Jump to content

Highland Park weighs 'Assault Weapon' ban


RockerXX

Recommended Posts

http://highlandpark.suntimes.com/news/20535228-418/highland-park-city-council-weighs-ban-on-assault-weapons.html

The Highland Park City Council is taking steps to possibly ban assault weapons before the municipality’s power is trumped by a state law awaiting Gov. Patrick Quinn’s signature.

The bill that passed both the Illinois House and Senate May 31 allows registered gun owners to apply for permits to carry concealed weapons. It also bars home rule municipalities from enacting new bans or restrictions on assault weapons, except those approved within 10 days after Quinn signs the legislation.

“We don’t like to make hurried legislation. We like to take our time,” Highland Park Councilman Paul Frank prefaced. “But unfortunately we don’t have that luxury given that the state has essentially usurped our home rule authority on an important issue, perhaps in perpetuity.”

He suggested the council be prepared to vote in a timely manner, and call a special meeting earlier if necessary.

In December, the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the state’s law on concealed carry gun restrictions and gave Illinois until June 9 to enact a replacement that could pass constitutional muster. The compromise bill approved by lawmakers before they adjourned Friday did not reverse local bans and restrictions already on the books, as had a measure that passed the Illinois House in mid-May and was resisted in the Senate.

But it prohibited new bans on assault weapons going forward. Because the state measure supersedes home rule authority, it required a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers.

City attorney Steven Elrod suggested that if the council is inclined to enact a ban before the deadline, the draft ordinance be modeled after a Cook County ordinance that has survived a legal challenge.

Councilman Anthony Blumberg said he also would like to see at least one alternative to the Cook County ordinance.

Councilman David Naftzger said he would not support a ban on assault weapons. Noting that emotions run high on gun issues, he urged his colleagues to think through the ramifications, including the potential legal costs of defending the city against a court challenge.

“What is the problem we are trying to solve?” he said.

Speaking at the end of the short meeting, Mike Weisman, a second vice president of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said, “I can appreciate your desire to have a safe town, but I suspect you already do.” He urged council members to look at their motivations for rushing to action.

“Is this something you need to do because of a crime wave in Highland Park with assault weapons? What are assault weapons? It is a very loose term designed by people who don’t like firearms,” said Weisman. “I am going to suggest you do nothing.”

City ordinance prohibits possession of handguns within city limits, with certain exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the city attorney must be unaware of Wilson vs cook county.

 

It's not their money....

 

I said this over in the Deerfield thread, the village of Northfield spent at last count almost a million dollars in legal fees over 20 years fighting the widening of Willow Rd. This issue was going on when I moved to Northfield as a Child in 1991 and was just resolved last year.

 

If local officials feel a majority of VOTERS support what they are doing, or will not care about what they are doing they have no incentive to restrain themselves from foolish expensive legal endeavors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highland Park has a handgun registry and a permit. The permit requires a gun safety class only given by Highland Park police department once a year or so. Failure to take the class makes you a criminal.

 

OK, so this bill will nuke this requirement.

 

Yes.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We don’t like to make hurried legislation. We like to take our time,” Highland Park Councilman Paul Frank prefaced. “But unfortunately we don’t have that luxury given that the state has essentially usurped our home rule authority on an important issue, perhaps in perpetuity.”

They have had over 20 years to enact an AWB if they wanted one. The Cook County AWB hasn't been enforced for 6 years. If this is such an important issue why hasn't it been addressed before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is such an important issue why hasn't it been addressed before?

 

It's not so much about banning 'assault weapons' as it is about not having that Home Rule power stripped from them...

 

If they enact any 'assault weapon' ban (even if they outlaw a single obscure rifle, heck it doesn't even have to exist) they can change and amend the ordinance as they might see fit over the years if they choose... If they do nothing they lose the ability to ever make such an ordinance and thus the ability to ban at a later date, under the proposed bill...

 

Consider this, say the Feds were to pass a law that said if you currently own an 'assault rifle' you can not only keep it but you can continue to purchase them in the future, BUT if you do not currently own an 'assault rifle' by the time the law goes into effect you will never be able to own one... How many people will just go and buy an 'assault rifle' just to preserve the right? This is what these communities are doing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there will be many "shell" AWB laws enacted by even "gun friendly" municipalities so the homerules can reserve the ability to do something in the future. Something listing a non-existent or obscure gun like an AR47 or an AK15, for example where its a petty offense with a nominal fine.

 

Nothing inspires action more than possibly losing a right (see gun buying frenzies every time Obama farts.)

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is such an important issue why hasn't it been addressed before?

 

It's not so much about banning 'assault weapons' as it is about not having that Home Rule power stripped from them...

 

If they enact any 'assault weapon' ban (even if they outlaw a single obscure rifle, heck it doesn't even have to exist) they can change and amend the ordinance as they might see fit over the years if they choose... If they do nothing they lose the ability to ever make such an ordinance and thus the ability to ban at a later date, under the proposed bill...

 

Consider this, say the Feds were to pass a law that said if you currently own an 'assault rifle' you can not only keep it but you can continue to purchase them in the future, BUT if you do not currently own an 'assault rifle' by the time the law goes into effect you will never be able to own one... How many people will just go and buy an 'assault rifle' just to preserve the right? This is what these communities are doing...

I was unaware it could still be amended in the future. Thanks.

 

I guess that means my town's AWB (actually a machine gun ban) could be amended in the future...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...