This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, June 15, 2018:
Back in April, this writer explored in this space the consequences facing residents of the little town of Deerfield, Illinois if its ban on all so-called “assault weapons” had been upheld by the court. Happily, just the day before the ban was to be implemented, Lake County Circuit Judge Luis Berrones blocked it.
The ban clearly violated Illinois’ state law that declares that “the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid.”
Deerfield Mayor Harriet Rosenthal predicted the outcome. The ban was intended, she said, to “increase the public’s sense of safety” following another mass shooting, notwithstanding “potential objections … or the enforceability of such a ban.” In other words, the ban was “feel good” legislation that had nothing to do with reducing gun violence in Deerfield (a small, low crime community 25 miles north of Chicago) but merely made a statement.
But what if the judge had ruled differently, and the ban were allowed to become effective on June 13? That is the question this writer attempted to address in April, as a warning to other anti-gun politicians in other villages, towns, and municipalities bent on expressing their anti-gun sentiments in similar fashion.
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 failed 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. That translates into more than 2,500 households in Deerfield with one or more of the now-banned “assault weapons.” 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 to go door-to-door (they are their neighbors, remember) seeking out those resisting the new ordinance?
Ray Starmann, founder and editor-in-chief of US Defense Watch, made plain exactly what he thought would happen 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.
It’s one thing to make a foolish and invalid political statement about firearms. It’s another thing entirely to try to enforce such a ban. Anti-gun liberals are playing with fire – and citizens’ significant firepower – if they really try to enforce such statements by force of arms.
Happily for the residents of Deerfield, at least, all these questions remain rhetorical.
McAlvany Intelligence Advisor: What if “Theoretical” Becomes “Actual” in Deerfield, Illinois?
PRNewsWire.com: SAF: ‘Deerfield’s Free Legal Help No Match For Our Attorneys’