Rod Kaufman said:
Excellent news!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html
Check out that fine for owning one...
And the lawsuits over it has already begun

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/isra-files-lawsuit-against-village-of-deerfield-il-over-gun-ban-300625181.html
http://wgntv.com/2018/04/05/nra-joins-fight-against-deerfields-weapons-ban/
Poor little Deerfield is going to go broke fighting this one lol
Having read and thought about the 2nd amendment a lot, particularly for the last couple of decades as the noise from the left has continuously escalated to what is now a fever pitch, I am always looking to simplify the matter in as much as possible at least from a Constitutional perspective. I believe I have found it and to my satisfaction it doesn't get much clearer than this.
The 2nd Amendment consists of two clauses. The first clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependent clause, because it is not a complete sentence. It cannot stand on its own. The second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" forms a complete sentence, it is an independent clause. The first clause is dependent on the second clause. Or, in simple English, the existence of a militia (which is essential to the security of a free State), is DEPENDENT on people having un-infringed rights, not the other way around.
"No laws, licenses, permits or taxes that by design are intended to keep American citizens in good standing from exercising their 2A right can be legal, per the 2A "shall not be infringed".
As far as I am concerned the above two paragraphs ends the dispute from a Constitutional perspective. So until the 2nd amendment is repealed via the proscribed Constitutional process for such things the debate is over.