Can a town make a law that supersedes state and federal law? I thought we had it bad here but this is crazy.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/04/03/deerfield-bans-semiautomatic-weapons/amp/#ampshare=http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/04/03/deerfield-bans-semiautomatic-weapons/

..."Gun owners in north suburban Deerfield now have just over two months to remove certain types of firearms from their home, or face stiff fines.

Village trustees voted unanimously in favor of a complete ban on semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with certain features. The new ordinance also bans magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition, CBS 2’s Jeremy Ross reports.

What the hell is a "Village trustee"? When did they get the power to write laws and overthrow the 2nd Amendment?

 

Yeah, big picture, THAT won’t hold up in court. 

2 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

Yeah, big picture, THAT won’t hold up in court. 

I agree.  However depending on how the state law is written depends if a county or town can have more restrictive laws.

Wait.  Aren't we ALWAYS being told nobody wants to ban or take your guns and to stop being paranoid.

Guess Deerfield didn't get the memo saying It's okay to wish and think those things but NEVER say them out loud or take any action on them.

Let them come and take them! That will clear out the towns coffers when they pay that lawsuit!

here's a better question. if a town(village?) can't make a law that supersedes state law......how can a state make a law that supersedes federal law?

Maybe those village trustees (wtf?) are tired of their jobs and wanted to be  forcibly removed from society, cause that is one sure-fire way to have that happen.

illinois didn't used to have state preemption. They got state preemption as law a few years ago. Part of that process was granfathering in exiting local statutes. Deerfield established a vague statute in order to get it grandfathered. Now they are changing said statute. 

Is it legal? It probably adheres to the state pre-emption statute, yes. 

 

5 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

here's a better question. if a town(village?) can't make a law that supersedes state law......how can a state make a law that supersedes federal law?

A state or smaller government division can't make a law that supersedes a federal law.  They can make a law that's more restrictive.  They can't make a law that contradicts federal law.

Legal marijuana, sanctuary states, and sanctuary cities are different issues.  All illegal to some extent IMO.

 

Village Bans Semi-Automatic Weapons, Residents Must Remove From Home Or Face Up To $1,000 Fines — Per Day

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29050/village-bans-semi-automatic-weapons-residents-must-joseph-curl?utm_source=shapironewsletter-ae&utm_medium=email&utm_content=040418-news&utm_campaign=modelnames

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Village Bans Semi-Automatic Weapons, Residents Must Remove From Home Or Face Up To $1,000 Fines — Per Day 
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29050/village-bans-semi-automatic-weapons-residents-must-joseph-curl?utm_source=shapironewsletter-ae&utm_medium=email&utm_content=040418-news&utm_campaign=modelnames
 

  
 
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Is local government has the authority to pass such a law?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Do not confuse ordinance with civil liberties... a village cannot go against the constitution. A village cannot say women cannot vote.. etc

it just hit me? i'm guessing that all of their stuff has to be registered there?

 

2 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

it just hit me? i'm guessing that all of their stuff has to be registered there?

 

That was my next question.  How would they know who owns what?.

 

Damn, there is another nearby town with a similar law.  "The law is similar to the one in neighboring Highland Park"

 

"A state or smaller government division can't make a law that supersedes a federal law.  They can make a law that's more restrictive.  They can't make a law that contradicts federal law."

They can make it "more restrictive"? So can a town can require more restrictions on proving you are a town resident before you vote, not just a voter ID but also say a water or electric bill? It would be more restrictive than Murphy's "let anyone vote" policy. Some would say that those additional restrictions are a violation of rights - just like imposing more restrictive firearms restrictions. To me they are similar in how they are "more restrictive".

Wait a second, I started this thread and that's not the title that I gave it. How did get changed? Did a mod not like it and think that they had a better name?

Wrut ro

56 minutes ago, gfl216 said:

Wait a second, I started this thread and that's not the title that I gave it. How did get changed? Did a mod not like it and think that they had a better name?

Wouldnt be the first time.  Everytime i write porkroll.   They switch it to taylor ham.   Not joking.  Nazi mods

3 hours ago, gfl216 said:

Wait a second, I started this thread and that's not the title that I gave it. How did get changed? Did a mod not like it and think that they had a better name?

Got a PM from a Mod. Totally legit. Two threads on the same topic were merged.

1 hour ago, gfl216 said:

Wait a second, I started this thread and that's not the title that I gave it. How did get changed? Did a mod not like it and think that they had a better name?

I think two similiar threads were "merged".

1 hour ago, gfl216 said:

Wait a second, I started this thread and that's not the title that I gave it. How did get changed? Did a mod not like it and think that they had a better name?

There was a topic already existing on it so I merged things together.  Sorry if you got confused.

 

4 minutes ago, Golf battery said:

Wouldnt be the first time.  Everytime i write porkroll.taylor ham.   They switch it to taylor ham.   Not joking.  Nazi mods

No.  Dont try it.  I know it wasnt you.  Its before your time.  Mr gto im guessing. 

3 hours ago, Paulie Buffo said:

"A state or smaller government division can't make a law that supersedes a federal law.  They can make a law that's more restrictive.  They can't make a law that contradicts federal law."

They can make it "more restrictive"? So can a town can require more restrictions on proving you are a town resident before you vote, not just a voter ID but also say a water or electric bill? It would be more restrictive than Murphy's "let anyone vote" policy. Some would say that those additional restrictions are a violation of rights - just like imposing more restrictive firearms restrictions. To me they are similar in how they are "more restrictive".

States make up their own election laws.  Their is no provision for towns to make up their own election laws.  Some states require ID to vote some don't.

When you buy a gun from a FFL in any state the federal requirements must be met. Many states require only that and nothing more.  When you buy a gun in a private ftf transaction in most states it's like buying a shovel.

States are entitled to have more restrictions because the 10A gives them any powers not given the federal government in the COTUS.  There is a point where more restrictions violate Constitutional Rights.  That gets decided in courts.

15 hours ago, Matroskin said:

  
 
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Is local government has the authority to pass such a law?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Evidently.... from what I understand, it's not the first town in IL. to do it.

3 hours ago, bhunted said:

Evidently.... from what I understand, it's not the first town in IL. to do it.

Nope. This is why there was that hullabloo about optics planet/dvor. 

thing is that they're saying the sc supported it, but i thought someone said that the sc never heard the case? so not hearing a case=supporting it now?

Well if they have to remove it from their home what does the law say about keeping it in their car?