Cliff notes: We are going to waste more of your taxes on this.
Deerfield has money. Let them spend it. Maybe their residents will slap them for it in the next election. Maybe not. But, let's get case law on the books. Let's have the courts confirm the intent of pre-emption to stop others from trying what Deerfield is doing.
Personally, I'm very happy that common sense and rule of law has prevailed thus far. The ruling says essentially what we've been saying and the plaintiff's lawyer is making effective arguments to the judge.
This is bigger than just Deerfield. It will be interesting to see if there is an appeal. It is risky to appeal, if there is a decision that is adverse to the city (ie in our favor) then you have made bad precedent. It might be simpler for the antis to leave it be (not appeal) and try again somewhere else to restart the process.
Seems like there are some people confused on how this works, so I wanted to try to clear some things up.
I haven't read any of the actual court documents in the deerfield case, however, I have some legal background combined with the news stories I've read on deerfield. Here's what I can surmise is going on:
The IL FCCL law basically contains a provision that municipal level "assault weapons bans" can't be passed after the IL FCCL law was passed, but those that were already on the books are still valid. Furthermore, valid assault weapons bans can later be amended and remain valid. From what I've read, Deerfield previously had an ordinance on the books related to the storage of "assault weapons" when the IL FCCL law was passed. They recently tried to amend it to a full out assault weapons ban.
Obviously, you can see where the legal challenge would come in. So, the lawsuit is likely alleging that the Deerfield ordinance is a violation of state law and it is not a constitutional challenge. This is why the results of this lawsuit will likely not have any effect on the validity of the Cook County or Highland Park AWBs. The other potential state level argument that I see would be that IL clearly preempted handgun restrictions and the Deerfield ordinance tries to regulate both "assault weapon" handguns and attempts to create magazine size limits.
There was a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in the Deerfield case. The reason for the TRO is because the municipal ordinance was supposed to go into effect and there is still no resolution to the case, so the plaintiff asked the Judge to grant a TRO so that the ordinance would not go into effect until the final resolution of the case. The final resolution to the case may be that the Deerfield ordinance is invalid, but it may also be that it is valid.
Here's what you need to know about TROs:
They are meant simply to retain the status quo while a court case is argued and until it comes to a final resolution.
There are some factors that a court is supposed to weigh when considering granting a TRO, such as:
1. Whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the action
2. Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted
3. Whether the harm that the plaintiff will experience without the order is greater than the harm the defendant will experience with the order
4. Whether the injunction serves the public interest
So, while a TRO does serve as some indication as to what the Judge may be thinking about the merits of the case, in a case like this one it's clear that the harm to the plaintiff would be great without the TRO and the harm to the defendant would be non-existent with the TRO.
Potential appeal of the TRO:
If the Village decides to appeal the TRO, as they indicated that they are considering, essentially what they are saying is that they want to be able to enforce the ordinance while the court case plays out. This should be a good indication of just how rabidly anti-gun these people are. Most people would probably say, "let's just continue the case and get a final resolution on the merits without pissing off the judge by appealing a reasonable order". Flat out, an appeal of this TRO won't be successful. They're saying that they're considering it because they're ignorant or they want the sound byte to reach their voters.
Edited by madcow1007, 13 June 2018 - 02:05 PM.