common rifle in US military service is the M-16, and it's carbine version, the M-4. So you emphasize the exact ruling that says people may carry select fire rifles.
    The dangerous and unusual section is towards things such as the sawed-off shotgun, which Miller owned and which got him arrested in the first place. No military uses sawed off shotguns. They do use things such as the Masterkey,which is a shortbarreled shotgun mounted to another weapon, but that is a modern development. The restriction against dangerous and unusual is towards modified weapons and off-the-wall builds, which are not common (the unusual section) and could harm the user or innocent bystanders by virtue of it's modification from original (dangerous).
    Again, I know you're nothing but a copy-paste troll, but I felt the need to point out that you keep disproving your own argument.

  • D-Griff||

    But Miller holds up the SBS shotgun ban partially because they didn't see that it has any military use.

    "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

    So two conflicting stories. We can ban because of no legitimate military/militia usefulness and now no 2A protections for "weopns of war"

    The 2A covering individual possession of weopns useful for defense of self and state is the most coherent interpretation. That should also include edged weopns and blunt instruments.

  • D-Griff||

    Having a highly limited view of the right to bear arms is manifestly un-libertarian.

  • Bubba Jones||

    So, this law admits to banning guns in common usage for self defense, on the grounds that they wish to change the culture?

    Isn't that the opposite of what Heller and McDonald permitted?

  • Zeb||

    I think it is.

    The optimist in me is looking forward to over-reaches like this getting slapped down by courts.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Idk. This is so blatantly unconstitutional that I'm surprised they even dared. Kinda worrisome.

  • FlameCCT||

    Although it is in Corruptionois!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Thank God for Heller and McDonald!

  • the original jack||

    both Heller and McDonald have been willfully ignored by the lower courts with the blessings of SCOTUS. There is very little to thank anyone for them unless some meaningful changes at the top level begin to happen.

  • Morbo||

    The Sixth Court(?) in Illinois has been pretty good on the 2nd. They've been slapping down many of the more egregious bullshit that Chicago has tried to get away with since the McDonald ruling. Also, the Washington, DC court has struck down similar semi-auto bans that DC tried to enact post-Heller. I think The Sixth will probably not take kindly to this ordinance.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Seventh.

  • epsilon given||

    You misunderstand Miller. The justices of the time said that no evidence had been presented to show that sawed off shotguns were used in military settings. Had Miller's lawyer actually shown up (Miller himself had either disappeared, or had been found dead, I can't remember which) it's not inconceivable that such evidence would have been presented: sawed off shotguns, after all, were used in WWI trench warfare.

    That isn't to say that, had the Supreme Court ruled as you claim it did, that they'd be right. Nowhere in the 2nd does it say that arms are to be limited to muskets. The Supreme Court itself has been overturned before, so had the SCOTUS ruled otherwise, it can overrule itself.

  • epsilon given||

    If the 2nd is limited to muskets, then by the same logic, the 1st is limited to hand*-cranked movable type presses.

    I see I do not need to refute what you have said in those links -- others have already done so -- but I will add that if your understanding of Scalia were correct, he would have said that Heller had a right to own a black powder pistol for self defense. Scalia did *not* say that, though. He affirmed Heller's right to own a *semi-automatic* pistol, because they are in common use *today*.

    In reviewing these comments in this section, you have said that the NRA was powerless for 10 years to get rid of the Assault Weapons Ban. You are wrong about that, because the NRA doomed the ban on the outset, by putting a sunset clause in there in the first place. Anti-gun politicians have been powerless on a Federal level since then to reinstate the ban.

    Shortly after passing the ban, the Democrats lost Congress. While anything can happen between now and November, it's difficult to see how the Democrats are doing themselves any favors by insisting on yet another completely inneffectual ban on "assault weapons".

  • ||

    Micheal please review Thomas and Scalia's decent in the highland park case here

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/ 15-133_7l48.pdf

    It refutes what you are saying about Scalia's opinion in Heller

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    "Goobers". Do you think that lends extra intellectual support to your reasoning? Or just foe emphasis? You could just bold your assertions if the latter.

  • cereal_shake||

    The NRA should coordinate a mass conceal carry day there. Let them try to enforce it with their puny police force.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You only need one arrest to show standing. More SCOTUS case law at this time only stands to establish more precedents against gun control.

  • epsilon given||

    I find your claim to be rather ridiculous. The Kentucky Rifles normally used for hunting and used by colonists during the Revolutionary War, were superior to the muskets issued to the Soldiers and Mercenaries in the British Army.

    Similarly, the lever-action rifles available during the Civil War had never been issued to soldiers, yet were available to civilians, and to soldiers who bought them for themselves.

    Your understanding of this topic has an *enormous* emptiness that needs to be filled.

  • epsilon given||

    The one advantage to the rifle over the musket that you fail to mention is that the rifle is more accurate over longer distances than a musket, which fact was used by American snipers against British troops to devastating effect.

    Indeed, the article you linked to specifically says this:

    """The "Kentucky", however great that it was on the frontier, did not pass muster on the open battlefield. It took more than twice as long to load than the traditional flintlock, and was not equipped with a bayonet. This accurate weapon was restricted to small companies, and not utilized by the line formations in which opposing forces faced off across an open space. When this rifle was employed by snipers from behind walls or trees, it had deadly effect in picking off British officers behind their own lines."""

    (Incidentally, the article you quote does not lend itself well to the notion that militias owning their own arms is ineffective against a standing army.)

  • soldiermedic76||

    Wow, so the matchlock musket was obsolete by 1775, yet remained the primary firearm of militaries until at least the mid 19yh century? Also, rifles had proven so effective during the revolution that the British formed eifle regiments that did great service as skirmishers. However, they were limited to skirmish duty because muskets higher rate of fire was more effective at close range. That doesn't make one superior to the other (at the time) just different roles. However, once Minnie balls, then breech-loading rifles and repeating rifles, smoothbore guns were relegated to a secondary role (it should be noted that smoothbore guns remain a useful item in certain combat situations.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Not matchlock I meant flintlock.

  • FlameCCT||

    I almost pity you and your Hihnsanity!

    Wrong again! The modern equivalent, most common firearm today is semiautomatic (over 50% of all firearms); not to mention they've been around since ~1905 in the USA. I've replaced my old Winchester Model 64 lever action in 30-30 with an AR in .300AAC for most hunting like deer; still use the .223/5.56 for varmints. Although for larger game, I've used an AR in .308/7.62. I would note that almost all my firearms would be illegal under this Constitution violating law in Deerfield.

  • IceTrey||

    Open Carry Texas is having a mass OPEN carry rally in Olmos Park tomorrow at noon.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Few bother to note the incredibly common weapons that Deerfield officials have chosen to lump into this category.

    Why would they? This is a victory for journalists everywhere. No way will it be sabotaged by actual reporting.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I have noted in my arguments with gun controllers lately that hard facts like the caliber and action of a gun and how it is used are now irrelevant to the discussion: all guns are now cursed talismans of Death that can be readily used in mass shootings.

    Ignorance and emotionalism are now considered to be strengths when it comes the gun control debate.

  • Rebel Scum||

    My favorite in debating gun-grabbers is when they assert the "weapons of war" trope. I kindly point out that a smooth-bore, flintlock musket is literally a "weapon of war" that was used in multiple wars for multiple centuries. Technology changes, rights do not. The end.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I was in a debate a couple weeks ago with a lady about how we used to have guns at school. She stated "well those were shotguns, which aren't used in the military anyhow." She got rather pissed and began moving the goal posts when I pointed out that, yes, shotguns are used by the military and have been used in every war since the revolution. She then tried the old trope that 5.56 mm crrates a more damaging wound than shotguns or pistols or larger Calibre rifles. She based this on a single article from a "trauma" surgeon. I pointed out that Newton's laws of physics don't change, that my .270 wsm travels at around the same velocity as a 5.56 (actually a touch faster) and fires a round 2.5 times the mass. On top of it I used either Barnes X or Hornady SST rounds which are designed for maximum, controlled expansion (whereas I fire FMJ ball rounds in my AR) so they are designed to cause maximum damage and the largest wound channel possible. Oh, and I was a LPN and medic assigned to a Combat Support Hospital for ten years and was also an instructor, so understand trauma from GSW quite well.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    in my experience, progressives in general and hoplophobes in particular, are impervious to uncontested facts and rock-solid analysis. Their mind is made up; it's crystallized; and nothing - absolutely nothing - can change it.

  • epsilon given||

    Yes, I have a question. Democrats have been ineffective at implementing a new Assault Weapons Ban for 13 freaking years. Why?

  • soldiermedic76||

    You keep confusing facts with the bullshit you are spewing vyou so called facts have been discounted multiple times but you continue vto spew them. This indicates someone with no self awareness and a below average intellectual ability.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Oh my god, dude. Take a walk...

  • FlameCCT||

    Don't believe that will help. He/she/it appears to be walking in circles already.

  • FlameCCT||

    IIUC what you describe, especially from this particular individual, is known as hihnsanity and that he/she/it is hihnsane.

  • Chasman1965||

    I read a physician's article on ER work after Parkland. It was comparing the .223 wounds to handgun wounds. Most ER physicians never work on rifle wounds, just handgun wounds, so any rifle would would seem devastating.

  • TxJack 112||

    I am amazed at the stupidity of those who support gun control. This morning my wife and I were having this discussion. My wife is not conservative by any means but she said she wants someone to explain to her exactly what is an "assault weapon" and what does " common sense gun legislation" mean. Her point is simple and supported by this article. When you attempt to define something by using arbitrary standards, the result is never what was intended. Under this law, all 22 rifles are "assault weapons" because those with fixed magazines hold 14 rds. and the rest have a detachable magazine. I will be curious to see the crime stats for this town in 1yr and 5yrs now that criminals know they have little or no chance of being shot.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The utilitarian answer is to ban detachable magazines greater than 10 rounds.

    But the Parkland shooter supposedly used 10 round magazines (not googling to fact check at this time).

    However, if you point that out you get to "ban detachable magazines."

    My fallback is that the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to kill tyrants, and to do that, I need effective weapons.

    In truth, I think the correct answer is that the 2nd amendment is designed to protect State militias from backdoor disarmament. So, the States have standing to challenge federal laws regarding "military" weapons and we don't.

    Logically, the State could show that self defense usage is invariably less than 10 rounds whereas mass murders (or gang shootings) are the only events that use more. Therefore they are going to ban detachable magazines.

    However, this would have zero effect on the murder rate, because the murder rate is driven by the drug war.

    But, no one actually cares about that.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I like to point it I can load my semi-automatic or pump shotgun without dismounting it from my shoulder.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Maybe if we adopted Singapore's methods, we could ein the drug war.

  • Longtobefree||

    The second amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, and like the rest of the constitution, is to protect individual's natural rights from government infringement. The second amendment in particular is not to protect the state's anything. When the governor calls out the militia, the members of the militia (aka citizens) do not have to respond. The militia is made up of individuals, with their own weapons, and their own elected commanders, who volunteer service to a government (usually state of federal) for a specified time and/or place.

  • FlameCCT||

    Like Andrew Jackson put together a militia and took them to New Orleans against the British.

  • epsilon given||

    You keep saying Scalia ruled that the 2nd only protects the right to own single shot pistols and rifles. Yet Heller was suing for the right to keep and bear a semi-automatic pistol -- and he won his lawsuit against Washington, DC.

    How could Heller have won, if your interpretation of Scalia is correct?

  • soldiermedic76||

    The modern day equivalent of the musket is the M-16 series rifles.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Since muskets were the primary small arm issued to troops and the M-16/M-4 is the standard issued weapon to troops today. Wow, you don't even realize how stupid your argument is, do you?

  • Corey Lynn||

    .22s with a tubular magazine are exempt in this ordinance. The entire premise of the article is false. Page 6: http://www.deerfield.il.us/Doc...../View/1506

  • JP88||

    Ironic how this passes a few weeks after people kept claiming it does not matter if gun control advocates get facts about guns wrong.

  • soldiermedic76||

    It is amazing how huffy they get when you point out their mistakes or ask them a) define assault weapon and b) what are your "common-sense" controls.

  • Christophe||

    So most modern handguns would be bannable, under that definition? How do you square that with the actual decisions handed down in Heller and McDonald, which, after all, overturned de-facto bans on handgun ownership?

    Or are you saying that "assault weapon" bans, because they include semi-automatic handguns, would be either struck down or curtailed to not include such?

  • Mock-star||

    Holy Fuck, youre dumb. I always think that youve reached peak huuurrr duuurrr, but then you reach down deep, and really impress me. Like, I'm not even mad, I'm actually impressed.

  • epsilon given||

    Hihn, the very quote you just quoted refutes the claim you've been making this whole time.

    Don't you think it's about time to give it a rest?

  • soldiermedic76||

    So how are so it different then my semi-automatic shotgun which I use for duck hunting (which are also the most common form of hunting shotguns)? Oh it doesn't, so once again you prove your complete lack of understanding.

  • FlameCCT||

    They get pissed when I point out that almost every so-called "assault weapon" can be simply and easily changed into a non-assault weapon because they are banning the cosmetic appearance. They get really pissed when I point out that semiautomatic firearms (pistol, rifle, & shotgun) have been produced by civilians for sale to civilians since ~1905 and are the most common type of firearm in usage today.

  • Naaman Brown||

    They call it gunsplaining when you point out they are factually wrong, a play on mansplaining I suppose.

    There was the congresswoman who claimed that banning high capacity magazines would make assault weapons useless because once the bullets were shot out of the existing magazines, the guns would could not be fired because new magazines with bullets in them would no longer be available.

    When it was explained that the magazines could be reloaded with cartridges from a box of cartridges, the new claim was that the gun nuts had misquoted her. Of course she knew magazines could be reloaded with individual cartridges. It was the high capacity clips she meant: once the bullets were fired from the existing clips, the guns would be useless because new clips with bullets in them would be banned.

    Wow. Every second and third Saturday, March through September, I load cartridges into my old clips for my C96 Mauser and cartridges into the magazines for my M1 Carbine and M70AB2 and shoot in the matches at the gun club. I do the impossible. Gun control advocates don't need no gunsplaining to write legislation, they just need an arrogant elitist self-righteous posture. It'll be good because their intentions are good. And because their intentions are good, only the evil can contradict them.

  • Chasman1965||

    .22s with tubular magazines are an exception to this. It's in the next section of the law. The author should have done his homework. I'm a pro-gun person, but facts matter, and the author missed the exception in the law. See the post by Corey Lynn to the actual law.

  • Bubba Jones||

    How many murders involve more than 10 shots being fired by a single person?

  • Longtobefree||

    Pretty much all cop shootings

  • Bubba Jones||

    "At least 2,623 bullets were fired by police in 435 shootings. In 235 of those incidents, officers struck at least one person; in another 200 shootings, officers missed entirely."

    I think this is relevant data that suggests 2 things. Typical shootouts include a total of 6 shots fired (by one side). Cops have terrible aim.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....story.html

    If gangsters have similar habits, then a 10 round magazine limit is not going to reduce the number of deaths.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Does it say how many times they hit a dog?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I was gonna say that a 10 rnd mag limit would limit police mag dumps to 10 rnds but, smh, of course they would be exempt.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    Cops? Follow the law? Surely you jest.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    Cops? Follow the law? Surely you jest.

  • Careless||

    This law also exempts fformer cops.

  • IceTrey||

    My dad fought in Vietnam. He had uncountable rounds fired at him including mortars and large artillery. Didn't get a scratch. Hitting your target with a handgun is not as easy as people think it is.

  • Ride 'Em||

    A big part of the problem cops have is that police forces like the New York police replace the 5 pound pull triggers that Glocks come with with 12 pound pull triggers. In the name of safety the police forces make them inaccurate.

  • Naaman Brown||

    12 pound "safety" triggers assure that you will have pull the gun off target by the time it goes off. The intended target is safer, but bystanders are not.

    One of the gun supply houses advertized a New York trigger kit for Glock pistols. I suspect they are only sold to repair NYPD pistols for current or retired NYPD officers.

  • ||

    While I appreciate and agree with Britshtzchsgzi's stance on the issue, the reporting is a bit narrow. Deefield's ban is based on Highland Park's most recent ban, which was upheld by the 7th Circuit and was refused by SCOTUS. IANAL but my understanding is that, therefore, means 'Constitutional'. In any event, more than half a dozen IL suburbs and Cook County have similar long-standing bans. So, Deerfield, as may be well understood, is just the most recently surfaced tip of a larger iceberg.

    Locally, the ban is being sold on its 'reasonableness'. Plenty of modern firearms are still available. There's a 60-70 day grace period to turn in your guns or move them. There will be no door-to-door searches to find them (Gee, thanks) and you won't be arrested or fined. There will be a $250 or in some cases up to $1000 per diem 'storage and holding fee' until you can securely transfer the guns out of Deerfield.

    I don't agree with any of it except as explicitly where stated. Just an added $0.02.

  • ||

    Also of note, the most recent shooting I've heard of in/around Deerfield occurred on Deerfield Road when a Chicago Aviation Officer attacked two civilians 'armed' only with BB guns (in the trunk), injuring one.

  • CE||

    The ban is unreasonable on several fronts.
    It isn't just a ban on new weapon purchases, it heavily fines people for guns they already own. "No one is going to confiscate your guns" they say. No, they just make it too expensive to conitnue to own them.
    How is this not an illegal taking? Does the Fifth Amendment not apply in Illinois? Aren't citizens of this town being effectively deprived of property they legally acquired?
    Not to mention the points raised in the article, that non-scary non-assault weapons are included in the ban.

  • Longtobefree||

    Does the Fifth Amendment not apply in Illinois?

    Uh, no.
    Nor the first (stop interfering with the cop taking your gun)
    Nor the second (you cannot have an arm)
    Nor the fourth (asset forfeiture)
    Nor the eighth (excessive fines)
    Nor the ninth (use of arms for self defense in addition to being available to a militia)

  • BigT||

    And 1A only protects words on paper or spoken. No internet or radio or phone.

    Idiot!

  • BigT||

    "The militia clause only protects the modern equivalent of weapons in common use at ratification"

    Those are your stupid words you are arguing against. The modern equivalent of written on paper can be interpreted as written on paper, not electronic.

    The modern equivalent of weapons used by soldiers in a 'well regulated militia' are what? Your current argument would include automatic weapons. So which is it - included or not?

    You are being inconsistent and that's one reason you get so much grief. The other is your smug combative style.

  • Longtobefree||

    There will be no door-to-door searches to find them

    bullshit.

  • Corey Lynn||

    I'll let you know when those start.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The Virginia 1924 Racial Integrity Act stood. Then a mixed race couple, Mildred and Richard Loving visited family in Virginia, Virginia refused to recognize their Maryland marriage certificate and jailed them 1 year, they went to court and the Act was declared unconstitutional in 1967. The state finally repealed the Act in 1974-1975. The Act was based on eugenics and evolution theory and stood for 50 years. The hypotheticals supporting most gun laws are thinner than that and just as wrong-headed. Constitutional does not change the stupid status of a stupid law. Eventually smarter minds will prevail.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Our family did keep on hand an old semiautomatic .22 rifle with a fixed 14- round capacity magazine"

    Come on britches, don't be so coy; we're all gun nerds here (excepting maybe Tony). It was a Marlin Model 60, wasn't it?

    And don't pretend it's harmless, either: millions of rabbits have died in mass shootings involving Model 60s over the past half century.

    With this law, lagomorphs of all species will finally be able to feel safe in Deerfield.

  • Longtobefree||

    Note the assault specific telescopic sight - - - - - - -

  • Naaman Brown||

    Looks like the Sears Ted Williams edition of the High Standard .22 semi-automatic rifle. Note the wooden panels on the forearm that extend over the receiver and connect with the buttstock. I am sure a dedicated antigunner could invent an evil connotation for that.

    It is not a Marlin Model 60. I have have an old Model 60 that is my truck gun and a backup new in the box Model 60 with 22 inch barrel but the short 14-shot magazine imposed by the New Jersey assault weapon ban. I seriously believe I ought to order the original 18 shot magazine inner and outer tubes from Gun Parts Corp and upgrade it just because of this nonsense.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Prohibiting it is both petty and overreaching.

    You forgot "unconstitutional".

    -jcr

  • BigT||

    And Plessy said separate but equal was ok. You think SCOTUS can't be overturned?

  • Naaman Brown||

    The separate but equal law was constitutional, until Congress passed opposing law that SCOTUS deemed constitutonal, too.

    Gun control groups supporting state and local bans cite Cruikshank 1876 as limiting the Bill or Rights to protection against Congress, allowing state and local governments to violate 2A and the rest of BoR at will.

    Cruikshank 1876 was vitiated by the SCOTUS decisions in the Guest and Price cases in 1966. MacDonald 2010 incorporated 2A under 14A.

    Keep over-reaching, anti-gunners: a day of reckoning approaches.

  • Rebel Scum||

    "not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense."

    I'll decide what is "reasonably necessary" to defend myself with, thank you very much.

  • Ron||

    When someone points a gun most people on the other end don't know the caliber they just no not to f with it. A 22 can be just as scary as any other gun, especially if you know how to shoot it

  • Bearded Spock||

    The Left: "Donald Trump is a goose-stepping fascist who will declare martial law and send us to concentration camps for forced Bible study"

    Also The Left: "Only the police and military should be allowed to own guns"

  • soldiermedic76||

    Also, semi-automatic pistols are the most commonly used gun for self defense. And this ban applies to many of those also. I personally prefer revolvers, but that is just my preference. My wife prefers he XD-40 or if she needs a long arm, my XM-15. She finds it easier to use then my 12.

  • NaiveLubertarian||

    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that .22's are an exception to the rule?

    "Large capacity magazine means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity
    to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:
    (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot
    accommodate more than ten rounds.
    (2) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
    (3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm."

    Page 6 of the amendment, page 85 of the document.

    Not that I agree with this new law. I just believe in accuracy.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Not that I agree with this new law. I just believe in accuracy."

    Well, there goes your future career in journalism.

    Looks as if the Model 60 is still okay. And the Garand and SKS. 10/22s would be okay with the standard stock.

    It looks like the 1994 ban the way DiFi originally intended. I don't see it passing muster with the courts.

  • Longtobefree||

    Typical; we are banning what we say are scary black guns, but a magazine over 10 rounds is not a magazine over 10 rounds when we say it is not. (items 2 & 3)

  • SIV||

    That includes my family's old rifle, which thanks to the small rounds it fired and the time it took to load would be pretty useless in scaring off home invaders.

    Shot placement is everything. Elephants, whales and countless human lives have been taken with .22 rimfire

  • CE||

    Elephants would just glare at you.

  • Sevo||

    "Shot placement is everything. Elephants, whales and countless human lives have been taken with .22 rimfire"

    It is an established fact that, for instance, a hand is made up of more 'space' than 'material'. Therefore hand placement should allow one hand to pass through the other.
    SIV proves to be full of shit once more.

  • Harvard||

    The upside to this is this shitburg will now generate a healthy legal bill, which when pointed out by a local gun guy at the next council meeting, might provoke several much needed recall petitions.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Didn't the magazine ban in Colorado result in successful recalls?

  • 1234||

    We had an old family rifle much like the one described here, albeit pump-action instead of semi-auto.

    Not only did we have it... I would somewhat regularly shoot it in the backyard of our suburban neighborhood lot, unsupervised, using sub-sonic ammo (legal in city limits) to plink targets. The house behind us and one door over was the chief of police, too. Nobody ever complained. The most dangerous thing that ever happened while doing it is that a rotten limb fell off the tree I was sitting under and hit me on the head.

  • Curly4||

    I am surprised! I also wonder why they did not outlaw all auto-loading weapons and only allow revolver with a max 2 inch barrel to be legal.

  • CE||

    Oh no, that's too short. Might conceal it in your pocket.

  • Naaman Brown||

    To gun banners, pistols are too big ("assault pistols") or too small ("saturday night specials").
    Honestly, it is hard for these Goldilocks to define a pistol that is "just right".

  • Longtobefree||

    Because a bolt action short magazine Lee Enfield rifle, used by Great Britain in the war to end all war can be used to fire 20 to 30 AIMED rounds in one minute. (at 200 yards range)

    The end is confiscation of all firearms with or without repeal of the second amendment.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, no, they did not have 20th century weapons.
    But they did have weapons of the same caliber, and of the same capability as the military of the time.
    And remember, when called up, the militia members who choose to respond will become, for a time and/or place, a military unit. How can a reasonable person - - (oh, wait, never mind)

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn thinks government is voluntary:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • FlameCCT||

    Actually, semiautomatics were around in the 1800s although they didn't start producing them in the USA until ~1905.

  • Devastator||

    No one gives a fuck about your opinion here. We are going to keep our guns. These little piss ant town will have their attempt at revoking the 2nd amendment rejected in courts of laws. That's why we have them to prevent shitty decisions like this from taking hold. The guns that people used for the Revolutionary wars were the best available at the time. if semi-automatic guns would have been around the militias would have used those as well. The 2nd amendment will stand as the right to own guns as an individual just like it was meant to be, and as pointed out by nearly all the forefathers in their papers on the Constitution.

  • FlameCCT||

    I highly doubt Hihn is educated and/or libertarian. Sounds more like a Progressive Plantation serf that only believes what his/hers/its Elitist Masters and Uncle Tom Overseers tell him/her/it.

    If so then Hihn should demand his/hers/its money back.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    This Monday, the Village of Deerfield—a suburban town some 30 miles north of Chicago—passed a sweeping ban on any semi-automatic weapons that come with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Also banned are semi-automatic rifles that both accept "high capacity magazines" and feature an adjustable stock, muzzle brake, or pistol grip.

    What?
    No ban on the Shoulder Thing That Goes Up?

    Mebbe the Proggies are learning something ...

  • Pat001||

    Every resident of Deerfield who is eligible under Illinois law should apply for a concealed carry permit. And then carry.

  • Longtobefree||

    Bullshit.
    No one should EVER comply with unconstitutional laws infringing on the second amendment.

  • Rockabilly||

    fucking commies can take my weapon from my cold dead hands. I'm willing to die to protect my rights. How about these commie punk ass losers? I don't think so.

    Fuck off ass hat commie losers.

  • Big Ed's Landing||

    What about the poor dude who drives through Deerfield on the way from somewhere else to someplace else? He has the gun locked up in the trunk, in a locked case, and his car gets rammed by some jerk in Deerfield. The cops come, check out both cars and arrest the guy passing through who had an otherwise legal gun in his trunk?

    This is a perfect example of why states need to have local pre-emption laws in place regarding gun laws. You need to have consistent laws throughout the state.

    I grew up in suburban Chicao, and I'm pretty sure you could still go hunting in Deerfield when I was a kid. I know there were places that are now part of Park Ridge and Des Plaines (nearby suburbs) where you could hunt pheasants, because I saw the hunters every fall. It's too crowded for hunting now, but apparently the sissies have taken over in Deerfield.

  • ||

    What about the poor dude who drives through Deerfield on the way from somewhere else to someplace else? He has the gun locked up in the trunk, in a locked case, and his car gets rammed by some jerk in Deerfield. The cops come, check out both cars and arrest the guy passing through who had an otherwise legal gun in his trunk?

    This is a perfect example of why states need to have local pre-emption laws in place regarding gun laws. You need to have consistent laws throughout the state.

    Illinois does have 'safe passage' laws. It's application to handguns is pretty solid but long and/or assaulty-style weapons is not 100% consistent. I've never had to deal with it directly in IL or any other state, but I know I've heard people say 'unloaded in IL is not unloaded in other states'. That, as long as there's no round in the chamber and no magazine in the gun, it's unloaded. Whereas CA, NY, and some other, even pro-2A states, consider a gun and ammunition in the same vehicle as a loaded weapon.

  • KCee||

    Christian Britschgi went through great pains to include a link to the actual ban in his article. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to read the document that he included. If he had read it he would have seen that the rifle he references in his story is not included in the ban. It clearly states that a rifle with a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device is exempt from the ban. Sometimes when you are very passionate about an issue you react before you think. He probably should have read it before writing the article. Oh well, things like this happen all the time. Just ask Donald.

    What isn't clear to me is the capacity of handgun magazines. From what I gather, handguns are not affected.

  • ||

    From what I gather, handguns are not affected.

    Yes. Specifically as advertised and/or by design. Nevermind that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides in Chicago, Cook County, and Deerfield are committed with handguns, the point is that someone somewhere shot someone else with something and, therefore, we must ban that something.

  • Devastator||

    Yep they ignore inconvenient facts. The same logic people use to outlaw semiautomatic rifles leads to outlawing semiautomatic pistols and revolvers. All of them can unload a load of bullets in a short amount of time, especially if you are packing multiple ones.

  • epsilon given||

    To be fair, the exemption is on what? Page 85? Who has time to read such a long law? The summary is much easier to read, and xit's still ridiculous, and still arbitrary and capricious, no matter how you slice it.

    To make matters worse, that exemption to the law is an amendment, so it might not have even been a part of the bill when this article was written.

  • Corey Lynn||

    It's on page 6.

  • ||

    And, since well before US v. Miller, the ISRA and pretty much everyone else has the capacity to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of just about any new law.

    Hihn + 0 = 0

  • epsilon given||

    Rulings *are* law, and Supreme Court rulings have been overturned before -- and they have even been overturned because the new Supreme Court considers the old ruling to be unconstitutional.

  • ManBearPig||

    The gloves are off. The leftist in the Communist States of America are making plain there objectives with these unconstitutional edicts. The trouble at the moment is they have a number allies on the circuit courts who will agree with this nonsense. Unfortunately the SCOTUS is unlikely to weigh in until the balance of the court is more firmly established.

  • Joe Strummer||

    Countless Millions of Americans are sick and tired of guns. Sick and tired of murders and mass murders with guns. Sick and tired of guns being easy for just about anyone to own. Sick and tired of gun owners spouting about their perceived rights based on an unclear and antiquated 200 year old amendment to our constitution that doesn't relate to today's society, crime, or mental health issues. Sick and tired of schools not being safe for children because of guns. Sick and tired of America having the highest crime and mass shooting rates of any country on the planet. Sick and tired of the Millions of guns being manufactured in this country every year. Sick and tired of the Hundreds of Millions of guns that exist in this country today. Sick and tired of gun stores and shows in our local communities. Sick and tired of the NRA representing rich gun companies and paying off politicians to advance their agendas. Sick and tired of the ridiculous slippery slope argument and fear mongering of "take one gun they'll take them all". Sick and tired of gun nuts and collectors that get their jollies out of shooting and bragging about, comparing, and loving their guns. Sick and tired that these gun nuts can't find something better to do with their free time such as bowling, tennis, carpentry, music, art, reading, chess, basket weaving, bird watching, fishing, hang gliding, scuba diving, surfing, playing tiddlywinks, etc., dear Lord anything at all besides guns. SICK AND TIRED OF GUNS.

  • Haha, charade you are||

    Countless millions more are sick and tired of people like you, spewing forth all sorts of nonsense and lies.

  • Devastator||

    Go away shit poster. We value the Constitution here, not your faulty logic. It doesn't say "based on statistics" in the constitution. No one here is advocating we want to own M1 Abrams tanks or mortars. We want our guns and we will fight for them through the NRA or whatever other organizations we see fit. I don't give a fuck what they do in Europe.

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn thinks government is voluntary:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • epsilon given||

    I *have* checked your sources. I *have* evaluated your reasoning. I have found both to be wanting.

    Maybe someday I'll write a cut-and-paste argument to counter your cut-and-paste stuff, but sufficient to say for now, I have refuted this nonsense before, on other comment threads.

  • emmanuel||

    More are killed with hammers in the U.S. than with "assault rifles".

  • BillEverman||

    If you're sick of guns, don't own one.

    Oh, but you're not sick of guns; you're sick of not being able to tell other people--people who have not harmed anyone else, and never will--how to live their lives. You want to tell peaceful people how they should spend their free time because it offends your delicate sensibilities.

    You are factually incorrect on multiple fronts: the US absolutely doesn't have the "highest crime and mass shooting rates of any country on the planet." Less than 3% of homicides with children as victims occur on schools, so schools are about the safest place for kids.

    Shockingly, owning guns and "bowling, tennis, carpentry, music, art, reading, chess, basket weaving, bird watching, fishing, hang gliding, scuba diving, surfing, playing tiddlywinks" are not mutually exclusive.

    Thank you for this display of your ignorance, arrogance an sense of superiority that reminds me why I am a libertarian.

  • Texasmotiv||

    How can you abridge a right that is not in conflict with any other rights?

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn thinks government is voluntary:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • Naaman Brown||

    The dries felt the same way about bibers and topers and we got the Prohibition Amendment and Volstead Act.
    SICK AND TIRED OF DEMON RUM.

  • Haha, charade you are||

    These ridiculous bans have always been about control, no matter how much they claim they are designed to "protect".

    Intentionally vague wording that covers a large proportion of firearms, and official declarations that such arms "have no role or purpose in civil society" show their tyrannous thought process.

  • epsilon given||

    According to the reasoning of Miller, bans on semi-automatics were perfectly valid...up to the point that the first soldier was issued his first M1 Garand, the first semi-automatic rifle to be standard issues to soldiers. There's a very real possibility that semi-autos were fair game at the time Miller was ruled.

    And Miller says we should have access to M16s.

    The irony of this is that civilians had been using semi-automatic guns for years up to this point.

  • Texasmotiv||

    You are such a fake person. Please tell me no one is this stupid.

  • Deplorable Victor||

    You should fight.

  • Rock Cowles||

    I question the quote, "may increase the public's sense of safety by effecting a cultural change which communicates the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society." Please tell me about this civil society, this pharmaceutically created Utopia which has no crime, violence, drugs wars, or gangs. In a civilized society wouldn't one be expected to respect privacy, the free market, and the right to own property? Would it not only punish criminals rather than force to coerce compliance with the whims of the cowardly and protected? Would personal responsibility not be a virtue?

    Robert A. Heinlein famously said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Mass shooters love gun free zones. When will this law be enforced? When someone is forced to defend themselves or their home from violent criminals or when a jilted lover or scorned friend snitches for payback even if the gun owner was committing no other crime. Then on someone's word a warrant would be issued to violate the sanctity of their home.

    Creating a nonsensical and unconstitutional law like this is a huge invitation for criminals. I hope the taxpaying citizens of Deerfield won't have to pay too dearly to discover this.

  • SIV||

  • FinJan||

    I had that rifle, too! No can or fishing bobber was safe when that bad boy came out. Crazy to think my $60 Marlin Model 60 would cost me $1,000 a day.

    Yes, the world has lost its compass. With the unprecedented access to information, we still let emotions and sound bites rule our decision making. What a disappointment.

  • Devastator||

    That shouldn't be considered illegal and neither should my two AR-15's. It's ridiculous and won't last long under the eye of any judge who holds any value in the bill of rights.

  • epsilon given||

    Aye, there's the rub: how many judges are there, who respects the Bill of Rights?

  • Texasmotiv||

    Michael, you still haven't answered what two right are in conflict.

    Just copy and paste something else in response here, since you can't bother to read or understand anything. You don't even read your own posts where you contradict yourself.

  • mpercy||

    I've been showing people a picture of this rifle:

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/.....e-chassis/

    Then asking them "Is this an assault weapon?"

    The number of people answering in the positive is indicative of their ignorance.

    Common responses when I point out that it is bolt-action rifle is that "It still looks like an AR-15." and "Who needs a bipod on a gun?"

  • mpercy||

    There's always one person who ruins everything, isn't there? Again and again I wish Reason had "Ignore User" features.

  • emmanuel||

    Looks like a Marlin. I gave my son one just like it for Christmas when he was 11 years old.

  • emmanuel||

    Looks like a Marlin. I gave my son one just like it for Christmas when he was 11 years old.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    So gun control really is one more front in the culture war? And that by the confiscationists own statements. Tell me again how it was the NRA who acted as aggressor and made gun control into part of the culture war?

  • Corey Lynn||

    The ordinance specifically exempts .22 caliber tubular magazines. The entire premise of this article is false and was written by someone who didn't even read the ordinance closely enough to understand their mistake. I would have expected more from Reason. See page 6 http://www.deerfield.il.us/Doc.....View/1506.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Page six of how many? The DEM and GOP platforms run some 30,000 to 50,000 words, yet the Constitution is only about 7000. How about a cap on the number of pages in a law that infringes the Bill of Rights?

  • cobright||

    Page 6 of 10. Is it too much to expect someone read all 10 pages of a law before making unfounded complaints?

  • Alan@.4||

    One might note, respecting this town ordinance, the following. Local government enacted this foolishness. Let them now enforce it.

  • cobright||

    The Deerfield law does not make this 22 rifle illegal. The law specifically states that 22s with fixed tubular magazines are expressly excluded.

    Did the author of this simply not read the text of this ordinance? Did Mr. Britschgi not understand what he read? Or is he willfully misrepresenting the law in order to create a more sensational headline?

    Whether or not one is in favor of more or less gun control, I personally see this particular law as something of a publicity stunt, using deception to make your case should not be tolerated by anyone.

  • Galane||

    "A lot of the weapons that this ordinance would affect are not so much unnecessary for defense purposes as wholly inadequate for them. That includes my family's old rifle, which thanks to the small rounds it fired and the time it took to load would be pretty useless in scaring off home invaders."

    ANY firearm is better than none for home defense. Someone who has broken into your house is going to be scared when ANY sort of gun is pointed at them. "The Armed Citizen" page in The American Rifleman has reprinted many articles over the decades of home invaders scared off and even killed by 'peashooter' .22 rimfire rifles like this one.

    Very often no shots need to be fired. The criminal sees the gun and runs because getting shot will hurt or might kill them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online