- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/5/18 at 6:49 pm to auggie
So first take the booty, then receive the booty? Got it.
This post was edited on 4/5/18 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 4/5/18 at 6:53 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:I don’t care.
It's not their fault the are asked to enforce shitty laws. Stop making shitty laws
Posted on 4/5/18 at 6:53 pm to fallguy_1978
Disagree. Cops use discretion every day. They can use discretion here.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 6:54 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
WTF? No way that is an acceptable decision from the court. That has to be a joke.
I don't think they appealed the decision to a higher court though. It all takes money.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 6:56 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Disagree. Cops use discretion every day. They can use discretion here
That's the same excuse that sanctuary city officials use. I think marijuana should be legalized but I don't blame cops for following the laws on the books.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 6:57 pm to fallguy_1978
I expect you to insist the next cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation give you a ticket even if he was going to let you off with a warning.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 8:43 pm to 225bred
I would file a lawsuit.. How can a city restrict access/possession to a firearm that can be legally obtained and owned at any other city in IL or around the country, and it is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment?
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:50 pm to Friscodog
9 states ban the AR-15.
Marylaw law was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Something Scalia said in the Heller case . . .
Marylaw law was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Something Scalia said in the Heller case . . .
Posted on 4/5/18 at 10:17 pm to 225bred
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 4/5/18 at 10:50 pm to 225bred
Time to move.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 10:53 pm to 225bred
Baby steps, but moving in the right direction. Hogg kid doing good work.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 11:00 pm to Friscodog
quote:
I would file a lawsuit.. How can a city restrict access/possession to a firearm that can be legally obtained and owned at any other city in IL or around the country, and it is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment?
Yep.
They can pound sand. Ain’t gonna happen. 2nd amendment trumps these asshats in Chicago.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 11:04 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
No one is coming for your guns. Unless you live in deerfield. But thats it we promise.
We just want the Confederate statues down.
You can keep your doctor and your premiums will go down.
Starting to notice a pattern?
Posted on 4/5/18 at 11:13 pm to upgrayedd
Like I said earlier, perhaps they should go ahead and register their jewelry, art, bank accounts and other valuables for easier confiscation later.
$50 every one of this idiots who voted for this law claims to hate fascism
$50 every one of this idiots who voted for this law claims to hate fascism
Posted on 4/5/18 at 11:13 pm to 225bred
Attention criminals in the Chicago South Side - Deerfield =easy pickings.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 11:17 pm to 225bred
Antique handguns that have been rendered permanently inoperable and weapons designed for Olympic target shooting events are exempt as are retired police officers.
And so it begins. What is different about home defense for people who used to wear badges? What is this exemption all about? What possible rationale exists for choosing some random population for special rights? Forget retired cops, why do active LEO’s need any of these weapons? If they’re not fit for home defense why are they fit for defense outside of the home? This does not augur well for a free people.
And so it begins. What is different about home defense for people who used to wear badges? What is this exemption all about? What possible rationale exists for choosing some random population for special rights? Forget retired cops, why do active LEO’s need any of these weapons? If they’re not fit for home defense why are they fit for defense outside of the home? This does not augur well for a free people.
This post was edited on 4/5/18 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 4/5/18 at 11:19 pm to Big Jim Slade
SAF filing lawsuit against Deerfield
This post was edited on 4/6/18 at 9:21 am
Posted on 4/5/18 at 11:22 pm to OleManDixon
quote:
And so it begins. What is different about home defense for people who used to wear badges?
That's not new as ban states allow retired officers to keep assault weapons. It was cheap way to get cop leadership to sign on the AWB back during the 90s. I don't agree with that practice one bit.
quote:
Forget retired cops, why do active LEO’s need any of these weapons? If they’re not fit for home defense why are they fit for defense outside of the home? This does not augur well for a free people.
Totally with you on that. Here's another point: if a cop has to use a 17 round magazine in his glock 17 or own an Ar15, what's the difference between the people they shoot and the ones we have to defend ourselves against?
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News