Jump to content


Photo

Dart to Enforce Crook Cty AWB in Northbrook.


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Members
  • 12,986 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 13 June 2018 - 08:29 PM

This is just bizarre.

"..........................

http://www.chicagotr...impression=true

Cook County Sheriffs Office police officers will enforce the countys assault weapons ban in the Village of Northbrook, according to Village President Sandra Frum.

After listening to comments from seven people regarding the ban, also known as the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban, Frum read a statement announcing that village staff has determined that Cook County officials will be responsible for enforcing the ban in Northbrook.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#2 BobPistol

    Member

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

Posted 13 June 2018 - 08:47 PM

"Tom Dart will be assigning this number of officers to Northbrook to do this."

 

"Alex, what is zero?"


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#3 tricolor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 359 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 18

Posted 13 June 2018 - 09:14 PM

Read a prepared statement, huh.  Almost like the proceeding was a complete waste of time. 

 

Almost as big of a waste of time as to try and get the dart squad to enforce a ban that, as far as I know, no one has ever been charged with. 

 

What a ridiculous exercise in virtue signalling all around. 



#4 steveTA1983

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,573 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 13 June 2018 - 09:52 PM

Can’t wait till someone who is a CCL holder from out of county is pulled over with a 15 round magazine and hauled away. Would make an awesome court case

#5 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,999 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 14 June 2018 - 04:17 AM

Ask Frum, If the County's stepping in and Northbrook feels everything is covered.    Why did Northbrook even have a need to pass their own special little law ?  



#6 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 14 June 2018 - 06:36 AM

Dart gonna start enforcing in Chicago too?

Ad utrumque paratus


#7 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,750 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:44 AM

It's never been enforced because they are afraid of it being full on challenged in court. This is just talk with no changes. The AWB has created the affect that cook was looking for with out having to do anything. No companies will ship certain items to cook county because of the unenforced ban. Many will not sell to cook county residents because of the unenforced ban. They don't want to risk losing this threat against gun suppliers.


"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).

#8 evilbrownrifle

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2018 - 08:30 AM

Ask Frum, If the County's stepping in and Northbrook feels everything is covered.    Why did Northbrook even have a need to pass their own special little law ?  

 

Truthfully? Because the wrong candidate won the election. This is virtue signalling by a board that feels the need to help out the party and be part of the "resistance." Add to that the fact they have no human respect for the "other," feel superior and justified and feel there are enough of them in the village to have no consequences.

 

The question is, are Northbrook gun owners going to try and make there be consequences in the next village election cycle. 


Edited by evilbrownrifle, 14 June 2018 - 08:31 AM.


#9 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:16 AM

Northbrook Village Attorney Steve Elrod said at the May meeting that the Cook County assault weapons ban is applicable and enforceable in Northbrook because both are home rule municipalities.

 

Um,  I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on Northbrook. 

 

In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.

The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast.  It directly violates the CCL act.  If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward.  It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#10 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,739 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:18 AM

 

 

 

 

In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.

The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast.  It directly violates the CCL act.  If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward.  It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP.

 

Agreed.  Who is the business owner willing to fight for us?


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#11 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,999 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:25 AM

I wonder if any members of the board feel used by the outfits coaching them into the law now. The law firm, Moms demand action and others.

 

Wonder what kind of contributions and sources of such they will be receiving towards their reelection campaigns after all its C®look County. 



#12 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:30 AM

Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?


Ad utrumque paratus


#13 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:37 AM

Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?


It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it.

#14 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:45 AM

 

Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?


It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it.

 

Nah, in this case, it means they want a law in place, that they can't legally create themselves do to state preemption on AWBs.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#15 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:45 AM

 

Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?


It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it.

 

I think it means that  if  when something goes wrong, they want to be able to blame somebody else for it.


Ad utrumque paratus


#16 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 09:48 AM

In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.

The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast.  It directly violates the CCL act.  If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward.  It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP.

 

This will all be mute when the legislature votes to remove preemption from FCCL and our new governor signs it into law.


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

#17 spaceman spiff

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 15

Posted 14 June 2018 - 10:03 AM

 

Northbrook Village Attorney Steve Elrod said at the May meeting that the Cook County assault weapons ban is applicable and enforceable in Northbrook because both are home rule municipalities.

 

Um,  I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on Northbrook. 

 

 

 

In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.

The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast.  It directly violates the CCL act.  If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward.  It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP.

 

I am a manager at a Northbrook restaurant that has a liquor license and will not be enforcing this stupid ordinace in my establishment. Heck, I'm tempted to do something nice to encourage IC members to come in and patronize my restaurant. PM me if interested.


NRA Life Member

ISRA Member

GOA Member

Aspiring Law Enforcement, Looking Forward to Taking the Oath to Uphold and Defend


#18 BobPistol

    Member

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

Posted 14 June 2018 - 10:45 AM

 

Does anyone find it interesting that the same politicians who don't want the Federal government enforcing Federal law in Illinois cities are quite happy when the Cook County sheriff comes into Northbrook to enforce county law?


It means they want a law enforced, but don't want to pay their own cops to do it.

 

 

If the Feds enforce Federal law, Northbrook's own cops won't be doing it.    In addition, those who do not want the Feds enforcing Federal law are really talking about illegal alienage - enriching cronies with cheap labor. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#19 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:11 AM

 

In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.

The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast.  It directly violates the CCL act.  If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward.  It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP.

 

This will all be mute when the legislature votes to remove preemption from FCCL and our new governor signs it into law.

 

Hmm.  I'm not sure the ILGA as a whole wants that.  It means relinquishing control, something they RARELY want to do.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#20 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,184 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:24 AM

If my city decides to attempt this, I won't be complying. Dart won't be enforcing. Everything's good. That said, this needs to be fought on principle.

Oh, and, look at all the concealed carriers shooting up restaurants and bars! It's an epidemic!! LMFAO. What's the basis for wanting to stop licensed carriers from having guns in a place that holds a liquor license? Nothing other than the fact that they don't like the CCA and would like to chip away at it as much as they can. They think the average soccer mom will think 'that's reasonable'. So, it's their foot in the door.

Based on the recent Deerfield ruling, it seems the courts are inclined to take the pro-CCA stance over local ordinances. Let's hope that trend continues. I'd love nothing more than to have these people spanked by the court.



#21 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,953 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:51 AM

I don't think Deerfield is being decided on a 2nd amendment grounds. I think it's a violation of the takings clause, in addition to the fines levied being unreasonable if all one did was possess something that was legal prior to enactment. 



#22 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:53 AM

I don't think Deerfield is being decided on a 2nd amendment grounds. I think it's a violation of the takings clause, in addition to the fines levied being unreasonable if all one did was possess something that was legal prior to enactment. 

Actually, its largely being contested as a new ban law, violating the CCA preemption clause.  At least the ruling on the TRO acknowledged that.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#23 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:40 PM

The ISRA/SAF suit is based on preemption.
The NRA suit is based on (supposedly) constitutional grounds.

#24 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,223 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 14 June 2018 - 08:53 PM

I don't think Deerfield is being decided on a 2nd amendment grounds. I think it's a violation of the takings clause, in addition to the fines levied being unreasonable if all one did was possess something that was legal prior to enactment. 

 

The takings thing was the one point the plaintiffs failed upon, I think... because the ordinance was preempted and unenforceable and there would be no takings. That it was in violation of the FCCA was the main point.


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

#25 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,953 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 15 June 2018 - 09:44 AM

The stories posted about the injunction use the word unconstitutional. The FCCA and preemption are not constitutional issues. Takings is. That's why I suggested what I did.

#26 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 15 June 2018 - 08:46 PM

Um,  I'm not sure I agree with his analysis on Northbrook.

 

In May, the board approved two ordinances banning the sale and possession of bump stocks and similar accessories and banning concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor within the village.

The latter NEEDS to be challenged, and fast.  It directly violates the CCL act.  If it is left alone, then we will see all manner of BS like that come forward.  It needs to be swatted down as illegal ASAP.

I am a manager at a Northbrook restaurant that has a liquor license and will not be enforcing this stupid ordinace in my establishment. Heck, I'm tempted to do something nice to encourage IC members to come in and patronize my restaurant. PM me if interested.

 

Spiff - if I lived in your area, I'd love to bring my business to you.  Problem is I live near St. Louis.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#27 NakPPI

    Member

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

Posted 15 June 2018 - 10:05 PM

Preemption is a constitutional issue. We just don't usually talk about it that way on this forum. 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.

#28 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,184 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 19 June 2018 - 11:20 AM

Preemption is a constitutional issue. We just don't usually talk about it that way on this forum. Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

Yes. It's an Illinois constitution issue.



#29 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 20 June 2018 - 09:16 PM

Quick fact. Blair Holy wasn't even killed by a so called "assault weapon"
They used any opportunity to pass a gun law.
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users