Lou Posted June 14, 2018 at 02:29 AM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 02:29 AM This is just bizarre. ".......................... http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/northbrook/news/ct-nbs-cook-county-assault-weapon-ban-tl-0621-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true Cook County Sheriffs Office police officers will enforce the countys assault weapons ban in the Village of Northbrook, according to Village President Sandra Frum. After listening to comments from seven people regarding the ban, also known as the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban, Frum read a statement announcing that village staff has determined that Cook County officials will be responsible for enforcing the ban in Northbrook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted June 14, 2018 at 02:47 AM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 02:47 AM "Tom Dart will be assigning this number of officers to Northbrook to do this." "Alex, what is zero?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tricolor Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:14 AM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:14 AM Read a prepared statement, huh. Almost like the proceeding was a complete waste of time. Almost as big of a waste of time as to try and get the dart squad to enforce a ban that, as far as I know, no one has ever been charged with. What a ridiculous exercise in virtue signalling all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:52 AM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:52 AM · Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 04:36 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 04:36 PM - No reason given Can’t wait till someone who is a CCL holder from out of county is pulled over with a 15 round magazine and hauled away. Would make an awesome court case Link to comment
Yas Posted June 14, 2018 at 10:17 AM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 10:17 AM Ask Frum, If the County's stepping in and Northbrook feels everything is covered. Why did Northbrook even have a need to pass their own special little law ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted June 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM Dart gonna start enforcing in Chicago too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted June 14, 2018 at 01:44 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 01:44 PM It's never been enforced because they are afraid of it being full on challenged in court. This is just talk with no changes. The AWB has created the affect that cook was looking for with out having to do anything. No companies will ship certain items to cook county because of the unenforced ban. Many will not sell to cook county residents because of the unenforced ban. They don't want to risk losing this threat against gun suppliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilbrownrifle Posted June 14, 2018 at 02:30 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 02:30 PM Ask Frum, If the County's stepping in and Northbrook feels everything is covered. Why did Northbrook even have a need to pass their own special little law ? Truthfully? Because the wrong candidate won the election. This is virtue signalling by a board that feels the need to help out the party and be part of the "resistance." Add to that the fact they have no human respect for the "other," feel superior and justified and feel there are enough of them in the village to have no consequences. The question is, are Northbrook gun owners going to try and make there be consequences in the next village election cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:16 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:16 PM Northbrook Village Attorney Steve Elrod said at the May meeting that the Cook County assault weapons ban is applicable and enforceable in Northbrook because both are home rule municipalities. Um, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on Northbrook. In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast. It directly violates the CCL act. If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward. It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:18 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:18 PM In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast. It directly violates the CCL act. If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward. It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP. Agreed. Who is the business owner willing to fight for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:25 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:25 PM I wonder if any members of the board feel used by the outfits coaching them into the law now. The law firm, Moms demand action and others. Wonder what kind of contributions and sources of such they will be receiving towards their reelection campaigns after all its C®look County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:30 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:30 PM Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:37 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:37 PM Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law? It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:45 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:45 PM Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it. Nah, in this case, it means they want a law in place, that they can't legally create themselves do to state preemption on AWBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:45 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:45 PM Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it. I think it means that if when something goes wrong, they want to be able to blame somebody else for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:48 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 03:48 PM In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast. It directly violates the CCL act. If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward. It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP. This will all be mute when the legislature votes to remove preemption from FCCL and our new governor signs it into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceman spiff Posted June 14, 2018 at 04:03 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 04:03 PM Northbrook Village Attorney Steve Elrod said at the May meeting that the Cook County assault weapons ban is applicable and enforceable in Northbrook because both are home rule municipalities. Um, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on Northbrook. In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast. It directly violates the CCL act. If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward. It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP. I am a manager at a Northbrook restaurant that has a liquor license and will not be enforcing this stupid ordinace in my establishment. Heck, I'm tempted to do something nice to encourage IC members to come in and patronize my restaurant. PM me if interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted June 14, 2018 at 04:45 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 04:45 PM Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it. If the Feds enforce Federal law, Northbrook's own cops won't be doing it. In addition, those who do not want the Feds enforcing Federal law are really talking about illegal alienage - enriching cronies with cheap labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:11 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:11 PM In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast. It directly violates the CCL act. If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward. It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP. This will all be mute when the legislature votes to remove preemption from FCCL and our new governor signs it into law. Hmm. I'm not sure the ILGA as a whole wants that. It means relinquishing control, something they RARELY want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:24 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:24 PM If my city decides to attempt this, I won't be complying. Dart won't be enforcing. Everything's good. That said, this needs to be fought on principle.Oh, and, look at all the concealed carriers shooting up restaurants and bars! It's an epidemic!! LMFAO. What's the basis for wanting to stop licensed carriers from having guns in a place that holds a liquor license? Nothing other than the fact that they don't like the CCA and would like to chip away at it as much as they can. They think the average soccer mom will think 'that's reasonable'. So, it's their foot in the door.Based on the recent Deerfield ruling, it seems the courts are inclined to take the pro-CCA stance over local ordinances. Let's hope that trend continues. I'd love nothing more than to have these people spanked by the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:51 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:51 PM I don't think Deerfield is being decided on a 2nd amendment grounds. I think it's a violation of the takings clause, in addition to the fines levied being unreasonable if all one did was possess something that was legal prior to enactment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:53 PM Share Posted June 14, 2018 at 05:53 PM I don't think Deerfield is being decided on a 2nd amendment grounds. I think it's a violation of the takings clause, in addition to the fines levied being unreasonable if all one did was possess something that was legal prior to enactment. Actually, its largely being contested as a new ban law, violating the CCA preemption clause. At least the ruling on the TRO acknowledged that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 15, 2018 at 01:40 AM Share Posted June 15, 2018 at 01:40 AM The ISRA/SAF suit is based on preemption. The NRA suit is based on (supposedly) constitutional grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted June 15, 2018 at 02:53 AM Share Posted June 15, 2018 at 02:53 AM I don't think Deerfield is being decided on a 2nd amendment grounds. I think it's a violation of the takings clause, in addition to the fines levied being unreasonable if all one did was possess something that was legal prior to enactment. The takings thing was the one point the plaintiffs failed upon, I think... because the ordinance was preempted and unenforceable and there would be no takings. That it was in violation of the FCCA was the main point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted June 15, 2018 at 03:44 PM Share Posted June 15, 2018 at 03:44 PM The stories posted about the injunction use the word unconstitutional. The FCCA and preemption are not constitutional issues. Takings is. That's why I suggested what I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted June 16, 2018 at 02:46 AM Share Posted June 16, 2018 at 02:46 AM Um, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on Northbrook. In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast. It directly violates the CCL act. If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward. It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP.I am a manager at a Northbrook restaurant that has a liquor license and will not be enforcing this stupid ordinace in my establishment. Heck, I'm tempted to do something nice to encourage IC members to come in and patronize my restaurant. PM me if interested. Spiff - if I lived in your area, I'd love to bring my business to you. Problem is I live near St. Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted June 16, 2018 at 04:05 AM Share Posted June 16, 2018 at 04:05 AM Preemption is a constitutional issue. We just don't usually talk about it that way on this forum. Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted June 19, 2018 at 05:20 PM Share Posted June 19, 2018 at 05:20 PM Preemption is a constitutional issue. We just don't usually talk about it that way on this forum. Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk Yes. It's an Illinois constitution issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted June 21, 2018 at 03:16 AM Share Posted June 21, 2018 at 03:16 AM Quick fact. Blair Holy wasn't even killed by a so called "assault weapon"They used any opportunity to pass a gun law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.