Jump to content


Photo

URGENT: Northbook Village Board to Consider Gun Ordinances


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,382 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 19 May 2018 - 10:02 AM

URGENT: Northbook Village Board will be discussing new gun ordinances at their May 22 board meeting. If you are a gun owner - BE THERE!


Northbook Board of Trustees
BOARD ROOM
NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018
Village of Northbrook, Illinois
7:30 PM

 

10.PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Consideration of Remanding to a Future Committee of the Whole Agenda the Discussion of Enforcement of the Cook County Assault Weapon Ban Ordinance

 

B. ORDINANCE NO.18
An Ordinance Amending Chapters 15 and 17 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988) Prohibiting the Possession and Sale of Certain Firearm Accessories

 

C. ORDINANCE NO.18
An Ordinance Amending Division 2 of Article II of Chapter 4 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988) Prohibiting the Concealed Carry of Firearms on Any Premises Where Alcohol is Sold for On Premises Consumption

 

http://northbrookil....431&Inline=True

 


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#2 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 19 May 2018 - 10:40 AM

PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Consideration of Remanding to a Future Committee of the Whole Agenda the Discussion of
Enforcement of the Cook County Assault Weapon Ban Ordinance


Does this mean they weren't enforcing it before? I know Optics Planet just got smacked by them enforcing it.

Also confusing because a part of Northbrook is in Lake County.

#3 evilbrownrifle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 19 May 2018 - 10:50 AM

We were working through some strategies should this happen in our village. If you are a Northbrook resident who wants to be involved in your local fight get in touch with me ASAP through the sites private messenger and I'd be happy to discuss the options we were considering. I'll be leaving on business so I need to be contacted before sunday. In fact it will be best to do it by phone given the time constraints.

 

In fact, I could set up a goto meeting call for tomorrow.


Edited by evilbrownrifle, 19 May 2018 - 10:51 AM.


#4 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 19 May 2018 - 12:23 PM

We were working through some strategies should this happen in our village. If you are a Northbrook resident who wants to be involved in your local fight get in touch with me ASAP through the sites private messenger and I'd be happy to discuss the options we were considering. I'll be leaving on business so I need to be contacted before sunday. In fact it will be best to do it by phone given the time constraints.
 
In fact, I could set up a goto meeting call for tomorrow.



^^

Great guy, get in touch with him folks. He’s on the ground near there and fighting the good fight

#5 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,382 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 19 May 2018 - 05:27 PM


 

C. ORDINANCE NO.18
An Ordinance Amending Division 2 of Article II of Chapter 4 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988) Prohibiting the Concealed Carry of Firearms on Any Premises Where Alcohol is Sold for On Premises Consumption

 

http://northbrookil....431&Inline=True

 

We need to make it clear to the village the determination of prohibited places is a power relegated to the state.  Municipalities do not have the power to prohibit concealed carry on premises where alcohol is sold for on premises consumption beyond what is already in the statute - over 50% of revenue derived from sale of alcohol, special use permits, posted by private business owner.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#6 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 19 May 2018 - 05:34 PM

C. ORDINANCE NO.18
An Ordinance Amending Division 2 of Article II of Chapter 4 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988) Prohibiting the Concealed Carry of Firearms on Any Premises Where Alcohol is Sold for On Premises Consumption

 
http://northbrookil....431&Inline=True
 

We need to make it clear to the village the determination of prohibited places is a power relegated to the state.  Municipalities do not have the power to prohibit concealed carry on premises where alcohol is sold for on premises consumption beyond what is already in the statute - over 50% of revenue derived from sale of alcohol, special use permits, posted by private business owner.


I work in that whole area. If there is anything I can do to help (like filing a FOIA request or something) please let me know via PM

#7 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 19 May 2018 - 05:40 PM

gt6RLzb.jpg

I am really tempted to go to one of these meetings and not be so polite, call them exactly what I believe they are.........

I firmly believe sometimes you need to be blunt and hit them hard, make them almost shocked that someone had the b@lls to call them out and smack them around a little

Edited by steveTA1983, 19 May 2018 - 05:43 PM.


#8 evilbrownrifle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 19 May 2018 - 06:03 PM

I'm working up some materials as we speak. I also have to get on the road for a business trip and I'm trying to get that taken care of as well. It will be rough and way too wordy but I will leave what I create with Steve and Molly for your use. You really have to find 2-3 speakers PREFERABLY FROM THE VILLAGE to present the arguments. Time to stop being frickin doormats folks. Time to fight back.

 

And yeah, it's still good to be polite-ish BUT there is no need IMO to pretend this is about things it's not really about. Time to call them out on this in a polite but personalized manner.


Edited by evilbrownrifle, 19 May 2018 - 06:05 PM.


#9 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 19 May 2018 - 06:33 PM

I'm working up some materials as we speak. I also have to get on the road for a business trip and I'm trying to get that taken care of as well. It will be rough and way too wordy but I will leave what I create with Steve and Molly for your use. You really have to find 2-3 speakers PREFERABLY FROM THE VILLAGE to present the arguments. Time to stop being frickin doormats folks. Time to fight back.
 
And yeah, it's still good to be polite-ish BUT there is no need IMO to pretend this is about things it's not really about. Time to call them out on this in a polite but personalized manner.


Right on. I will help in any way I can. I am both a civil person and a honey badger when need arises. Sometimes I MAY push too far (as some have stated by a few of my tactics, such as trolling), but I realize that there is a time and a place for that. In front of a video recorded town hall is not one of those times. Call them out, but be restrained

Thanks for doing this, the more of us that get involved the better (I know you’ve been involved much longer and at a deeper level than I have regarding your area. You’re doing great).

#10 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,851 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 19 May 2018 - 08:23 PM

 

C. ORDINANCE NO.18
An Ordinance Amending Division 2 of Article II of Chapter 4 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988) Prohibiting the Concealed Carry of Firearms on Any Premises Where Alcohol is Sold for On Premises Consumption

 

 

How cn they legally do this?  Isn't it contrary to the CC Act?


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#11 Upholder

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 16

Posted 20 May 2018 - 07:12 AM

How can they legally do this?  Isn't it contrary to the CC Act?

 

They cannot legally do it.  It is contrary to the CC Act.  Do you think they care?



#12 lilguy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 11

Posted 20 May 2018 - 07:42 AM

When it comes to guns, anti pols pass the laws and see if they have the desired effect, regardless if they are lawfully doing so. Make a statement and scare gun owners. Let them push back in court. Let the tax payers cover the defence of their bet.

#13 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,314 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 20 May 2018 - 07:46 AM

When it comes to guns, anti pols pass the laws and see if they have the desired effect, regardless if they are lawfully doing so. Make a statement and scare gun owners. Let them push back in court. Let the tax payers cover the defence of their bet.

 

And the lawyers defending the lawsuits are cronies of the anti-gun politicians.    Then you see why they REALLY passed that ordinance - crony enrichment.


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#14 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 20 May 2018 - 01:50 PM

Keep in mind neighboring Northfield spent about 30 years fighting the widening of Willow road and the people never griped in any real numbers about it, no one will care how much it costs to fight a lost cause.

 

I drive through NB every day and will keep doing it, with a Glock 19 that has standard capacity magazines. Regardless of what happens.


Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 20 May 2018 - 01:51 PM.


#15 evilbrownrifle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 20 May 2018 - 01:58 PM

Here is a letter I developed for my village. Feel free to use it as a guide and send it to your trustees. Probably not a good idea to duplicate it exactly as more than one person should be sending these in. 

 

I have other support materials for the meeting, all you have to do is ask and give me a email address. But I will be on the road so ASAP. These materials support the outline of the argumnets in this letter. It's up to you guys from here on out. Good luck.

 

 

 

[Your Intro/who you are etc. family involvement in the community etc.]

 

 

Obviously, there is a degree of gun control fever in the northern suburbs from Highland Park out though Deerfield.

 

It should be noted that while the safety argument is commonly made, the raw statistics do not bear out that school shootings, like the one at Parkland are numerous to where "something must be done." Quite the opposite in fact. A child is more likely to get struck multiple times by lightning than ever be involved in one of these attacks. As recently covered in the Washington Post:

 

 

School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Why is fear of them driving policy?

By David Ropeik March 8

David Ropeik is an instructor at Harvard and author of "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts."

 

The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala., on Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.

 

The chance of a child being shot and killed in a public school is extraordinarily low. Not zero — no risk is. But it’s far lower than many people assume, especially in the glare of heart-wrenching news coverage after an event like Parkland. And it’s far lower than almost any other mortality risk a kid faces, including traveling to and from school, catching a potentially deadly disease while in school or suffering a life-threatening injury playing interscholastic sports.

https://www.washingt...m=.8fef2dd3cfd2

 

 

As for Semi Automatic rifles themselves, according to the FBI out of 11,004 firearm related homicides in 2016 only 347 involved ANY type of rifle. You are almost twice as likely to be beaten to death by hands and feet (656); more likely to be beaten to death by a blunt object (472); and far more likely to be stabbed to death (1,604) than be killed by one of these rifles.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/...ata-table-4.xls

 

 

If safety were really the issue, even the "if it saves one life" argument, there are numerous restrictions that could be put in place that would be far more effective, such as prohibitions on backyard pools. These would also not impact civil rights.

 

Should the village pursue a ban on semi automatic rifles such facts will be made abundantly clear and those voting for the ban will be pressed to justify the safety angle. The political aspects with modern gun control will also be pushed to the forefront. It is no secret that gun control, and these gun control groups (everytown, MDA, etc.) are funded by progressive activist billionaires and are also being used this campaign season as GOTV efforts for the Democratic party. This is acknowledged in numerous pieces from such sources as the Washington Post and NYT.

 

While gun control activists use kids groups as "human shields," we in the pro second amendment community are not afraid to point out this tactic, show the money involved from Hollywood actors, a major Hollywood PR outfit, and California progressive billionaire Tom Steyer in organizing these kids and the canvassing activities for the democratic party that are firmly linked to their efforts. The list of sponsors for their recent DC march reads like a who's who of far left politics. We are living a very divisive times and these efforts only bring that divisiveness closer to home, neighbor to neighbor.

 

Also, Deerfield is being sued for its efforts and I believe that would be the case for Northbrook as well.

 

But again it is the divisiveness that would be the most regrettable part of such an action. Not all of your residents are part of the "Resist" movement. Not all of us are progressives. Even many Democrats in the village are not California or New Jersey style progressive Democrats. Will future board election center on who is the Republican candidate and who is the Democrat candidate? Will we have to worry about the village's carbon policy, or reproductive heath issues or sanctuary issues? Why not? If you go this route all bets are off for the future as you have shown the board to be politically active with national issues, dsupporing a specific political party, that are currently being debated at both the national and state level.

 

I would be happy to speak with you further, or any other trustees that would be open to our side of the argument. This could be "off the record" if required for an open conservation.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

sandy.frum@northbrook.il.us,

karagianis@northbrook.il.us,
buehler@northbrook.il.us,
ciesla@northbrook.il.us,
risrael@northbrook.il.us,
Muriel.Collison@northbrook.il.us,
Jason.Han@northbrook.il.us

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by evilbrownrifle, 20 May 2018 - 01:59 PM.


#16 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 20 May 2018 - 03:12 PM

^^^^

Good stuff! Residents, please use this. I’d do it myself by will be ignored (different county and obviously not a resident). I’ll ask some pro-gun friends at work who are in the area (maybe even in Northbrook, not sure exactly what towns they all live in) to pass this on if they’re residents

#17 evilbrownrifle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 20 May 2018 - 06:52 PM

I gave a google drive link to the fact sheets I worked up to sapceman,  steve and molly if anyone needs them. I would post it here but OPSEC and all that



#18 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 20 May 2018 - 07:02 PM

I gave a google drive link to the fact sheets I worked up to sapceman,  steve and molly if anyone needs them. I would post it here but OPSEC and all that


Got your PM. Very well done! Lots of work went into those and it’s great (factual) info to use

#19 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 21 May 2018 - 10:51 AM

 

 

C. ORDINANCE NO.18
An Ordinance Amending Division 2 of Article II of Chapter 4 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988) Prohibiting the Concealed Carry of Firearms on Any Premises Where Alcohol is Sold for On Premises Consumption

 

 

How cn they legally do this?  Isn't it contrary to the CC Act?

 

Too bad there isn't a lawyer among us who could draft a lawsuit against the village and take it with to the meeting so when they pass this (and they will) he could stand up, explain the ordinance is in direct violation of the FCCL act and then drop the paperwork on the table in front of everyone and tell them they are being sued.


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#20 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 21 May 2018 - 10:53 AM

C. ORDINANCE NO.18
An Ordinance Amending Division 2 of Article II of Chapter 4 of the Northbrook Municipal Code (1988) Prohibiting the Concealed Carry of Firearms on Any Premises Where Alcohol is Sold for On Premises Consumption

How cn they legally do this?  Isn't it contrary to the CC Act?
Too bad there isn't a lawyer among us who could draft a lawsuit against the village and take it with to the meeting so when they pass this (and they will) he could stand up, explain the ordinance is in direct violation of the FCCL act and then drop the paperwork on the table in front of everyone and tell them they are being sued.

Are there any lawyers here??? Would be a great thing to do

#21 evilbrownrifle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:17 PM

So what happened?

#22 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,211 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:39 PM

Board meeting video - topic starts an hour in but audio was so low on my device I could not understand the discussion.

http://northbrookil....&MeetingID=1541

Edited by InterestedBystander, 23 May 2018 - 10:50 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
Rauner, Harold, Dodge, 46th HD:Kinzler, 8th CD:Diganvker, 55th HD:Smolenski, 91st HD:Unes

#23 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,211 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 23 May 2018 - 11:51 PM

Bump stock ban
Liquor license amended
Next month: Assault weapons

Full story at link...

https://patch.com/il...ult-weapons-ban

Northbrook Bans Bumps Stocks, Moves Toward Assault Weapons Ban

The village could become the first municipality to enforce Cook County's 24-year-old ban on assault-style weapons.
By Jonah Meadows, Patch Staff | May 23, 2018 11:07 pm ET | Updated May 24, 2018 1:25 am ET

Northbrook Bans Bumps Stocks, Moves Toward Assault Weapons Ban
NORTHBROOK, IL The Northbrook Village Board unanimously adopted a pair of modest gun control ordinances and directed staff to continue exploring how to become the first municipality in Cook County to enforce a 24-year-old ban on assault-style weapons. The two measures approved by trustees Tuesday ban accessories that make it easier to rapidly fire bullets and restrict most people from carrying concealed weapons where alcohol is served. Both new ordinances take effect early next month, and the board plans to further discuss how the village might enforce the county's gun ban at its June 12 meeting.

The problem for the village is Cook County is not enforcing and has never enforced its assault weapons ban, Village Attorney Steve Elrod told trustees. He said he was hoping to get some guidance from the county prosecutors and the sheriff's office about the ban while conducting research on behalf of the board, but they had no advice to provide. Patch has confirmed Elrod's assertion with the Cook County state's attorney's office, Cook County clerk of the circuit court, Cook County sheriff's office, the office of the Cook County board president.

"They simply were not and have not been enforcing the ordinance," Elrod said. "Therefore there's no historical practice, no procedural guidance, so basically we the village of Northbrook, if we choose to enforce the Cook County ordinance within our corporate limits, would be starting from scratch."

Nonetheless, Elrod said that he believes the county ordinance banning assault applies and is enforceable in Northbrook. In fact, he said, the village does not even have the option of opting out of the ordinance anymore because of state regulations restricting any new regulations on rifles that were not enacted before the end of a 10-day window in 2013.

Before instructing police to start writing tickets for violations of the ordinance, Elrod said there were several policy issues that would need to be worked out. They include what kind of penalty to assess, whether there would be any grace period for gun owners and where to prosecute the citations. (At the same May 22 meeting, Trustees also approved a new administrative hearing system, which functions an alternative to circuit court which could adjudicate violations of the Cook County ordinance banning assault-style weapons. It is projected to begin hearing cases in September.)
...
Deerfield's ordinance uses the same language and Highland Park's. It was enacted as an amendment to the village's existing regulations on firearm storage and takes effect June 13.

Deerfield's ban faces two lawsuits in county court alleging violations of state law, although neither claims it violates the Second Amendment. Both towns are also represented by Elrod, a partner at the firm Holland & Knight overseeing more than two dozen local governments clients.

Northbrook's New Ordinances

One of the two new ordinances took the form of an amendment to the village's liquor code mandating that businesses licensed to sell alcohol for consumption must post a sign showing that concealed guns are not allowed inside. State law requires any establishment that makes more than half of its revenue from alcohol sale post such a sign, but the changes extends those restrictions to any business where liquor is sold for consumption on premises.

The amendment was modeled closely on Chicago's municipal code, which has not been challenged in court. Both include exemptions for business owners and law enforcement. Northbrook's attorney said the change was not a restriction on licensed gun owners, but rather an extension of the village's existing regulations on business that sell alcohol.

"We acknowledge that the state law pre-empts our ability to regulate concealed carry card holders. We are not regulating those individuals," Elrod said. "We are regulating, as we have been regulating, our liquor licensees."

The other ordinance defines bump-stock and trigger crank devices and prohibits their possession or sale in the village. The devices allow for the rapid fire of a semiautomatic rifle and gained national prominence after several of the bump-fire stocks were found on guns used by a man in a Las Vegas hotel room to shoot hundreds of concertgoers in October 2017. Northbrook's ordinance uses language proposed by a Republican state representative soon after that massacre.
...

Edited by InterestedBystander, 23 May 2018 - 11:58 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
Rauner, Harold, Dodge, 46th HD:Kinzler, 8th CD:Diganvker, 55th HD:Smolenski, 91st HD:Unes

#24 MadRiverMike

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 17

Posted 24 May 2018 - 12:37 AM

Northbrook's New Ordinances

 "businesses licensed to sell alcohol for consumption must post a sign showing that concealed guns are not allowed inside.".


"We acknowledge that the state law pre-empts our ability to regulate concealed carry card holders. We are not regulating those individuals," Elrod said. "We are regulating, as we have been regulating, our liquor licensees."

...

Uhhhmmm.... Isn't this just a back handed way of doing the same thing?  So no concealed carry in any restaurants in Northbrook period? Anyone going to sue them on this?   I never go to Northbrook, but this is still bull.


House District #31  (D)M.Flowers (F-)  

Senate District #16  (D)J.Collins (F- - - minus infinity)

 

Welcome to Cook County :Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”


#25 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 24 May 2018 - 12:40 AM

City attorney says the ban of concealed carry in places that sell liquor is based on a similar ordnance from city of Chicago.


The first speaker, his analogizes are so ignorant.

He claims bump stocks make guns into automatic weapons and since those are banned, then you can not vote against the ordnance.

He then claimed the gun and alcohol is bad combination.


Second speaker made good arguments.

Why have this ordnance unless there is a problem?

Business and property owners have rights and they have a choice to post if there are problems.


Third speaker is another set of ignorant analogies.

Claims lettuce with e.coli can not be stopped by lettuce without... What the hey!!!?

Then makes absurd statistical claims about assault weapon ban about gun violence in general increasing 37% after ban expired.


Fourth speaker from Chicago speaks out against concealed carry ban.

Made points about restaurants that serve alcohol are different than bars that sell mostly alcohol.


Fifth speaker makes claim that she is applaud that people are buying bump stocks in Northbrook and makes community look bad.

Made point that people do not know assault weapons are banned, she wants that on city website.


Sixth speaker ask who does the concealed carry on property that sells alcohol ban would apply to.

About 2.1% have license to carry and have training, least likely to commit crime, the ordnance only applies to them.

In Virginia where bar ban was revokes, crime in bars dropped 5.2% in the first year.


Seventh speaker speaks about being assaulted with firearm in Chicago.

Made point that home invasions are occurring with gangs where there are 5 or 6 guys an they maybe on drugs.

You need to have high capacity magazines to stop them especially if you are not on target.

Made point the assault weapons ban is silly as AR pistols are already legal and you can have 30 round magazines due to state preemption.


Eighth speaker, applaud by the ordnance, they are ineffective feel good measure.

Upset that anyone can walk in to the school, fake security, security theater.

Rather the board focus on soft targets and do something meaningful.

Like to board to come to gun range and know about what they are legislating.


Ninth speaker, we all want to stop mass shooting.

But the people that do these crimes are criminals, but taking away guns from her will not help.

AR are good because they have low recoil and are highly adjustable for small women and men.

She is also an NRA instructor shotgun and rifle, invited board to go range with her.


Tenth speaker war torn nations were modern nations.

Talked about people turning on each other after days after Katrina hit New Orleans.

Police can not help, will only have the firearms we have after you pass feel good laws.


Eleventh speaker is a Mom that claims she grew up with guns.

She claims she teaches about safe storage.

She thinks has common sense.

Speaks about her daughter going to police because a boy threaten to shoot up school.

Supports June 1st being gun violence awareness day, supports bump stock ban, supports assault weapon ban, mistakenly believes these are common sense.


Twelfth speaker is a Mom, claims she grew up around guns.

Happy and proud about the ordinances.

Horrified that assault weapons ban is not enforced.


Thirteenth speaker claims gun violence is a wide spread problem.

She is also a Mom.

Asks board to think of the child when voting on "common sense" measures.

Claims that drunken fights break out in restaurants and guns are bad.

Asks to enforce Cook County assault weapons ban.


Fourteenth speaker claims he is NRA member.

Supports bump stock ban and restriction on gun shows?

Against assault weapon ban and restrictions on concealed carry.

Makes statistics and data argument for restrictions on concealed carry (why not also for gun shows and bumps stocks?).

Makes Constitutional Right argument.


Fifteenth speaker to ban parking lots for bars.

Stops drunk driving.

Talks about travelers and the bans being an issue.

Talks about police carrying guns not to protect us, but to protect themselves.


Sixteenth speaker talks about taxes and school system.

Wants to see his tax dollars used to secure the schools.

And if they keep telling him what he can and can not have he may have to move.


Seventeenth speaker, Lee Goodman @1:36:25.

Lee Goodman talks about police officers drinking.

Talks about NRA says no drinking if you have a gun (forgets people go to restaurants to eat, and not necessarily to drink).


Eighteenth speaker talks about confiscation of assault weapons.

Bad policies and feel good measures.


Nineteenth speaker says board should not ban anything.

If a disturbed uses an inanimate product, should be ban all these inanimate product.

Bump stock only used in one crime despite tens of thousands of them in people's hands.

France a trunk killed more people in a short time period than any gun has.


Twentieth speaker NRA member talks about blood in streets claim when concealed carry discussion.

Talks about bans, rifle, then shotguns, then pistol, etc.. because we have police.

But you have to wait for police and if police only have firearms we have a police state.


Twenty-first speaker makes point about now you are going to enforce a law you have not for 20 years?

Talks about mass killings where guns were not used one was arson (see Australia after gun ban).

Talks about easy access to materials to make explosives and instructions being available online.

Concealed carry ordinance is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Do you ban concealed carry from grocery stores that sell alcohol?

In the US last 7 - 8 years, 2/3 of all guns sold are modern sporting riles, likely more than 15 million in circulation.

Points out the fraudulent claim earlier about increase of gun violence.


Twenty-second speaker talks about the effect of ordnance on law abiding citizens.

Signs do not stop criminals.

Take in to consider how these ordinances affect law abiding citizens.


Twenty-third speaker talks about Cook County ordinance not being enforced.

Was told they believe ordnance is unenforceable, not Constitutional.

Want board to look further as why ordnance is not enforces.


Twenty-fourth speaker talks about property tax going from $1,600 to $12,000 a year, since he has lived there.

He does not want to pay lawyers (NRA, SAF, etc...) for losing gun control cases.

Believes schools should be protected, but not wasting tax money on lawyers.


Twenty-fifth speaker talks about Texas shooting.

Student saying she was waiting for that to happen there.

Too much protection for guns and not protection for people (fails to recognize guns save lives).


Twenty-sixth speaker talk about how you can not drink and carry, already law.

Talks about shooter in Texas has shotgun and 5 shot revolver.

Ban them?

These ordnance will not stop anything.

Only affect law abiding citizens.


Twenty-seventh speaker who is liable for people unable to defend themselves if this ordnance is passed?

Who pays for that?

Criminals will still break the law and the ordinances will not solve any problems.


Twenty-eight speaker thinks there is a lot of support there, despite the majority against.

Another Mom, pours on tears... Talks about her kids and school.

Clearly emotionally unstable.


Twenty-ninth speaker talks about profiling concealed carry holders.

Talks about insurance may not cover liability of business owners with signs barring concealed carry.

Compares seat belts to carrying a gun, we use them everyday and may save your life, but do not expect to get in accident.


Thirtieth speaker talks about guns save more lives than they take.

Says board should focus on securing schools, doors with time locks.

He works as a crossing guard.



Votes

Take up Cook County Assult Weapons Ban on June 12th 7pm. Yes - 7 No - 0

Bump Stock Ban Yes - 7 No - 0

Ban of Conceal Carry Where Alcohol Served Yes - 7 No - 0
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#26 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 24 May 2018 - 01:49 AM

...
One of the two new ordinances took the form of an amendment to the village's liquor code mandating that businesses licensed to sell alcohol for consumption must post a sign showing that concealed guns are not allowed inside. ...

The amendment was modeled closely on Chicago's municipal code, which has not been challenged in court. Both include exemptions for business owners and law enforcement. Northbrook's attorney said the change was not a restriction on licensed gun owners, but rather an extension of the village's existing regulations on business that sell alcohol.

"We acknowledge that the state law pre-empts our ability to regulate concealed carry card holders. We are not regulating those individuals," Elrod said. "We are regulating, as we have been regulating, our liquor licensees."
...


If it's true that they intend to regulate the businesses, not CCLs, then the penalty in the case of a person with a legal firearm inside an establishment with a liquor license is that the business loses the liquor license.

WARNING: Everything contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.


#27 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 24 May 2018 - 01:52 AM

... applaud appalled ...


Damn you, auto-correct?

WARNING: Everything contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.


#28 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 24 May 2018 - 02:12 AM

If it's true that they intend to regulate the businesses, not CCLs, then the penalty in the case of a person with a legal firearm inside an establishment with a liquor license is that the business loses the liquor license.


The problem with the ordnance is they are regulating a business and that regulation is de facto regulation of concealed carriers.

The city attorney should be smart enough to know this should not hold up in court.

Just because Chicago does something stupid, you should not follow.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#29 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 24 May 2018 - 06:23 AM

If it's true that they intend to regulate the businesses, not CCLs, then the penalty in the case of a person with a legal firearm inside an establishment with a liquor license is that the business loses the liquor license.The problem with the ordnance is they are regulating a business and that regulation is de facto regulation of concealed carriers.The city attorney should be smart enough to know this should not hold up in court.Just because Chicago does something stupid, you should not follow.

There's existing preemption case law where a village tried to get around preemption on healthcare by using zoning regulations. Village lost. This is no different.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#30 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:57 AM

All board members voting yes. Shocking.........




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users