Sounds like Morton Grove - BOHICA! I’m old enough to remember Kennesaw Georgia’s response, which also made headlines.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association lawyers are sure to take that one to court.
I would ask this city council “what exactly are you trying to accomplish?”
Who are you trying to protect- the citizen or the potential criminal?
Why do you use local statutes & ordinances to circumvent the 2ND AMENDMENT?
Who is going to enforce this regulation?
California… No comment
Isn’t this almost identical to the Heller vs DC case? It should get stricken down with the quickness.
Do they plan on sending out the volunteers that are going to give tickets to people not wearing masks in public to respond to home invasions also?
I thank the Lord I live in a strong 2A rural county backed by a 2A Sheriff.
Not to mention the 4th.
If in that city they have higher jurisdiction then the law of the land, then following the same principles, in my home I have higher jurisdiction than the city.
Follow that one to the logical conclusion…
Declare your home an autonomous zone. That works, apparently.
One of Biden’s picks for his administration was quoted as saying that AR-15’s were not commonly used for lawful purposes … That’s a statement akin to saying the sky is purple. It has no reasonable relation to any kind of truth.
This article is very similar, with a line of thinking and rationale that is neither thoughtful or rational, it’s emotional anti-self defense horse manure.
When I consider what now passes for good healthy thinking in our national discourse, I consider it highly unlikely that such a nation can long survive.
It’s like passing a law that says you can only carry a spare tire for you car if it is rendered safe by not having any air in it, because of course a fully pressurized tire is dangerous, it could explode! So if you only air it up after it’s on the car, why that would be much better.
The stupidity is getting so overwhelming it defies almost any sensible response.
This is very similiar to a law NY City passed. It was challenged and was headed to the SCOTUS. They changed it before it was heard as they knew it wasn’t constitutional. I suspect they will do the same thing here.
That’s Bay Area politics in Eric Fartin’ Swalwell’s neck of the woods.
It’ll be interesting to see how that case goes. Typically, someone has to have been affected by a law before they can challenge it. But I’m not sure how this law gets enforced, except after-the-fact if a firearm is used or has an ND. (Similar to how “driving too fast for conditions” is only applied after an accident, when it’s obvious.) But perhaps it can be challenged based on prior rulings?
Obviously I’m not a lawyer.