gtguard Posted September 18, 2017 at 03:44 AM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 03:44 AM Submitted the paper work last November. Just received this in the mail. COOK COUNTY - DIVISION 4 BLAIR HOLT ASSAULT WEAPONS BANSec. 54-92. - Applicability. ( b )Pursuant to Article VII, Section 6© of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, if this article conflicts with an ordinance of a home rule municipality, the municipal ordinance shall prevail within its jurisdiction. #1 - Please provide documentation to confirm that you are within a home rule municipality, to include it's regulation/ordnance justifying exemption from the Cook County Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban. I am going to call them tomorrow and figure out what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic6010 Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:29 AM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:29 AM I'm not sure about the laws or the technicalities of crook county but if they do have an "assault weapons" ban on the books the ATF probably won't let that go through. It would be technically illegal to own the rifle, let alone register it as an SBR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:15 AM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:15 AM Bans prevent possession, not ownership. It is perfectly legal to live under the jurisdiction of an AWB yet still own one. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM Sounds like they want to know where you live and if your city/town/village allows for "assault weapons" ownership. Lazy government making you do their work for them. I'd send them back the actual definition of an "assault weapon" and tell them that's not something you own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:52 AM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:52 AM From whom did you recieve this? The ATF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggun 1 Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:16 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:16 PM Bans prevent possession, not ownership. It is perfectly legal to live under the jurisdiction of an AWB yet still own one. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalkwould posessing and ownership be the same thing in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:30 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:30 PM Bans prevent possession, not ownership. It is perfectly legal to live under the jurisdiction of an AWB yet still own one. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalkwould posessing and ownership be the same thing in this case? No, possession is the physical act of having the rifle with him in a prohibited place. Ownership is a state of being. He can own the rifle while in the prohibited place but not possess it and he can possess it in a place that is not prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:45 PM Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:45 PM From whom did you recieve this? The ATF?Correct. Edit: Last time it wasn't such a hassle because the CLEO signed the papers I think. ATF is just deploying CYA tactics. Haa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:49 PM Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:49 PM Sounds like they want to know where you live and if your city/town/village allows for "assault weapons" ownership. Lazy government making you do their work for them. I'd send them back the actual definition of an "assault weapon" and tell them that's not something you own. That's what got me. Look at my city, google "gtguard city's municipal code", search for firearm, assault, weapon. For example Chicago has their own AWB, so you could show an existing law, but in many home rule cities there is nothing in the books for "Assault weapons" so they default to the State law which is basically "If you have a FOID get whatever you want". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic6010 Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:50 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:50 PM Bans prevent possession, not ownership. It is perfectly legal to live under the jurisdiction of an AWB yet still own one. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalkwould posessing and ownership be the same thing in this case? No, possession is the physical act of having the rifle with him in a prohibited place. Ownership is a state of being. He can own the rifle while in the prohibited place but not possess it and he can possess it in a place that is not prohibited. Except an SBR being a firearm registered under the NFA rules makes that situation more complicated. You have to keep it In your possession or under your control at all times.You can't just give it to your buddy to store at his place outside the prohibited area till you come pick it up like you can with a standard rifle. Not that we are really supposed to believe that's what anyone who lives under a ban actually does. But I guess that's the standard we will go by because we all obey the law to the letter around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:01 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:01 PM No, possession is the physical act of having the rifle with him in a prohibited place. Ownership is a state of being. He can own the rifle while in the prohibited place but not possess it and he can possess it in a place that is not prohibited. Except an SBR being a firearm registered under the NFA rules makes that situation more complicated. You have to keep it In your possession or under your control at all times.You can't just give it to your buddy to store at his place outside the prohibited area till you come pick it up like you can with a standard rifle. Not that we are really supposed to believe that's what anyone who lives under a ban actually does. But I guess that's the standard we will go by because we all obey the law to the letter around here. Just to argue the point a little more, if you're registering the SBR on a trust, your buddy who lives outside the prohibited area could be on the trust and possess the SBR. I guess you could also own property outside of the prohibited area and make a case that locked in your safe on said property is considered under your control. Or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic6010 Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:06 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:06 PM No, possession is the physical act of having the rifle with him in a prohibited place. Ownership is a state of being. He can own the rifle while in the prohibited place but not possess it and he can possess it in a place that is not prohibited. Except an SBR being a firearm registered under the NFA rules makes that situation more complicated. You have to keep it In your possession or under your control at all times.You can't just give it to your buddy to store at his place outside the prohibited area till you come pick it up like you can with a standard rifle. Not that we are really supposed to believe that's what anyone who lives under a ban actually does. But I guess that's the standard we will go by because we all obey the law to the letter around here. Just to argue the point a little more, if you're registering the SBR on a trust, your buddy who lives outside the prohibited area could be on the trust and possess the SBR. I guess you could also own property outside of the prohibited area and make a case that locked in your safe on said property is considered under your control. Or maybe not. Unfortunately for us trusts aren't allowed to own firearms in IL so that's not a route we can take.As far as what constitutes "under your control" that I'm not sure of what the legalities are.... Is it under your control if you keep it at another property that you own that's not the one listed as your primary residence on the form 1 ? Is it under your control if you keep it locked up in a locker at a 3rd party site ? Good questions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog1 Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:52 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:52 PM Filed a form 1 in 02/17 so I found original post of interest, both the request for additional information and also the original submission date. Was concerned I would see something similar and/or be 3 to 4 more months waiting for approval. Received approved form 1 with stamp today. Filed 02/06/17 no contact until received stamp today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted September 18, 2017 at 07:19 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 07:19 PM Filed a form 1 in 02/17 so I found original post of interest, both the request for additional information and also the original submission date. Was concerned I would see something similar and/or be 3 to 4 more months waiting for approval. Received approved form 1 with stamp today. Filed 02/06/17 no contact until received stamp today. Is your town in Cook County? Is your town Home rule? Are there any local Municipal codes that ban or allow AWB, firearms, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog1 Posted September 18, 2017 at 08:56 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 08:56 PM Filed a form 1 in 02/17 so I found original post of interest, both the request for additional information and also the original submission date. Was concerned I would see something similar and/or be 3 to 4 more months waiting for approval. Received approved form 1 with stamp today. Filed 02/06/17 no contact until received stamp today.Is your town in Cook County? Is your town Home rule? Are there any local Municipal codes that ban or allow AWB, firearms, etc? Outside Cook County, Home Rule Municipality, no local codes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted September 18, 2017 at 09:34 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 09:34 PM I'm very interested in this. I live in Cook County, in a home rule municipality that does not have specific language. My CLEO signed my Form 1 back before 41f though, so the ATF issued me a stamp. Makes me wonder what would happen if I filed another Form 1 now. If they requested more information, could I just send a photocopy of my previous stamp with my CLEO's signature? The patchwork of laws in this state is so damn frustrating. If the ATF can't even keep track of them all what hope does the average citizen have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:12 PM Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:12 PM I'm very interested in this. I live in Cook County, in a home rule municipality that does not have specific language. My CLEO signed my Form 1 back before 41f though, so the ATF issued me a stamp. Makes me wonder what would happen if I filed another Form 1 now. If they requested more information, could I just send a photocopy of my previous stamp with my CLEO's signature? The patchwork of laws in this state is so damn frustrating. If the ATF can't even keep track of them all what hope does the average citizen have?I am in the exact same boat. Back in the day CLEO signed my forms and they all came back approved in about 6 months. The lady over the phone sounded frustrated too. I don't think there are any home rule municipalities out there that outright list themselves as "assault weapon" havens. From what I understand home rule cities that want an AWB need to pass their own AWB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:33 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:33 PM From what I understand home rule cities that want an AWB need to pass their own AWB.and, iirc, they only had 10 days to do that after passage of the FCCL. http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/098-0063.htm ...(c ) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:03 AM Share Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:03 AM It all depends on how you define the conflict cited in the constitution. Some believe a home rule ordinance must explicitely state that there is no AWB, or that the Cook ban doesn't apply... or explicitely state that "assault weapons" are legal... otherwise there is a defacto ban under Cook. Others believe that if a home rule has any firearms ordinances and doesn't include an AWB, then that qualifies as a conflict, and "assault weapons" are legal. Still others believe the lack of any firearm ordinance at all qualifies as a conflict, and "assault weapons" are legal. I'm on board with both examples 2 and 3 above, as if the Cook ban ever went away, then there's no specific home rule ban (and no new bans can be enacted), thus "assault weapons" are legal. Keep in mind that conflict doesn't have the same meaning as directly contradict. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted January 24, 2018 at 02:52 PM Author Share Posted January 24, 2018 at 02:52 PM Just got a refund in my account. I am guessing after all this time my applications got denied. Damn COOK county! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted January 24, 2018 at 06:22 PM Share Posted January 24, 2018 at 06:22 PM Just got a refund in my account. I am guessing after all this time my applications got denied. Damn COOK county!Yeah, their AWB taking precedence over a municipality that is ok with you having it...they just dont have a code saying it's ok thus overriding Cook which I suspect would be pretty unusual. Sorry OP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted January 25, 2018 at 03:15 AM Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 at 03:15 AM I got the money back but have not received the paper work stating why it got rejected. It was really weird to begin with, they basically sent an email asking for a law showing it is legal to own where I live. I just need to move to DuPage. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted January 25, 2018 at 11:49 PM Share Posted January 25, 2018 at 11:49 PM I got the money back but have not received the paper work stating why it got rejected. It was really weird to begin with, they basically sent an email asking for a law showing it is legal to own where I live. I just need to move to DuPage. lolI'm not sure such a law exists in the US. Our laws are written to tell us what we can't do/have. If no law against then it's considered legal to do/own. If I was rich I'd hire a lawyer to sort this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted January 26, 2018 at 01:43 AM Share Posted January 26, 2018 at 01:43 AM I got the money back but have not received the paper work stating why it got rejected. It was really weird to begin with, they basically sent an email asking for a law showing it is legal to own where I live. I just need to move to DuPage. lol I'm not sure such a law exists in the US. Our laws are written to tell us what we can't do/have. If no law against then it's considered legal to do/own. If I was rich I'd hire a lawyer to sort this out.Unfortunately, it's probably staying this way until the Home Rule law is re-written. Cant see any municipalities, at least those in HR communities daring to pass such an approval (well, maybe in S IL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted January 26, 2018 at 10:49 PM Author Share Posted January 26, 2018 at 10:49 PM Finally got the rejection letter. Here is what it says. We are unable to approve your submission for the following reason:The National Firearms Act, Title 26 U.S.C. 5812 states "[a]pplications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of state law." The application to transfer this firearm appears to violate the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban in Cook County, Illinois, absent additional information the Bureau Of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cannot approve your transfer application. Soooo, what am I supposed to do with the firearms now? I don't want the ATF to shoot my dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted January 26, 2018 at 11:03 PM Share Posted January 26, 2018 at 11:03 PM Finally got the rejection letter. Here is what it says. We are unable to approve your submission for the following reason:The National Firearms Act, Title 26 U.S.C. 5812 states "[a]pplications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of state law." The application to transfer this firearm appears to violate the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban in Cook County, Illinois, absent additional information the Bureau Of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cannot approve your transfer application. Soooo, what am I supposed to do with the firearms now? I don't want the ATF to shoot my dogs. Even with a letter from someone or some office from the municipality, with no "real" law on the books, no SBR for you (although others here have reported success in Cook). Move out of Cook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted January 27, 2018 at 02:17 AM Author Share Posted January 27, 2018 at 02:17 AM Finally got the rejection letter. Here is what it says. We are unable to approve your submission for the following reason:The National Firearms Act, Title 26 U.S.C. 5812 states "[a]pplications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of state law." The application to transfer this firearm appears to violate the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban in Cook County, Illinois, absent additional information the Bureau Of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cannot approve your transfer application. Soooo, what am I supposed to do with the firearms now? I don't want the ATF to shoot my dogs. Even with a letter from someone or some office from the municipality, with no "real" law on the books, no SBR for you (although others here have reported success in Cook). Move out of Cook?I have some already. I got them back in the day when you needed CLEO signatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted January 27, 2018 at 02:25 AM Share Posted January 27, 2018 at 02:25 AM I have some already. I got them back in the day when you needed CLEO signatures. Can you contact the ATF and mention that you have another stamp? I mean, the old CLEO signature should count for something in that regard since the whole point of CLEO signature was to indicate that you were not in violation of the law. If worst comes to worse, maybe ask your CLEO if they'd sign a letter saying its legal? Cook County being a home rule county makes everything so confusing. As far as I know, there are only a couple of cities where AWBs are expressly over-ruled. I believe Des Plaines and Hoffman Estates are among them. Are there any others? It would be helpful to list these municipalities with their respective municipal codes. Regardless, my CLEO signed my form and I was planning on submitting another for a 9mm PCC. Now I don't know what to do. I hope you have some luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguard Posted January 27, 2018 at 07:29 AM Author Share Posted January 27, 2018 at 07:29 AM I have some already. I got them back in the day when you needed CLEO signatures. Can you contact the ATF and mention that you have another stamp? I mean, the old CLEO signature should count for something in that regard since the whole point of CLEO signature was to indicate that you were not in violation of the law. If worst comes to worse, maybe ask your CLEO if they'd sign a letter saying its legal? Cook County being a home rule county makes everything so confusing. As far as I know, there are only a couple of cities where AWBs are expressly over-ruled. I believe Des Plaines and Hoffman Estates are among them. Are there any others? It would be helpful to list these municipalities with their respective municipal codes. Regardless, my CLEO signed my form and I was planning on submitting another for a 9mm PCC. Now I don't know what to do. I hope you have some luck! I mean, I don't really have anything to lose so I will ask my CLEO for a letter or something like that. Will be calling the local ATF branch as well on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted January 27, 2018 at 10:33 PM Share Posted January 27, 2018 at 10:33 PM Is there risk that the others are seen and those get revoked? Does the ATF revoke stamps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.