Jump to content


Photo

Deerfield AWB Halted!


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,598 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:15 PM

I just heard this on CBS2 News, Chicago

 

Judge agrees ban is unconstitutional

Grants temp restraining order

Deerfield "may" appeal

 

I sure hope no one up there disposed of their rifles!


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#2 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,412 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:21 PM

The scientific term on the street for this type of phenomenon is to be "slepped lahk theh wench dey iz."


Edited by Molly B., 12 June 2018 - 05:28 PM.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#3 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,504 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:28 PM

FANTASTIC!!


"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

#4 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:34 PM

Glad to hear it. Some sanity.

-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#5 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,598 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:36 PM

The scientific term on the street for this type of phenomenon is to be "slepped lahk theh wench dey iz."

 

 

Artistic edit Molly B.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#6 Rangerdeepv

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 15

Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:35 PM

Yahoo!



#7 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,221 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:38 PM

Great news, if Deerfield succeeds it means state preemption means nothing.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#8 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:08 PM

I sure hope no one up there disposed of their rifles!


Anybody who would comply with an unconstitutional law doesn't deserve to own any weapons. Standing up to and fighting unconstitutional laws is the very reason the 2A exists.

Edited by DomG, 12 June 2018 - 06:09 PM.

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

NRA Life Member
ISRA

GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)


#9 geo.ulrich

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 18

Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:16 PM

Great News!!!!!!


I.S.R.A.  member

Gun Owners of America  member

Piasa Rifle and Pistol club member

Illinois carry donating member

N.R.A.   Endowment member                                                                                                                                                                                                       


#10 Bo69

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 14

Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:27 PM

Now CHICAGO

#11 framos242

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:27 PM

*applause*

#12 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,598 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:41 PM

Now CHICAGO


It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.
Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#13 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,874 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:53 PM

Now CHICAGO


It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.

Open it......

#14 Jsanc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 13

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:00 PM

Now Aurora

#15 JDW

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 16

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:09 PM

WTG all of US. Awesome news!!!!!!!!! Congrats, let's keep our Constitutional Rights alive. Long live IC US US US US US US US


ISRA-Member, IC Supporter, FFL-IL Supporter, Pro2A, #Draintheswamp #USA


#16 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:13 PM

While this is certainly not bad news, it is only a temporary restraining order, not a final judgement.

The judge may be issuing the TRO for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo (prior to the new ordinance) before hearing and evaluating the case.

We have more to watch before we pop corks.

#17 Scipio24

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 370 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 17

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:18 PM

Wonderful News! Saw this come through on an ISRA email.

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem"

Translation: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787


#18 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:19 PM

Now CHICAGO


It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but everything I have read leads me to understand the TRO was given because the law is in violation of the IL pre-emption law, not because it is unconstitutional.

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

NRA Life Member
ISRA

GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)


#19 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,735 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:43 PM

Now CHICAGO

It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but everything I have read leads me to understand the TRO was given because the law is in violation of the IL pre-emption law, not because it is unconstitutional.


It's been since the complaint was first filed that I read it, but I believe the claim was that the ban wasn't a modification of the existing ordinance, but an entirely new ordinance.

#20 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:49 PM

Now CHICAGO
It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but everything I have read leads me to understand the TRO was given because the law is in violation of the IL pre-emption law, not because it is unconstitutional.


It's been since the complaint was first filed that I read it, but I believe the claim was that the ban wasn't a modification of the existing ordinance, but an entirely new ordinance.

Correct. The TRO has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law. Only that it violates the IL pre-emption law. The TRO, or even an overturning of the Deerfield law does nothing to get Chicago, Aurora or Highland Park AWB overturned. Sure, any lawsuit always can open a door, but this TRO is specific to violating IL pre-emption.

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

NRA Life Member
ISRA

GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)


#21 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,403 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 June 2018 - 08:13 PM

Was the TRO in response to plaintiffs in both lawsuits, 1. SAF+ISRA, and 2. NRA+GSL?

IIRC the SAF lawsuit focused on the preemption issue, and NRA on the constitutionality of the ban.

Edited by kwc, 12 June 2018 - 08:13 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#22 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 12 June 2018 - 08:15 PM

Was the TRO in response to plaintiffs in both lawsuits, 1. SAF+ISRA, and 2. NRA+GSL?
IIRC the SAF lawsuit focused on the preemption issue, and NRA on the constitutionality of the ban.


The articles I've read mention SAF. BUT as we've seen often and even earlier this week, factual reporting is sloppy. I HOPE it's about the constitutionality of the law, but I haven't read anything yet that says that.

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

NRA Life Member
ISRA

GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)


#23 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,188 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 12 June 2018 - 08:26 PM

Don't get too excited.  It is only a temporary restraining order.  The judge sees the suit as having merit, but there is no ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance.  

There most likely will be appeals by the village. 

 

This is good news, but not a definitive victory.


Edited by Quiet Observer, 12 June 2018 - 10:31 PM.


#24 DG53

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 12 June 2018 - 09:14 PM

Does anyone actually have the judges ruling? I would be very interested in reading it. As a resident of this crappy village it makes me smile to know that the mayor and board members are have a very bad night tonight. Thank you to SAF, ISRA, Guns Saves Lives and every other organization that has gone to bat on my behalf.
To truly say 'Never Again' requires having the means to back up that statement.

#25 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,266 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 12 June 2018 - 10:24 PM

Great news!  I predict there will be fewer tragic boating accidents on Father's Day.


A woman's "Right to Choose" the abortion issue starts with the words "No!", "Stop!", and "I am armed!".

#26 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,397 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:26 AM

https://www.deerfiel...ts.aspx?AID=233

Village Statement on Assault Weapons Ban Temporary Restraining Order

The Village of Deerfield issues the following comment following the June 12, 2018, granting of the Temporary Restraining Order:

“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the Judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the Court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance; but we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the Village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.”
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#27 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,803 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:46 AM

https://www.deerfiel...ts.aspx?AID=233

Village Statement on Assault Weapons Ban Temporary Restraining Order

The Village of Deerfield issues the following comment following the June 12, 2018, granting of the Temporary Restraining Order:

“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the Judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the Court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance; but we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the Village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.”

Cliff notes: We are going to waste more of your taxes on this.


"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#28 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,397 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:48 AM

https://www.deerfiel...ts.aspx?AID=233
Village Statement on Assault Weapons Ban Temporary Restraining Order
The Village of Deerfield issues the following comment following the June 12, 2018, granting of the Temporary Restraining Order:
“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the Judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the Court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance; but we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the Village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.”

Cliff notes: We are going to waste more of your taxes on this.
https://www.deerfiel...ts.aspx?AID=226

Deerfield Approves Pro Bono Legal Services for Assault Weapons Ban Litigation
Updated May 8

On Monday, May 7, the Deerfield Village Board unanimously approved the pro bono services of both the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the “Brady Center”) and Mr. Christopher Wilson, managing partner of the Chicago office of Perkins Coie (“Perkins”) to assist in the representation of the Village in the two lawsuits filed in the Lake County Circuit Court challenging the Village’s Assault Weapons Ordinance.

Village Attorney Steven Elrod of Holland & Knight will lead the team and supervise and coordinate the litigation strategy, but the bulk of the regular legal work will be undertaken by Brady Center and Perkins. This is the same legal team that successfully defended the City of Highland Park’s ordinance, on which the Village’s ordinance is modeled.

“I am pleased to announce that the vast majority of the cost of this litigation will be covered pro bono,” Mayor Harriet Rosenthal stated. “We remain confident in our authority to enact this ordinance under existing State law and gladly accept the expert services of the Brady Center and Perkins. These two firms, along with our own Village Attorney, Steve Elrod of Holland & Knight, will provide the Village with the highest quality legal services.”
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#29 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,803 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:16 AM

Yea their lawyer is ProBono. Their ProBono lawyer causes the our lawyer to work more. More billing hours. If we win the case, Their ProBono lawyers arn't gunna be paying for our attorney fees, the taxpayers of deerfield will be. 

 

Unless they said they were gunna pay any losing court fees also on behalf of Deerfield and i missed that. But i have a feeling that is a no.


"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#30 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,627 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:16 AM

Yea their lawyer is ProBono. Their ProBono lawyer causes the our lawyer to work more. More billing hours. If we win the case, Their ProBono lawyers arn't gunna be paying for our attorney fees, the taxpayers of deerfield will be. 
 
Unless they said they were gunna pay any losing court fees also on behalf of Deerfield and i missed that. But i have a feeling that is a no.

Unless there is a fee shifting statute that applies, each party pays their own fees and costs.

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users