Jump to content


Photo

Deerfield AWB


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 mcspider

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 14

Posted 08 December 2020 - 10:50 AM

Looks like it was reversed - I couldn't tag onto the original thread.

 

http://www.deerfield...ts.aspx?AID=463

 

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Village’s Assault Weapons Ban

The Illinois Appellate Court (2d District) on December 7, 2020, reversed the ruling of the Lake County Circuit Court and found that the Village of Deerfield properly and lawfully adopted an ordinance banning assault weapons in the Village in 2018.  The Appellate Court also vacated the permanent injunction against enforcement by Deerfield that was put in place by the Lake County Court.

The Appellate Court opinion, authored by Justice Kathryn Zenoff, accepted all of the arguments advanced by Deerfield’s legal team concerning home rule authority and statutory interpretation.  The plaintiffs in this case had challenged Deerfield’s authority to adopt the ordinance under State municipal law.  The plaintiffs did not challenge the validity or constitutionality of the Deerfield ordinance under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

“We were troubled with the legal interpretations and legal reasoning set forth in the trial court’s opinion, and we are pleased that the Appellate Court corrected the analysis, as a matter of law,” said Village Attorney Steve Elrod.  “As the Appellate Court correctly determined, Deerfield was well within its authority as a home rule unit to adopt the assault weapon ban.”

The Appellate Court made two important legal determinations.  First, that the Illinois State Legislature did indeed intend to allow for home rule units to regulate assault weapons, including complete bans, if they followed the correct statutory process for doing so. And second, that Deerfield, by enacting a regulation within the 10-day period following the adoption of the State law, and then later amending the regulation to include a complete ban, acted properly and lawfully and in accordance with the statutory process.

The Village is thankful for the continued pro bono services provided by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Mr. Christopher Wilson, partner of the Chicago office of Perkins Coie. 

“We are pleased the court validated our right to regulate this important public safety measure. I continue to believe that these weapons have no place in our community,” said Mayor Harriet Rosenthal. “I thank all of the residents, especially students, who called for action following the shooting at Marjory Stone Douglas High School.”

The Village intends to enforce this ordinance in a manner consistent with other local ordinances. This ordinance will initially be enforced primarily through education and voluntary compliance. A police officer may issue a citation for a violation of this ordinance in the manner provided by law. Any other enforcement of this ordinance, including search or seizure to effect this ordinance, must comply with the requirements of State and Federal law. Members of the Police Department will not go “door to door” to ensure compliance.

Released by the Village Manager’s Office                                      

 



#2 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,693 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 December 2020 - 11:10 AM

If I had to guess, this will be appealed to the supreme Court. The court's reasoning in upholding the ordinance was really thin, as outlined in the dissenting opinion. However, this opinion does confirm what we have always stated on this forum, limitations on handgun magazine capacity is preempted. Someone should sue Highland Park again.
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.

#3 MagSlap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,971 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 15

Posted 08 December 2020 - 11:14 AM

I recall somebody posted a pic holding an AR magazine in front of one of those 'welcome to...<Village/Town>" signs a few years ago..

Was it Deerfield? Or Highland Park?

 

 

The Village intends to enforce this ordinance in a manner consistent with other local ordinances. This ordinance will initially be enforced primarily through education and voluntary compliance. A police officer may issue a citation for a violation of this ordinance in the manner provided by law. Any other enforcement of this ordinance, including search or seizure to effect this ordinance, must comply with the requirements of State and Federal law. Members of the Police Department will not go “door to door” to ensure compliance.

 

A 'citation'.... Since when does a 'citation' invoke the search of one's home and seizure of property?

Wont go door to door?... YET?


Edited by MagSlap, 08 December 2020 - 11:21 AM.


#4 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,693 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 December 2020 - 11:15 AM

It's an ordinance violation. You get a ticket like you would if you didn't mow your lawn, etc.
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.

#5 carry

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,057 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 13

Posted 08 December 2020 - 11:26 AM

So, AR pistols with a brace are cool with Deerfield right?



#6 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,693 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 December 2020 - 11:58 AM

So, AR pistols with a brace are cool with Deerfield right?

Lol. Yup. So are the magazines.
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.

#7 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 08 December 2020 - 01:09 PM

If I had to guess, this will be appealed to the supreme Court.

 

I doubt it, the plaintiffs never challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, just whether it violated state home rule law it's really not worth pushing this one up the ladder, instead wait until they actually cite someone then sue then village on unconsitutional grounds.

 

I would love to see the legislature amend the law and remove the home rule exemption entirely, I doubt it would happen but we could dream that IL might someday do more right things.


Edited by Flynn, 08 December 2020 - 01:11 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#8 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,693 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 December 2020 - 02:39 PM


If I had to guess, this will be appealed to the supreme Court.


 
I doubt it, the plaintiffs never challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, just whether it violated state home rule law it's really not worth pushing this one up the ladder, instead wait until they actually cite someone then sue then village on unconsitutional grounds.
 
I would love to see the legislature amend the law and remove the home rule exemption entirely, I doubt it would happen but we could dream that IL might someday do more right things.

Illinois Supreme Court. Not US Supreme Court.
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.

#9 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 08 December 2020 - 04:50 PM

Illinois Supreme Court. Not US Supreme Court.

 

 

I understood that and my opion is the same, it's not worth pushing up that ladder.  Everyone knew full well home rule municipalites would exploit this "if you have a ban you can keep it" loophole that the legislators intentionally granted home rule, and to be blunt I don't think they actually crossed the legal line in regards to implimenting this under the black and white text of the IL.  IMO money would far better be spent pushing the Constitutional issue on these municipal bans at the state or ideally the federal level vs home rule powers granted in the IL concealed carry act.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#10 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,318 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 08 December 2020 - 06:04 PM

https://courts.illin...ict/2190879.pdf

 

8. Summary of Holdings ¶ 78 In summary, we hold that (1) section 13.1 of the FOID Card Act does not preempt all regulation of assault weapons by home rule units; (2) Deerfield, in its 2013 ordinance, regulated the possession and ownership of assault weapons in a manner that was inconsistent with the FOID Card Act, thus preserving its power to regulate assault weapons concurrently with the State; (3)Deerfield’s 2018 ordinances were amendments to the 2013 ordinance, as allowed by section 13.1© of the FOID Card Act; (4) to the extent that Deerfield’s ban of large capacity magazines regulates ammunition for handguns, it is preempted in its application to holders of valid FOID cards and concealed carry licenses by section 13.1(B) of the FOID Card Act and section 90 of the Concealed Carry Act; and (5) we lack jurisdiction to consider Guns Save Life’s claims that Deerfield’s bans of assault weapons and large capacity magazines are preempted by the Wildlife Code. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Easterday and Guns Save Life. We affirm the orders granting the permanent injunctions only insofar as that, to the extent that Deerfield’s ban of large capacity magazines regulates ammunition for handguns, Deerfield is prohibited from enforcing that regulation against persons who hold valid FOID cards or concealed carry licenses. In all other respects, the permanent injunctions are vacated. We remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


"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

#11 ealcala31

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 18

Posted 08 December 2020 - 06:52 PM

"...Deerfield is prohibited from enforcing that regulation against persons who hold valid FOID cards or concealed carry licenses."

Does this mean that they can only enforce their ordinance against "criminals only?"


Ernesto A Alcala-Owner
Ernie's Arms Accessories
Phone: (312) 217-3863
Web: https://ealcala6110....cc/online-store

#12 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,286 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 08 December 2020 - 07:28 PM

"...Deerfield is prohibited from enforcing that regulation against persons who hold valid FOID cards or concealed carry licenses."
Does this mean that they can only enforce their ordinance against "criminals only?"


A magazine without a firearm to go with it is just a machine part. There is no state law that criminalizes owning a machine part without a FOID. The Deerfield law now requires magazine owners to have FOIDs, though.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#13 carry

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,057 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 13

Posted 08 December 2020 - 09:20 PM

There is humor in the ruling referenced above by Molly https://courts.illin...ict/2190879.pdf

 

page 39 There is a riddle attributed to Abraham Lincoln: how many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? The answer, of course, is four; calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. See BrainyQuote, https://www.brainyqu..._lincoln_107482(last visited Nov. 4, 2020) [https: //perma.cc/6DYW-XXKF]. Similarly, here, the simple act of calling the 2018 ordinance an amendment of the 2013 ordinance does not make it a one

 

page 40:

¶ 90 I also find unpersuasive the majority’s assertion that the 2018 ordinance was an amendment because “changes were reflected by striking through language that was to be removed from the municipal code and underlining language to be added.” Supra ¶ 59. Had Deerfield struck any references to assault rifles and added underlined references to dogs, would that be an indication that the new ordinance was an amendment of Deerfield’s animal control ordinance? Again, Deerfield did not regulate ownership in 2013; its addition of ownership in the 2018 ordinance indicates an attempt to write new legislation, not to amend an ordinance that did not regulate ownership.

 

 

 

My interpretation is that the 2018 AWB is tossed with respect to FOID and CCL holders as that wasn’t within the ten day window


Edited by carry, 08 December 2020 - 09:30 PM.


#14 carry

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,057 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 13

Posted 08 December 2020 - 09:44 PM

 

"...Deerfield is prohibited from enforcing that regulation against persons who hold valid FOID cards or concealed carry licenses."
Does this mean that they can only enforce their ordinance against "criminals only?"


A magazine without a firearm to go with it is just a machine part. There is no state law that criminalizes owning a machine part without a FOID. The Deerfield law now requires magazine owners to have FOIDs, though.

 

if only Deerfield required machine parts owners to get a FOID .... 



#15 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,382 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 11 December 2020 - 07:24 PM

https://courts.illin...ict/2190879.pdf

 

8. Summary of Holdings ¶ 78 In summary, we hold that (1) section 13.1 of the FOID Card Act does not preempt all regulation of assault weapons by home rule units; (2) Deerfield, in its 2013 ordinance, regulated the possession and ownership of assault weapons in a manner that was inconsistent with the FOID Card Act, thus preserving its power to regulate assault weapons concurrently with the State; (3)Deerfield’s 2018 ordinances were amendments to the 2013 ordinance, as allowed by section 13.1© of the FOID Card Act; (4) to the extent that Deerfield’s ban of large capacity magazines regulates ammunition for handguns, it is preempted in its application to holders of valid FOID cards and concealed carry licenses by section 13.1( :cool: of the FOID Card Act and section 90 of the Concealed Carry Act; and (5) we lack jurisdiction to consider Guns Save Life’s claims that Deerfield’s bans of assault weapons and large capacity magazines are preempted by the Wildlife Code. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Easterday and Guns Save Life. We affirm the orders granting the permanent injunctions only insofar as that, to the extent that Deerfield’s ban of large capacity magazines regulates ammunition for handguns, Deerfield is prohibited from enforcing that regulation against persons who hold valid FOID cards or concealed carry licenses. In all other respects, the permanent injunctions are vacated. We remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So pistol magazine capacity is not subject to any jurisdiction, and preempted by the state? 
 


Void the FOID!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users