Jump to content

Easterday/GSL v Deerfield "assault' ban

InterestedBystander

Recommended Posts

soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted
From NRA-ILA 4/4/18 NRA to support Guns Save Life in Illinois Lawsuit
Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced support for a lawsuit brought by Guns Save Life challenging the Village of Deerfield, Illinois’ gun confiscation ordinance. The lawsuit challenges Deerfield’s recent attempt to criminalize so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” within village limits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchenryill Member

mchenryill

Posted
Posted

From NRA-ILA 4/4/18 NRA to support Guns Save Life in Illinois Lawsuit

Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced support for a lawsuit brought by Guns Save Life challenging the Village of Deerfield, Illinois’ gun confiscation ordinance. The lawsuit challenges Deerfield’s recent attempt to criminalize so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” within village limits.

 

 

 

Been a long time NRA member and saw the article in NRA-ILA, but I haven't been able to find any details on the suit or where it was filed. You can find details on the IRSA suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinnyb82 Member

skinnyb82

Posted
Posted
This suit is explicitly tailored to keep it out of federal court. Or at least this is how I'd draft a complaint to keep it from being removed to the Northern District of Illinois (which is packed with Obama and Clinton appointees). If there had been any counts alleging constitutional infringements, Deerfield could have it removed to federal district court. No, only violations of state law, which must be litigated in state court. I'll laugh my a** off if Deerfield tries removing it to ILND.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

This suit is explicitly tailored to keep it out of federal court. Or at least this is how I'd draft a complaint to keep it from being removed to the Northern District of Illinois (which is packed with Obama and Clinton appointees). If there had been any counts alleging constitutional infringements, Deerfield could have it removed to federal district court. No, only violations of state law, which must be litigated in state court. I'll laugh my a** off if Deerfield tries removing it to ILND.

Yes, I think they are being very smart on this one, best, easiest route to just get it tossed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Any news on the GSL and NRA-ILA lawsuit?I do not see anything filed.

If Im accurately reading between the lines, Alan Gura (works often with SAF) is wondering the same thing:

 

https://twitter.com/alangura/status/984166207187243009?s=21

 

So about a week ago, a certain organization announced it was filing a lawsuit. This was reported by various outlets. Still VAPORWARE! Reporters: no complaint, no story! A good rule for attorneys, too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InterestedBystander Member

InterestedBystander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

From the comments section at GSL. Would seem to still be alive, just moving slowly.

 

http://www.gunssavelife.com/guns-save-life-files-suit-deerfields-gun-confiscation-ordinance-nras-support/

 

 

"...The ISRA/GOA's lawsuit is available on-line, but I cannot find the GSL/NRA lawsuit. Most of the Chicago papers and their copycats acknowledge the ISRA/GOA lawsuit but not the GSL/NRA lawsuit. Should we as members of GSL/NRA make some attempt to correct this oversight, or is there some strategy recommending a lower profile?

 

Thanks again.

 

 

jboch on April 10, 2018 at 11:19 am

There are strategies at work here.

 

Yes, completely different lawsuits. We announced ours, then the next day, the ISRA announced theirs.

 

As for what we're going to ask for, I'll let the attorneys give me direction as to what to say and when to say it. They're exploring a lot of angles, and I feel very good about achieving success in our action.

 

It won't happen instantly though.

 

One media reporter asked me, "The people of Deerfield clearly want this. Why are you challenging it?" I replied (paraphrasing), "You know, at one time a lot of people wanted segregation in schools, but that didn't make it right."

 

John

 

John Richardson on April 11, 2018 at 7:22 am

Again, are you filing in state or Federal court? I'd like to help publicize it outside of Illinois.

 

jboch on April 11, 2018 at 12:22 pm

State court."...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Black Flag Member

Black Flag

Posted
Posted

My take on this, and correct me if I'm wrong, the fact that no one can find their case, and jboch's comments seem diametrically opposed to the headline, which read:

 

Guns Save Life files suit against Deerfield’s gun confiscation ordinance with NRA’s support

 

"Files suit" means doing it. Now.

Not formulating the strategy and searching for the _______ _____.

Not beating everyone to the announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blade13 Member

Blade13

Posted
Posted

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/04/john-boch/fighting-back-nra-backed-suit-challenging-deerfield-gun-ban-filed/

 

This morning, in Lake County, Illinois circuit court, Guns Save Life filed a legal challenge against the newly-amended Deerfield, Illinois gun ban. With the help of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, GSL seeks to have the local ordinance overturned.

As Guns Save Life’s Executive Director, I can say the NRA has proved magnificent in their support. One could not ask for a better or more experienced partner in this fight. We need to block Deerfield’s unconstitutional effort to deny its residents firearms based merely upon cosmetic appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DG53 Member

DG53

Posted
Posted

Article about the second lawsuit can be found here. Interesting that is contends that the villiage neglected to add language actually banning standard capacity magazines. Ha ha!!!

 

https://patch.com/illinois/deerfield/deerfield-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-really-ban-magazines-suit?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_term=police+%26+fire&utm_campaign=autopost&utm_content=deerfield

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lou Member

Lou

Posted
Posted

Article about the second lawsuit can be found here. Interesting that is contends that the villiage neglected to add language actually banning standard capacity magazines. Ha ha!!!

 

https://patch.com/illinois/deerfield/deerfield-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-really-ban-magazines-suit?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_term=police+%26+fire&utm_campaign=autopost&utm_content=deerfield

 

 

They couldn't even spell his name correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

How come the same parties that are suing Deerfield haven't sued cook county/Chicago for the AWB?

Well, the Deerfield they are not directly attacking the constitutionality of the ban (AFAIK). They are definitely saying it wasn't legal under the preemption clause of the FCCA. The bill Deerfield filed in the timeframe in 2013 was a transport and storage law, not a ban.

 

Really boils down to the judge. But, it is REAL obvious the intent of the preemption clause in the FCCA was, basically "If you want to ban Assault weapons at a municipal level, do it now. After the window, you can not". But, we have communities that put a 'shell bill' out at that time. Some were actual empty ordinances. Deerfield's at least addressed the weapons in question, by limiting how they had to be stored and transported. IMHO, the empty shell ordinances, 100% go against the intent of the preemption clause in the FCCA, regardless of what these municipalities were 'assured' at the time. Deerfield's, imho can be argued to be of the same ilk, as it is a completely different ordinance (they even removed the storage and transport language).

 

That said, I would like to see one of these bans challenged under the Heller decision, where the decision actually said it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons that are in common use. All of these bans violate that. That said, limiting mag capacity doesn't have a precedent against it. In fact, Heller somewhat says municipalities can limit that, for the common safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Binder2 Welcome New Member

Binder2

Posted
Posted

 

How come the same parties that are suing Deerfield haven't sued cook county/Chicago for the AWB?

Well, the Deerfield they are not directly attacking the constitutionality of the ban (AFAIK). They are definitely saying it wasn't legal under the preemption clause of the FCCA. The bill Deerfield filed in the timeframe in 2013 was a transport and storage law, not a ban.

 

Really boils down to the judge. But, it is REAL obvious the intent of the preemption clause in the FCCA was, basically "If you want to ban Assault weapons at a municipal level, do it now. After the window, you can not". But, we have communities that put a 'shell bill' out at that time. Some were actual empty ordinances. Deerfield's at least addressed the weapons in question, by limiting how they had to be stored and transported. IMHO, the empty shell ordinances, 100% go against the intent of the preemption clause in the FCCA, regardless of what these municipalities were 'assured' at the time. Deerfield's, imho can be argued to be of the same ilk, as it is a completely different ordinance (they even removed the storage and transport language).

 

That said, I would like to see one of these bans challenged under the Heller decision, where the decision actually said it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons that are in common use. All of these bans violate that. That said, limiting mag capacity doesn't have a precedent against it. In fact, Heller somewhat says municipalities can limit that, for the common safety.

 

 

My reading on the filed complaint is 80% chance Deerfield is going to win. If they do not win, I have a bad felling that the result is we are going to end up seeing preemption removed by amendment from the FCCA. The complaint is specifically worded to avoid anything resembling a 2nd amendment case. They do not want to mess the the Federal courts I pointed out that it is just a preemption case and the rest of it was hot air, GSL did not like me putting it that way, but I don't think they denied it either.

And they are not "banning" an entire class of weapons, that would be any semi-auto rifle. I think that a M1a or a Ranch Rifle are good to go as well as others. Keep in mind, the ATF has no separate classifications for "assault weapons". But like I said, they only what to question the preemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InterestedBystander Member

InterestedBystander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://circuitclerk.lakecountyil.gov/publicAccess/html/common/index.xhtml

 

The GSL suit is now on the court site

 

Case number: 18CH00000498

GUNS SAVE LIFE, WOMBACHER VS VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, HARRIET ROSENTHAL

GUNS SAVE LIFE INC, JOHN WOMBACHER: PLAINTIFF

AMBLER, CHRISTIAN D.: ATTORNEY

Court events not scheduled

 

Case number: 18CH00000427

ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, EASTERDAY VS VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD

Court events:

4/26 Hearing on motion

7/5 Status

 

Edit: WOMBACHER, WILLIAM, III listed in the GSL filing is now correctly shown as a plaintiff in the GSL case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadRiverMike Welcome New Member

MadRiverMike

Posted
Posted

I am glad they are suing at the state level, bigger chance of winning I think.

 

 

 

 

Naturally, it is the day after IGold !! :hmm:

 

 

I think most of the GSL staff goes to IGOLD every year. If the hearing is really the day after, they might be all fired up if we have a good turnout. I think we could all use some uplifting feelings after all the punches in the gut we've taken recently as 2A supporters

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InterestedBystander Member

InterestedBystander

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I am glad they are suing at the state level, bigger chance of winning I think.

 

 

Naturally, it is the day after IGold !! :hmm:

 

I think most of the GSL staff goes to IGOLD every year. If the hearing is really the day after, they might be all fired up if we have a good turnout. I think we could all use some uplifting feelings after all the punches in the gut we've taken recently as 2A supporters

It is the ISRA/SAF case on the 26th for motion hearing. GSL has no events showing on the court site.
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...