How come the same parties that are suing Deerfield haven't sued cook county/Chicago for the AWB?
Well, the Deerfield they are not directly attacking the constitutionality of the ban (AFAIK). They are definitely saying it wasn't legal under the preemption clause of the FCCA. The bill Deerfield filed in the timeframe in 2013 was a transport and storage law, not a ban.
Really boils down to the judge. But, it is REAL obvious the intent of the preemption clause in the FCCA was, basically "If you want to ban Assault weapons at a municipal level, do it now. After the window, you can not". But, we have communities that put a 'shell bill' out at that time. Some were actual empty ordinances. Deerfield's at least addressed the weapons in question, by limiting how they had to be stored and transported. IMHO, the empty shell ordinances, 100% go against the intent of the preemption clause in the FCCA, regardless of what these municipalities were 'assured' at the time. Deerfield's, imho can be argued to be of the same ilk, as it is a completely different ordinance (they even removed the storage and transport language).
That said, I would like to see one of these bans challenged under the Heller decision, where the decision actually said it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons that are in common use. All of these bans violate that. That said, limiting mag capacity doesn't have a precedent against it. In fact, Heller somewhat says municipalities can limit that, for the common safety.
Edited by cybermgk, Today, 10:18 AM.