Winnetka, IL repeals gun ban

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
Another one bites the dust.

One of the most beneficial results of the Bush presidency, is his appointment of law-abiding judges and justices to the Federal courts. They provided the crucial difference that let the DC v. Heller case get to the Supreme Court and ultimately be won.

Now a number of towns are seeing the handwriting on the wall: The 2nd amendment means what it dsays, and gun bans are unconstitutional. The courts are no longer covering up for it. The towns can fight in court, and probably lose. Or they can just repeal their unconstitutional gun laws now, and save some money.

A great quote from the Winnetka city council guy: "The village has a significant financial risk in keeping the ban in place..."

Hey, bonehead. The village has a lot more than just a financial stake. Places with gun bans tend to get more of their residents KILLED than places where citizens are allowed to defend themselves, and crimes are deterred before they even take place. Looks like you still don't understand that, so the courts now have to force you to do the right thing. Well, it's still progress.

Welcome to reality.

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/winnetka-repeals-handgun-ban.html

Winnetka repeals handgun ban

November 19, 2008 at 7:25 AM

Winnetka Village Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to repeal the suburb's 20-year-old ban on possessing handguns but kept intact other portions of its ordinance regulating firearm use, council President Edmund Woodbury said this morning.

The action followed a recent Supreme Court decision and the filing of a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association and three village residents who asserted the ban violated their 2nd Amendment rights.

"The council voted unanimously to repeal the sections in our ordinance that had been the subject of the lawsuit by the NRA," Woodbury said.

"The village has a significant financial risk in keeping the ban in place, and given that, we felt it best to allow the national debate on this subject is settled."

Council members said they feared if they didn't repeal portions of the ordinance, it would cost the suburb thousands of dollars to fight the suit with the real risk of still losing in court.

About 20 people residents spoke for and against repealing the ban on handgun possession Tuesday, Woodbury said.

Village officials established the ban shortly after a mentally ill woman, Laurie Dann, shot to death one child and injured five others at Hubbard Woods Elementary School in 1988.

In the Chicago area, five suburbs-including Wilmette, Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park-had gun bans at the time of the Supreme Court ruling and have now taken similar measures to repeal them.
 
i remember when morton grove instituted the nations first handgun ban. you KNEW it was going to go well when the sheriff deputized his wife so she could carry a concealed handgun. elitism at its finest.

ok, so two left....chicago and who?
 
While this is a moral victory, we need some mindless liberal government to try to keep their fascist laws so the Heller decision can be officially incorporated. Once that step is successfully put behind us, the real progress in taking back our constitutional rights can begin.

The bad thing is we are now under a rather tight time constraint. Big O will load the courts with anti-constitutional fascists whose job it is to define "reasonable gun laws" as fast as he can.
 
Constitutional right?

I have a right to life. My children have a right to live without your tyranny.

Gun nuts = fascists and freedom haters.
 
And if we need to repeal the second amendment to put you freedom hating fascists into line and stop your rampant misinterpretation and abuse of it, then so be it.
 
Good Luck said:
While this is a moral victory, we need some mindless liberal government to try to keep their fascist laws so the Heller decision can be officially incorporated. Once that step is successfully put behind us, the real progress in taking back our constitutional rights can begin.

The bad thing is we are now under a rather tight time constraint. Big O will load the courts with anti-constitutional fascists whose job it is to define "reasonable gun laws" as fast as he can.
Click to expand...

I'm actually waiting for this socialist majority party to suggest another court packing scheme like FDR did. Then we can have open bloody war. :cof1:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
dumbfuck. you also have the right to defend that life, not the right to force others to protect your sorry socialist ass.
Click to expand...

Others don't protect lives. The police have no obligation to protect you. That has already been established in courts. The police rarely prevent crimes. Their main task is to catch criminals after a crime has been committed.

The gun owners probably save more lives by shooting the criminals so they won't go to prison for a year or two and then get right back out to do it all again.
 
Solitary said:
Others don't protect lives. The police have no obligation to protect you. That has already been established in courts. The police rarely prevent crimes. Their main task is to catch criminals after a crime has been committed.

The gun owners probably save more lives by shooting the criminals so they won't go to prison for a year or two and then get right back out to do it all again.
Click to expand...

I know all this very well, try schooling waterfark on it.
 
Watermark said:
It's dubious to have a right that creates a need for itself. And still doesn't do the job half as well as a blanket gun ban.
Click to expand...

Marijuana, cocaine, heroine, meth, and LSD are all banned.

Does there seem to be a shortage of any of those?



It does not CREATE the need for itself. Do you somehow think that robberies, rapes and murders were invented with the firearm? You may be goofy, but you aren't that stupid.

The firearm just allows smaller, weaker people to defend themselves against larger, stronger people.
 
Watermark said:
It's dubious to have a right that creates a need for itself. And still doesn't do the job half as well as a blanket gun ban.
Click to expand...

banning guns would only keep decent citizens from obtaining them while criminals and those who would violate the rights (and bodies) of others would use guns or any other item to be used as a weapon.

gun bans only promote victimization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top