Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If there is a thread about this I could not find it. Move if needed.

Injunction Granted Against the Chicago Suburb of Deerfield. SAF win for now.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
I ran across this video in an Ammoland article discussing this. Notice the bait & switch in the beginning? Despicable bastards.

 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,144 Posts
Yeah, they went straight to semi-full auto.

Nemo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
Yes they did! :minigun:

Back in 1989, COPS made its TV debut. The entire first season was done with the Broward County Sheriffs Office (yes, that BCSO). Nick Navarro was the Sheriff, was vehemently anti-gun and hated AR-15s. And pissed off that the state had instituted “shall issue” and firearms preemption laws in 1987. He did a "PSA" on one episode to show the carnage that the AR-15 could unleash on the streets of Broward in hopes of getting them banned (because the preemption laws didn’t have penalties originally).

They built a concrete block wall and showed a deputy pulverize it with an AR-15. It was a public relations win for Navarro. Until some really smart gun people raised the BS flag on two points. The shooting deputy never appeared in the same frames with the wall and the frames showing the wall getting destroyed had a very noticeable higher rate of fire sound. Busted! They had used an AR-15 for the scenes with the deputy and an M16 for the scenes showing the wall destruction. Eventually Navarro confessed because of pressure from the leftist Sun-Sentinel but he claimed ignorance of the bait & switch because he wasn’t present at the demo. :hide: Politicians…….
 

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
Well, jeeze, declare it "injurious" and the government has free rein to take it.

The Supreme Court stated "A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property." Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top