mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:30 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:30 PM While trying to figure out the regulations on shooting pellet guns in my town, Forest Park, I came across this: B. Concealed Classifications: It shall be unlawful for any person in the village to sell, give away, transfer or deliver any revolver, pistol, handgun or firearm that may be concealed upon a person, to anyone who is not a:1. U.S. marshall; or2. Federal official required to carry firearms while engaged in the official operation of their duties; or3. Law enforcement official of Forest Park or any other governmental jurisdiction; or4. Licensed private detective; (Ord. O-22-77, 9-26-1977)5. Licensed firearms distributor; (Ord. O-3-78, 2-27-1978)6. Special agents employed by a railroad or public utility to perform police functions;7. Watchmen employed by persons, firms or corporations to protect lives of persons and property;8. Security guards licensed by a licensed detective agency as defined by the private detective, private alarm, private security and locksmith act4;9. Any person regularly employed in a commercial or industrial operation for the protection of persons and property relating to such commercial and industrial operation and who are members of a security force of thirty (30) persons or more registered with the department of professional regulation, provided that such person has completed a course of study approved and supervised by the department of professional regulation consisting of not less than thirty (30) hours of training in law enforcement and liability for the acts and the handling of weapons. (Ord. O-21-79, 10-22-1979) A violation of this section shall subject the offender to be fined as provided in the general penalty in section 1-3-1 of this code. (Ord. O-21-79, 10-22-1979; amd. 2004 Code) Two questions:1) Am I correct in understanding that my city effectively banned all private handgun sales?2) If so, is this even remotely defensible in court?
mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:35 PM Author Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:35 PM I also found this:5-2-14: FIREWORKS AND EXPLOSIVES: No person shall sell, keep, expose for sale, loan, give away, be possessed of, or discharge anywhere in the village any toy pistol, toy gun, toy cannon, blank cartridge, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedoes, bombs, squibs, rockets, spin wheels, fire balloons, Roman candles, detonating canes, ammunition, or any substance or articles of an explosive nature designed or intended to be used as fireworks; provided, however, that the council may issue a permit for consumer fireworks displays and for pyrotechnic displays, as such terms are defined in the fireworks use act5 and the pyrotechnic distributor and operator licensing act6, as further designated hereinafter. At a glance this looks like it's saying you can't have toy guns or ammunition designed to b used as fireworks. But the word "or" (emphasized above) makes the meaning here that toy guns are illegal. Period. Ammunition is illegal. period. No? And if so.... isn't this grossly unconstitutional? (the ammunition part. The toy guns part is just absurd).
Chad Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:44 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:44 PM 5-2-14: FIREWORKS AND EXPLOSIVES: No person shall sell, keep, expose for sale, loan, give away, be possessed of, or discharge anywhere in the village any toy pistol, toy gun, toy cannon, blank cartridge, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedoes, bombs, squibs, rockets, spin wheels, fire balloons, Roman candles, detonating canes, ammunition, or any substance or articles of an explosive nature designed or intended to be used as fireworks; provided, however, ....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH2uifOWP-k
JR1987 Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:48 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:48 PM Actually, it sounds like its an all out handgun ban. Not just private sales.
Hatchet Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:50 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:50 PM Actually, it sounds like its an all out handgun ban. Not just private sales. that being the case... doesnt the McDonald ruling automatically make that law null and void?
mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:51 PM Author Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:51 PM Actually, it sounds like its an all out handgun ban. Not just private sales. that being the case... doesnt the McDonald ruling automatically make that law null and void?I disagree though. My understanding is that it only applies to transfers, not possession.
JR1987 Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:55 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:55 PM Perhaps its not a ban, but it stops anyone from selling, trading, or giving away within the city borders. Are there any regulations within your city as to weapon types? For example magazine size, etc?
Federal Farmer Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:59 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 02:59 PM Neither McDonald nor Heller addressed the issue of handgun transfers directly, so the issue isn't 'settled law'. Chicago still bans all transfers within City limits exempting LEO, I believe. I suspect it could fall to a suit if challenged.
mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 03:06 PM Author Posted June 2, 2011 at 03:06 PM Are there any regulations within your city as to weapon types? For example magazine size, etc?No, but the Cook county AWB applies here.
mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 03:15 PM Author Posted June 2, 2011 at 03:15 PM Neither McDonald nor Heller addressed the issue of handgun transfers directly, so the issue isn't 'settled law'. Chicago still bans all transfers within City limits exempting LEO, I believe. I suspect it could fall to a suit if challenged. Thanks. I knew McDonald and Heller didn't address it, and was looking for other cases that would make this part of the ordinance indefensible, but haven't had any luck. So far as I can see, it seems you're right that it's not settled. Anyone have any opinions/thoughts on the code that seems to technically ban ammunition (2nd post above)? I've read over it a few times, and my gut reaction is that it was intended to ban fireworks "ammunition" (e.g. mortar-type rounds), but its vagueness appears to open it up for interpretation as a blanket ban against all ammunition (and toy guns!) regardless of its relation to fireworks. Should I just try to bring this up at a city council meeting?
JR1987 Posted June 2, 2011 at 03:19 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 03:19 PM Are there any regulations within your city as to weapon types? For example magazine size, etc?No, but the Cook county AWB applies here. Shame, so you guys aren't home ruled?
Uncle Harley Posted June 2, 2011 at 06:06 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 06:06 PM Neither McDonald nor Heller addressed the issue of handgun transfers directly, so the issue isn't 'settled law'. Chicago still bans all transfers within City limits exempting LEO, I believe. I suspect it could fall to a suit if challenged. Thanks. I knew McDonald and Heller didn't address it, and was looking for other cases that would make this part of the ordinance indefensible, but haven't had any luck. So far as I can see, it seems you're right that it's not settled. Anyone have any opinions/thoughts on the code that seems to technically ban ammunition (2nd post above)? I've read over it a few times, and my gut reaction is that it was intended to ban fireworks "ammunition" (e.g. mortar-type rounds), but its vagueness appears to open it up for interpretation as a blanket ban against all ammunition (and toy guns!) regardless of its relation to fireworks. Should I just try to bring this up at a city council meeting? i hate to say it, but I think it bans ammunition for your gun. If you google " firwork ammunition" you will find all kinds of articles about bomb squads sna differen LEO anencies confinscating illegial ammunition and fireworks. There is now one single mention of and specific type of firework described at ammunition.
burningspear Posted June 2, 2011 at 06:38 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 06:38 PM The ordinance you quoted begins with "No person....." Therefore, unless specifically exempted somewhere else in the ordinance, all Forest Park law enforcement officers, security guards, and private detectives are prohibited from possessing, keeping ammunition.
mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 06:57 PM Author Posted June 2, 2011 at 06:57 PM The ordinance you quoted begins with "No person....." Therefore, unless specifically exempted somewhere else in the ordinance, all Forest Park law enforcement officers, security guards, and private detectives are prohibited from possessing, keeping ammunition.The fireworks ordinance goes on to exempt pyro companies putting on a show at the town.'s request, but not leos, iirc Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
RandyP Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:23 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:23 PM "Are there any regulations within your city as to weapon types? For example magazine size, etc? " I live in Chicago,..........so, No. LOL
JR1987 Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:29 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:29 PM "Are there any regulations within your city as to weapon types? For example magazine size, etc? " I live in Chicago,..........so, No. LOL With all due respect, I wasn't really talking to you. And yes, there are restrictions in Chicago in terms of magazine size. I believe you cannot have a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.
mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:37 PM Author Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:37 PM Cook county is ten, chicago I believe is twelve. Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Federal Farmer Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:48 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 07:48 PM "Are there any regulations within your city as to weapon types? For example magazine size, etc? " I live in Chicago,..........so, No. LOL With all due respect, I wasn't really talking to you. And yes, there are restrictions in Chicago in terms of magazine size. I believe you cannot have a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It is actually more than 12 now.
JR1987 Posted June 2, 2011 at 08:12 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 08:12 PM Interesting. I don't live in Chicago so I don't keep up on their laws.I was just asking the OP about his laws.
mstrat Posted June 2, 2011 at 08:29 PM Author Posted June 2, 2011 at 08:29 PM i hate to say it, but I think it bans ammunition for your gun. If you google " firwork ammunition" you will find all kinds of articles about bomb squads sna differen LEO anencies confinscating illegial ammunition and fireworks. There is now one single mention of and specific type of firework described at ammunition. For what it's worth to anyone interested, I also looked it up and neither (425 ILCS 35/) Pyrotechnic Use Act nor (225 ILCS 227/) Pyrotechnic Distributor and Operator Licensing Act define "ammunition." So the "as such terms are defined by" (in the ordinance quote in the second post) doesn't seem to apply here. I wrote to my mayor's office, asking for direction regarding who to talk to for clarification on the city's interpretation and intensions with "ammunition" in the ordinance. Depending on their reply, I will probably look into what it takes to push them to reword it to make it less ambiguous.
RandyP Posted June 2, 2011 at 08:44 PM Posted June 2, 2011 at 08:44 PM Sincere apologies JR, I didn't realize you were in a private thread with the OP or I'd have kept my pie hole closed.
mstrat Posted June 3, 2011 at 12:52 AM Author Posted June 3, 2011 at 12:52 AM Just an update for anyone interested, regarding the "ammunition" in the fireworks ordinance: I just received a call from the mayor, who said (paraphrased) that lawyers intentionally write the ordinance to be all-encompassing, but that their intention is that it only pertains to fireworks. So I think it can safely be assumed the ordinance wouldn't be misused - at least for as long as this mayor holds office. But its wording definitely still worries me, as it seems to be an open door for future abuse. On a side-note, I was quite surprised to receive a call directly from him. All I really needed was an email from a staffer in the village hall. +1 for his dedication to the job.
Uncle Harley Posted June 3, 2011 at 01:55 AM Posted June 3, 2011 at 01:55 AM good for you. I wrote our mayor a letter over a month ago asking for clarification on a city ordanance pertaining to guns and havnt recieved on iota of a reply yet.
lockman Posted June 3, 2011 at 02:13 AM Posted June 3, 2011 at 02:13 AM At least until this is resolved you can transfer your handguns outside of the city then bring them back in.
BigJim Posted June 3, 2011 at 01:51 PM Posted June 3, 2011 at 01:51 PM I would take that to mean you couldn't even give your wife a handgun for her birthday or Christmas.
mstrat Posted June 3, 2011 at 02:59 PM Author Posted June 3, 2011 at 02:59 PM I would take that to mean you couldn't even give your wife a handgun for her birthday or Christmas. Exactly. The title on this thread doesn't do a good job portraying the severity of this restriction.
Satatic Posted June 3, 2011 at 03:21 PM Posted June 3, 2011 at 03:21 PM Well according to the constitution of the united states they can not.
Xwing Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:34 PM Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:34 PM Well according to the constitution of the united states they can not.Unfortunately, while that is common sense, it is not how our state or local municipalities see it. That law, as written makes almost anything pertaining to a firearm or ammunition illegal. I doubt it is actually enforced. But it's just another way of criminalizing any conduct that government doesn't approve of, whether it should be legal or not.
JR1987 Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:40 PM Posted June 3, 2011 at 04:40 PM Sincere apologies JR, I didn't realize you were in a private thread with the OP or I'd have kept my pie hole closed. You don't need to apologize, or become sarcastic. I was merely pointing out that I wasn't responding to your post. I am sorry if you took offense.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.