Jump to content

Orland Park / Cook County AWB clarification

ryangassxx

By ryangassxx
in Illinois Politics

Recommended Posts

ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
Posted

I thought I'd post this up here for reference to all web searchers on this issue (This forum indexes well in Google).

 

I was initially the one who posed this question a few months back, and it pertained to how the "Cook County assault weapons ban" affected Orland Park Illinois. After much searching, and finding no clear answers in the ordinances, I came across a Village Hall meeting minutes log where a resident posed the question outright and was given the answer by the Village President. It was as follows..

 

Meeting Minutes
Monday, August 5, 2013
7:00 PM
NON-SCHEDULED CITIZENS & VISITORS
-Bernie Czerwinski - 15656 Heatherglen Drive, Orland Park spoke before the Board
regarding the Cook County gun law on assault and concealed weapons passed in
July, 2013.
-President McLaughlin commented this new law did not pertain to Home Rule
communities.
-Village Manager Grimes stated that the Cook County law passed in July did not
affect Home Ruled Municipalities regarding adopting the assault weapons ban,
only unincorporated. The Village of Orland Park Board decided not to take any
action regarding this type of law.
-Village Attorney Friker stated that was correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

While it's nice that Orland doesn't wish to enforce the law, that's not how the home rule really works. Home Rule only applies if the municipality has an explicit conflicting ordinance on the books. Does Orland Park have such an ordinance?

 

I've not been able to find that to be the case. I'm not sure that "explicit contradictory" laws indeed need to be present. Can you show that somewhere?

 

Because what if the home rule community has any subsection or mention of the word "gun" or "firearms", does that then constitute the community as having their own gun laws, and then is the omission of any sort of ban on specific types of guns or magazines a case where home rule would supersede the Cook ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm not sure how it plays into this whole scenario, but an interesting caveat to the whole topic is that Orland Park is technically in two counties, one being Cook, and the other being Will. And I don't believe Will county has any noteworthy anti-gun laws on the books. So with a township that spans two counties, wouldn't the village laws need to be more or less universally applicable? I think this might be an important thing to take into consideration, and why Orland would be inclined to exercise home rule over the Cook ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
singlecoilpickup Member

singlecoilpickup

Posted
Posted

 

While it's nice that Orland doesn't wish to enforce the law, that's not how the home rule really works. Home Rule only applies if the municipality has an explicit conflicting ordinance on the books. Does Orland Park have such an ordinance?

 

I've not been able to find that to be the case. I'm not sure that "explicit contradictory" laws indeed need to be present. Can you show that somewhere?

 

Because what if the home rule community has any subsection or mention of the word "gun" or "firearms", does that then constitute the community as having their own gun laws, and then is the omission of any sort of ban on specific types of guns or magazines a case where home rule would supersede the Cook ban?

 

 

Can I show that somewhere? You mean like the Illinois Constitution, which is the document that defines Home Rules?

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con7.htm

 

 

If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an

ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall

prevail within its jurisdiction

 

There has to be an explicit conflict. And, no, I would not say anything referencing a gun would be enough. I believe Hoffman Estates, for example, set a specific definition of what an assault weapon is that conflicts with the Cook definition, which means the rest of the Cook provisions regarding assault weapons are void in Hoffman Estates with regard to the weapons Cook would consider assault weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
singlecoilpickup Member

singlecoilpickup

Posted
Posted

Correction, Hoffman just states the Cook ban is not valid in Hoffman Estates.

https://www.municode.com/library/il/hoffman_estates/codes/code_of_ordinances?searchRequest=%7B%22searchText%22:%22assault%22,%22pageNum%22:1,%22resultsPerPage%22:25,%22booleanSearch%22:false,%22stemming%22:true,%22fuzzy%22:false,%22synonym%22:false,%22contentTypes%22:%5B%22CODES%22%5D,%22productIds%22:%5B%5D%7D&nodeId=CH8LI_ART7MEPR_S8-7-6FIAIEXTO

 

 

 

It is specifically intended that this Section shall pre-empt the Cook County Firearms Dealer's License Ordinance as now in effect or as may be hereafter amended, and the Cook County Assault Weapons and Assault Ammunition Ban Ordinance as now in effect or as may be hereafter amended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an

ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall

prevail within its jurisdiction

 

 

Orland Park is in Cook County. You are subject to the rules of the county you live in unless the specific municipality has an explicitly different rule.

 

 

You've quoted something, and then again yourself asserting the "explicit contradictory" part.. You're really not showing me anything at all. It's funny how people feel so empowered to take on an attitude of arrogance on the internet..

 

Can I show that somewhere? You mean like the Illinois Constitution, which is the document that defines Home Rules?

 

Yeah,.. like totally.. show me that..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

Can I show that somewhere? You mean like the Illinois Constitution, which is the document that defines Home Rules?

 

Yeah,.. like totally.. show me that..

 

 

Open your eyes. I pasted a link to it with the quotation. Go back to the link and look at Section 6 Paragraph C.

 

Ok, I just did, and it's not there. No mention on an explicit contradiction..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
singlecoilpickup Member

singlecoilpickup

Posted
Posted

http://i.imgur.com/bxVotEM.png

 

Help me understand what you're finding confusing about this. By default you are governed by rules cascading downward from Federal to State to County to Municipality. You're not exempt from Federal or State laws just because the county and municipality don't have the same exact laws on the books. Same with this - you are subject to the laws of the county you live in. In this one case, the IL Constitution dictates that when a municipality has a conflicting ordinance then the municipality prevails. A lack of an ordinance is not a conflicting ordinance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

http://i.imgur.com/bxVotEM.png

 

Help me understand what you're finding confusing about this. By default you are governed by rules cascading downward from Federal to State to County to Municipality. You're not exempt from Federal or State laws just because the county and municipality don't have the same exact laws on the books. Same with this - you are subject to the laws of the county you live in. In this one case, the IL Constitution dictates that when a municipality has a conflicting ordinance then the municipality prevails. A lack of an ordinance is not a conflicting ordinance.

 

Maybe arguing with you any further is feudal, but I'll give it one last go.

 

I do indeed understand the flow chart of how law is administered from the top down. Interestingly enough, one of the exceptions to that rule is this very topic, "home rule".

 

I've presented the argument that a municipality that has gun laws of any sort on it's books might stand as that home rule territory's preemption to county law, and that an OMISSION of mention of an AWB (within that context, that's very important) could serve to explicitly (your word) preempt the Cook ban. Whether that is correct or not is in fact up for debate. But nothing that you're providing here serves your argument against what I've laid out. You keep referencing a part of the Illinois constitution that uses the word "conflict". That does not mean the same thing as "explicitly contradict". I could interpret it as meaning "conflicting with that home rule territory's existing gun laws" which conspicuously LACKS a mention of an AWB..

 

That's the debate being had, albeit a moot one because as I've show at the top, the people running the place have clearly rejected an AWB verbally on a public record.

 

 

 

Additionally, and correct me if I'm wrong because I very well might be. Wasn't this handled similarly with the preemption of the handgun magazine capacity limit in Cook county, because of an omitted mention in the Concealed Carry Law that passed?

 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3497&ChapterID=39 - No mention at all of magazine capacity limits..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Look, no one agrees with your interpretation of this, so at this point the burden of proof is on you. A random statement from a village lawyer is not legally binding.

 

The FCCA is s totally different scenario because the FCCA specifically preempted home rules.

 

As far as the burden of proof goes, I'm the only one citing the actual laws, citing precedent, and providing logged minutes of the people's take who are at the head of the local government. You've copied and pasted an anything but conclusive portion of the Illinois constitution 7 times.

 

He's not a "random village lawyer", he's the Village Attorney for Orland Park, a pretty heavy hitting affluent suburb of Chicago.

 

He agrees with my interpretation, and I'm pretty sure a heck of a lot more people do as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted

Ken Friker is a highly respected attorney. He's represented the Village for a very long time. Nothing he does is random in any way.

 

 

 

 

Edited to add a partial bio from Kelin, Thorpe and Jenkins:

 

 

http://www.ktjlaw.com/attorneys/kenneth-e-friker

 

 

Mr. Friker is the village attorney for Orland Park and his experience includes representation of various local governmental entities, including park districts, fire protection districts and over thirty-five (35) library boards and library districts. Further, he has co-authored the Manual on Conflicts of Interest and Liability of Illinois' Elected Municipal Officials for the Illinois Municipal League, the League’s publication Municipal Forms of Government and has also co-authored, with Terrence M. Barnicle of the firm, a chapter, "Contracts and Intergovernmental Affairs," for the practice handbook on Illinois School Law published by the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education. In addition to his local governmental practice, he maintains extensive real estate, probate and estate planning practices, represents numerous small to medium size corporations and served as corporate counsel to Orland State Bank for over twenty-five (25) years.

 

He's also a member of the Home Rule Attorneys' Committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryangassxx Member

ryangassxx

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ken Friker is a highly respected attorney. He's represented the Village for a very long time. Nothing he does is random in any way.

 

I was just looking over his bio, Ken Friker is a member of the Home Rule Attorneys' Committee of the Illinois Municipal League. So as far as this topic goes, I doubt he was lobbing a random guess when he chimed in on the minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
singlecoilpickup Member

singlecoilpickup

Posted
Posted

It's not scare tactics. It's Civics 101. A local government unit can't ignore its parent unit just because it feels like it. It doesn't matter if those units *think* they can.

 

The Illinois Constitution provides exactly one way: create a municipal ordinance that overrules the parent.

 

Do you think Hoffman Estates amended their municipal code just for fun? No, they knew they had to in order for Cabela's to be legally selling AR-15s.

 

Sure, there's a question of whether Cook Sheriffs will spend the time to enforce Cook laws in suburbs with their own police forces, but I think you're doing everyone here a disservice if you imply that they can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted

As ryangassxx put forth within this thread, and has been argued elsewhere in these forums, Orland Park does have a firearm ordinance that omits a ban.

 

Whether or not Mr. Friker used that logic in his counsel to the Village, or some other reasoning, is not my concern. I believe his counsel was correct for reasons that can differ from one municipality to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
singlecoilpickup Member

singlecoilpickup

Posted
Posted

Well, hopefully I won't have the opportunity to say "told you so" and you will as that's obviously preferable. But if I were a betting man, I would not put money on your position, and, frankly, I think it's dangerous and irresponsible to suggest that position to the people on this forum.

 

To think that any law regarding firearms means that the Cook AWB is unenforceable in Orland is, in my opinion, sheer folly.

 

Chicago has ordinances about taxes, and guess what, you still pay Cook tax on top of that in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DD123 Member

DD123

Posted
Posted

Not to enflame this discussion further, but prior to me buying an AR, I hadn't thought about keeping it at my uncle's house outside of the county, so I contact the Chief of Police of my town.

 

The chief called me back and asked what kind of firearm it was that I was thinking of getting and this led to a 10 minute discussion of which ones he thinks are best, and then proceeded to tell me that that BS Cook County crap (his exact words) doesn't apply here, that we follow state law.

 

Even though he told me that, I didn't have it in writing, and as I spoke with my uncle, he offered me room in his safe for a few long guns and said that even though I was told that, it's better to be safe than sorry and lose a bunch of money in expensive firearms.

 

My town does have a firearm ordinance section, but makes no mention of AR's and such. If the chief of police is telling me that I can keep them, to me that means that I can. I just don't because in my mind, it's still a grey area and I'm not going to risk it especially since I'll be getting the heck out of Crook soon enough.

 

But one also has to ask themselves this question: why would towns within Cook County, enact their own "Assault weapons" bans? Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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