Jump to content

Northbrook considers legal options in assault weapons ban enforcement


InterestedBystander

Recommended Posts

 

MORONS, another lawsuit in the making.

 

If I was a taxpayer there, I'd be furious that the municipality, which doesn't have a problem with violence, would so foolishly expose themselves to prolonged litigation. But since I don't reside there, i hope the taxpayers there buy some attorney a new BMW. I hope the stupid hurts!

 

Hopefully more like a new Gulfstream for a bunch of attorneys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

MORONS, another lawsuit in the making.

 

If I was a taxpayer there, I'd be furious that the municipality, which doesn't have a problem with violence, would so foolishly expose themselves to prolonged litigation. But since I don't reside there, i hope the taxpayers there buy some attorney a new BMW. I hope the stupid hurts!

Hopefully more like a new Gulfstream for a bunch of attorneys.
When the same law firm worked with Highland Park, it's my understanding they may have done some Pro Bono work as well as received funds from the Brady people. But Im sure they are still being well compensated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the important thing to remember. Bloomberg / Brady people have deep pockets and so the gun grabbers are feeling emboldened. If we win the cases, not much the other side can do. But if they feel they have a chance, they don't care about legal fees since they expect most of them to be reimbursed.

 

I wonder if some of these Mayors and Trustees can be sued personally for creating these unconstitutional laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am so glad to be firming up our plans to move to Tennessee.

 

Northbrook: Do you really think that bad guys are going to abide by your new totally stupid laws? NEWSFLASH! Bad guys don't care about laws! That's why they are bad guys! Oh you dumb damn people. You will NEVER have a clue.

They have a clue, they think gun owners are bad guys and want to turn them into bad guys.

 

 

Yep. And they don't actually care about enforcing the law. They care about the cultural war and making gun owners "bad guys". They can then say how may "bad guy" gun owners did not turn in their firearms for destruction, and paint a picture in the media. This is the only purpose of the laws...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a reply from Village President Sandy Frum regarding the proposal to amend the liquor license ordinance:

 

 

 

Mr. Delgreco:

 

Our intention is to mimic the Chicago Ordinance which exempts the owner, lessee, tenant or operator of the licensed premises. I believe that covers your concern.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sandy

While I'm not thrilled with the proposal I am somewhat relieved that I'd be exempt from the amended ordinance. My restaurant is not posted, we think discriminating against thousands of paying customers is bad for business, yet I still wonder how the Chicago ordinance is enforced. My restaurant is 1 of 4 locations, we have 3 in Chicago; 2 cafe style and 1 full service and none of them are posted either. Sometimes I work the bar, but mostly the bartender pours the drinks and the servers bring the drinks to the tables, so am I supposed to have my staff ask if our customers are carrying when they come in? I just don't get it.

 

I'd still hate to see any sort of dip in sales for my restaurant because of such a stupid ordinance, I have quite a few customers that carry in our restaurant, and they spend good money and tip my staff well when they're here. When I go to the gun store and chat people up I pass out my business cards and invite folks to come to my 2A friendly restaurant, and in my experience, the CCL crowd has always been happy to come spend their money at a business that welcomes their presence.

UNTIL they modify the law / ordinance later and remove ALL exemptions!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you must post to avoid a license battle, post the sign. But right under the sign post another more prominent sign that states: “The above sign is posted under the authority of city/town and not by the owner or management. City/town has no posting authority on private property, therefore the above sign carries no force of law.” Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I may just have to get that printed on some window stickers to post beneath the "No Barettas" sign.

 

Post a sign below the no Barretta sign that says "We will NOT prosecute people caught legally carrying".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a reply from Village President Sandy Frum regarding the proposal to amend the liquor license ordinance:

 

 

 

Mr. Delgreco:

 

Our intention is to mimic the Chicago Ordinance which exempts the owner, lessee, tenant or operator of the licensed premises. I believe that covers your concern.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sandy

 

While I'm not thrilled with the proposal I am somewhat relieved that I'd be exempt from the amended ordinance. My restaurant is not posted, we think discriminating against thousands of paying customers is bad for business, yet I still wonder how the Chicago ordinance is enforced. My restaurant is 1 of 4 locations, we have 3 in Chicago; 2 cafe style and 1 full service and none of them are posted either. Sometimes I work the bar, but mostly the bartender pours the drinks and the servers bring the drinks to the tables, so am I supposed to have my staff ask if our customers are carrying when they come in? I just don't get it.

 

I'd still hate to see any sort of dip in sales for my restaurant because of such a stupid ordinance, I have quite a few customers that carry in our restaurant, and they spend good money and tip my staff well when they're here. When I go to the gun store and chat people up I pass out my business cards and invite folks to come to my 2A friendly restaurant, and in my experience, the CCL crowd has always been happy to come spend their money at a business that welcomes their presence.

Sir, they are giving you nothing. State law requires that exception, per the AUUW law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got another response from one of the trustees:

I will check again but the owner operator should

be exempt.

Plus the percentage of sales also governs.

Jim Karagianis

 

I emailed him back saying that Northbrook shouldn't even bother amending their liquor code as it creates confusion for us business owners and managers when it comes to posting and enforcement especially since we're not a prohibited place under the FCCA because our liquor sales are so low that they're barely a blip on our daily spreadsheet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got another response from one of the trustees:

I will check again but the owner operator should

be exempt.

Plus the percentage of sales also governs.

Jim Karagianis

 

I emailed him back saying that Northbrook shouldn't even bother amending their liquor code as it creates confusion for us business owners and managers when it comes to posting and enforcement especially since we're not a prohibited place under the FCCA because our liquor sales are so low that they're barely a blip on our daily spreadsheet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got another response from one of the trustees:

I will check again but the owner operator should

be exempt.

Plus the percentage of sales also governs.

Jim Karagianis

 

I emailed him back saying that Northbrook shouldn't even bother amending their liquor code as it creates confusion for us business owners and managers when it comes to posting and enforcement especially since we're not a prohibited place under the FCCA because our liquor sales are so low that they're barely a blip on our daily spreadsheet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to listen to tkroenlein. As he said, there's an exemption in the state statutes already. It's in the UUW statute. Owners, managers and authorized employees can carry in their establishment. All that is needed is a FOID card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if some of these Mayors and Trustees can be sued personally for creating these unconstitutional laws.

Why? Legislative Immunity protects them the same way from these claims the same way they, and the generations of electocrats before them cannot be sued for knowingly failing to follow the suggestions of the Illinois Department of Insurance and dozens of actuaries and not make the recommended payments into the various pension plans 10-40 years back which put us in the mess we're in now.

 

Having a {D} or and {R} after your name is the only job where you can say "3-5 results in a positive number" and not only not get prosecuted, but get re-elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How in the heck do they think this isn't violating the FCCA? "amending the villages liquor code to prohibit concealed-carry firearms for businesses with liquor licenses"

Worked in the state of Chicago...

 

THAT needs to be challenged.

 

 

That's probably going to be found lawful, considering other "sensitive places" can be posted.

 

I would put up a non-compliant sign with an explanation below it.

"Posted by order of village of Northbrook, not the owner"

 

hopefully the liquor inspector won't know or care that it's not a legal sign

 

ETA: I only boycott stores that post on their own volition, not because they have been forced to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's probably going to be found lawful, considering other "sensitive places" can be posted.

 

I would put up a non-compliant sign with an explanation below it.

"Posted by order of village of Northbrook, not the owner"

 

hopefully the liquor inspector won't know or care that it's not a legal sign

 

ETA: I only boycott stores that post on their own volition, not because they have been forced to.

 

I disagree that it would be found lawful. It directly violates the FCCA preemption clauses in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To whit

 

 

(9) Any building, real property, and parking area

 

under the control of an establishment that serves alcohol on its premises, if more than 50% of the establishment's gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol. The owner of an establishment who knowingly fails to prohibit concealed firearms on its premises as provided in this paragraph or who knowingly makes a false statement or record to avoid the prohibition on concealed firearms under this paragraph is subject to the penalty under subsection (c-5) of Section 10-1 of the Liquor Control Act of 1934.

Sec. 90. Preemption. The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been talking with some of my customers, some of whom are police officers as to how to go about handling this. Like you fine folk have suggested; the answer seems to be to post an obviously non compliant sign somewhere towards the bottom of one of our windows by a plant. One guy suggested a sign saying "no muskets" with the accompanied image.

 

In the meantime I'll keep bothering the trustees about this. The trustees that have responded to me so far even seem unsure about how to apply the proposed amendment, even though they voted for it.

 

We're a small company and we don't have the resources to fight it out in court but if anyone ends up putting a sign on our door I'll take it down and replace it with an obviously non compliant one.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then the question is, can someone who got arrested for carrying in a restaurant with a liquor license, who posted only because they were forced to to get their liquor license then sue and get that ordinance struck down?

or would a business have to sue when they are forced to post?

Which one could show harm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

See above. I posted the AW preemption clause. It doesn't mention magazines. The FCCA doesn't define Assault Weapons either (which I have a bad feeling is going to bite us).

 

 

I don't think it needs to. The intent of the law is to have uniform gun regulations throughout the state...with the exception of "assault weapons" bans implemented withing 10 days of the CCA. The legislature is claiming sole right to regulate guns. I'm not a lawyer, but that means magazines, ammo, types of guns.

 

I also don't think "assault weapons" needed to be defined either...since almost no municipalities enacted laws before the deadline. We know what those laws say.

 

We are now in the stupidity phase of the gun debate. We have a law that was enacted by a supermajority. We don't like some aspects of it. They don't like some aspects of it. But, now they're going to try to weasel their way through it in an attempt to weaken the preemption clause using the courts...because they know they don't have the votes to change it the right way.

 

We shall see how it pans out. But, it seems to me that the momentum they had after Parkland is dying out. I saw Hogg with a sign that said "Will protest for food."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...