This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, April 9, 2018:
Deerfield, Illinois is a pleasant little town about 25 miles north of Chicago, a few miles west of Lake Michigan and just off Interstate 94. Temperatures are pleasant, registering average highs of 85 in the summer and in the low 20s in the winter. Its population hasn’t changed much in the last ten years, as the town and environs have gained and lost businesses over those years. It’s currently home to Walgreens Boots, Baxter Healthcare, Consumers Digest, and Caterpillar. It used to be headquarters of the Sara Lee Corporation but that closed down in 1990 and the company sold its land to developers.
There are about 20,000 people living there, in an estimated 6,420 households (which datum will be important later on in this article). The local government consists of a mayor and a board of trustees. It considers itself a village, and is represented in the House of Representatives by Democrat Brad Schneider, whose Freedom Index is a treasonous 16 out of 100.
That should explain why the mayor, Harriet Rosenthal, and the board of trustees decided it would do its bit in fighting violent crime and mass shootings: inflict pain on its law-abiding citizens through one of the most draconian and tyrannical pieces of anti-gun legislation to come down the pike in some time. As the Chicago Tribune explained:
In the Deerfield ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.
The law, according to Mayor Harriet Rosenthal and the other trustees on the board, is intended to “increase the public’s sense of safety,” notwithstanding “potential objections … or the enforceability of such a ban.” In other words, the law is the worst kind of “feel good” legislation passed without regard for its potential unanticipated or unintended consequences. It was designed also to placate an anti-gun student from Deerfield High School, one Ariella Kharasch, who, after passage, told the trustees:
This is our fight. This is our generation’s fight, and we’re going to keep fighting. Thank you for being part of that.
And then Kharasch added ominously:
If Highland Park, if Deerfield, if more towns say no to this type of weapon, maybe the state of Illinois says no. Maybe the federal government says no.
What if, indeed? What if the two lawsuits that were brought against the legislation by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) within days of its passage fail to turn it aside? What if “more towns say no”? What if “the state of Illinois says no”? What if the federal government “says no” and institutes the kind of tyranny the Deerfield worthies are trying to impose?
What would that small village’s culture look like if only police and criminals owned guns? Would Deerfield become a magnet for criminals, knowing that its residents had no longer any means to defend themselves?
Just how would that law, if it were allowed to stand, be enforced? Let’s do some math: Deerfield’s population is just under 20,000 souls living in an estimated 6,420 households. If national averages apply, that means that there is likely at least one firearm in four out of every ten households. The Deerfield Police Department has 40 total employees: officers, administrators, and secretaries. If tasked with confiscating weaponry from citizens who refused to comply with the law, just how would that work out?
What would happen the first time a law-abiding gun owner decides to defend himself against a DPD office seeking to confiscate his legally-owned firearms, and one or both are killed in the confrontation? How willing would other members of the PDP be in wanting to go door-to-door (they are their neighbors, remember) seeking out those resisting the new ordinance?
Would the PDP call in the Lake County Sheriff’s Department? They have nearly 500 full-time officers (and 50 part-timers), but their territory is vastly larger. Deerfield occupies less than six square miles. Lake County encompasses 1,368 square miles. Would they respond to calls from the village to help with enforced confiscation of firearms there?
How would the mayor and the local DPD know where to look? Do they already know who owns a firearm? Would they just sort through the state registry of those holding FOID (Firearm Owners Identification cards that the state requires) and then proceed from there?
These are painful questions without answers, and only lead to more questions. What would a completely disarmed United States look like? How would confiscation of 300-plus million firearms be accomplished? Applying the same 40 percent rule to the present 126 million households in the U.S., that means someone – lots of someones – are going to have to start knocking on (or in) 50 million front doors.
As Ray Starmann, founder and editor-in-chief of US Defense Watch, made plain in an open letter he sent to the mayor and trustees:
Your actions are right out of a playbook that despots have used for centuries. It is called “disarm the population and then control them”….
A word of warning to the Deerfield Village Board of Trustees and the other local, state, and federal government authorities … millions of gun owners in America will fight if necessary to preserve the Second Amendment….
Try and take that right away from us, and watch Lexington and Concord 2.0s take place across the country.
Enough with the conjecture already! That “feel good” law passed by anti-gun liberals trying to “increase the public’s sense of safety” isn’t going anywhere. As SAF’s Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said when announcing that his foundation had already filed suit to block its implementation:
We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flies in the face of state law. While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.
The new ordinance also provides for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines. What is particularly outrageous about this new law is that it levies fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refuses to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village by the time the ordinance takes effect in June. This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that “nobody is coming to take your guns.”
There’s one good positive takeaway from the Deerfield board’s move: liberals can no longer hide behind explanations that they really and truly support the Second Amendment, but they just want “common sense” rules to combat violent crime.
That phony explanation has been now completely exposed. Anti-gun liberals really truly intend to disarm every law-abiding gun owner in the country on their way to their New World Order, where peace and love rule forever under their tender care.
NewsWithViews.com: Pastor Chuck Baldwin: SHOULD CHRISTIANS GIVE UP THEIR GUNS?
ConservativeTribune.com: Chicago Suburb That Banned ‘Assault Rifles’ Is Paying a Big Price
USDefenseWatch.com: An Open Letter to the Deerfield, Illinois, Village Board of Trustees