Residents of a Chicago suburb have until June 13 to get out of town before authorities begin confiscating their guns, under a new ordinance that outlaws “assault weapons,” which includes semi-automatic rifles and even some shotguns.
On Monday, the town of Deerfield, Illinois passed a new ordinance outlawing the ownership of “assault weapons,” and the new law also applies to weapons already owned by citizens. The lack of a grandfather clause has angered a number of gun owners, who now face stiff fines if they don’t turn over their guns.
The ordinance argues that “the possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is not reasonable necessary to protect an individual’s right of self-defense or the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”
The Village Board of Trustees in Deerfield, Ill., a suburb near Chicago, voted on April 2 to ban the possession, sale, and manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Anyone refusing to give up their banned weapon will be fined $1,000 a day until the weapon is handed over or removed from the town’s limits.
According to the ordinance, semiautomatic rifles with a fixed magazine and a capacity to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are banned. Shotguns that have revolving chambers are also outlawed.
City leaders initiated the gun ban after the Parkland school shooting that killed 17 on Valentine’s Day.
The ordinance was motivated by the February shooting at a Parkland, Fla. high school and other recent mass shootings.
Deerfield Mayor Rosenthal asked the town’s leaders to prepare a ban on assault rifles days after the Parkland shooting, which passed unanimously.
“We hope that our local decision helps spur state and national leaders to take steps to make our communities safer,” Mayor Rosenthal said in a press release.
The ordinance goes into effect on June 13. Regulation of rifles, shotguns, pistols, and ammunition is not impacted by the ban.
A similar proposal was passed in Highland Park, Ill. in 2013. It was contested as unconstitutional, but the ordinance survived in court.