Except just like the military "Lawful" is defined by those above you who give the orders. So unless it's something so far out of the ordinary to be obvious ("Go get that guy, he has an illegal gun and while you are there execute his family for defying us") then they will follow it. Not following orders means they get fired, lose their income, lose their retirement, and lose their power and side benefits of being a cop. Haven't seen any of them refusing to enforce AWB's, or mag restrictions, or any other nonsense. Some will ignore things on the ground when they can, but none will refuse to kick a door or make an arrest.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Deerfield Illinois bans possessions of Assault Weapons
- Thread starter Palladin
- Start date
Except just like the military "Lawful" is defined by those above you who give the orders. So unless it's something so far out of the ordinary to be obvious ("Go get that guy, he has an illegal gun and while you are there execute his family for defying us") then they will follow it. Not following orders means they get fired, lose their income, lose their retirement, and lose their power and side benefits of being a cop. Haven't seen any of them refusing to enforce AWB's, or mag restrictions, or any other nonsense. Some will ignore things on the ground when they can, but none will refuse to kick a door or make an arrest.
JDL
NES Member
What are you talking about if this will stand? Boston has an assault weapons ban and it is still standing. Look around this is in our own back yard. Longneadow MA tried this last year and almost got it through. I am supersized that other towns/cities in our state have not tried this and got it through yet. What has stopped the extreme liberal towns/cities in MA. to get the ball rolling? If Boston did it and it and it is in force why hasen't this become a common occurrence. I am sure towns like North Hampton would have very little local resistance to a town AWB. In my opinion it is a only a mater of time once these towns get the sanctuary city thing done they will move on to the next big thing the town/city AWB
You are correct, my point is that the Pols and Judges are the culprits, not the Cops. Thank God for Trumps election and his judicial appointments. If Hillary was elected we'd be seeing total AWB ban and confiscation. Cops would obey until they started getting shot at.
Horrible
NES Member
Yes, no question that the Pols and Judges are the culprits here and NOT the Cops. But these types of laws serve the Pols and the judges. Do they really serve the Cops? These same Pols and Judges support groups that advocate for murdering LEOs. Let that set in. Is this the wagon Cops want to hitch to?
Unfortunately comes down to the same thing. They are tethered to the brass, who are all political and generally on the side of anti gun nonsense. What is your average cop going to do about it, they have limits on what they can say publicly or protest without being targeted at work in retaliation. They can't refuse orders, can't lobby against laws except as individuals (Even though the chiefs lobby freely in uniform), and are in a position where even if they disagree with a law there is a chance every time they exercise discretion and don't jam someone up that they will be found out and get in trouble for letting them go.
amm5061
NES Member
This. Town is gonna get their nuts slapped by the state. And it almost certainly violates Heller with the blanket ban on anything that accepts a detachable magazine (all semi-auto pistols and some shotguns and rifles). All of these are in common use.
fshalor
NES Member
If hoa's can charge $15-75/day for violations .why not.
AHM
NES Member
Palladin
NES Member
Judge throws out Deerfield's assault weapons ban
In the ruling, Berrones wrote that the plaintiff gun owners have “a clearly ascertainable right to not be subjected to a preempted and unenforceable ordinance” that prohibits possession of assault weapons, imposes financial penalties for keeping them and allows their property to be confiscated.
why wouldn't this apply to the ATF bump stock ruling as well?
In the ruling, Berrones wrote that the plaintiff gun owners have “a clearly ascertainable right to not be subjected to a preempted and unenforceable ordinance” that prohibits possession of assault weapons, imposes financial penalties for keeping them and allows their property to be confiscated.
why wouldn't this apply to the ATF bump stock ruling as well?
Similar threads
