Jump to content

Dart to Enforce Crook Cty AWB in Northbrook.


Lou

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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