steveTA84 Posted July 13, 2022 at 10:48 PM Share Posted July 13, 2022 at 10:48 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted July 13, 2022 at 10:57 PM Share Posted July 13, 2022 at 10:57 PM Naperville is the new Deerfield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:02 PM Share Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:02 PM Aren't new "Assault Weapons" Bans prohibited by the Concealed Carry law -- along with any non-state level regulation of handguns (such as their magazines)? And that's just the State laws that would prevent this, let alone the new legal standards set forth in Bruen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:23 PM Share Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:23 PM On 7/13/2022 at 7:02 PM, Upholder said: Aren't new "Assault Weapons" Bans prohibited by the Concealed Carry law -- along with any non-state level regulation of handguns (such as their magazines)? And that's just the State laws that would prevent this, let alone the new legal standards set forth in Bruen... 430 ILCS 66/90 Sec. 90 Preemption addresses only handguns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:31 PM Share Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:31 PM On 7/13/2022 at 6:23 PM, Quiet Observer said: 430 ILCS 66/90 Sec. 90 Preemption addresses only handguns. Preemption, prohibiting new ordinances banning "assault weapons", was added to the FOID Act at the same time. See 430 ILCS 65/13.1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:50 PM Share Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:50 PM https://naperville.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11054503&GUID=613032FD-8F36-49A9-85DF-608C8AE63D6D This is the draft text of the proposed ordinance. It is sure to close down at least two established businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:53 PM Share Posted July 13, 2022 at 11:53 PM On 7/13/2022 at 6:23 PM, Quiet Observer said: 430 ILCS 66/90 Sec. 90 Preemption addresses only handguns. Their proposed ordinance covers handguns rifles and shotguns. They included belt fed weapons too 🙉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILgunguy Posted July 14, 2022 at 12:36 AM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 12:36 AM They are approaching is from the sales point of view, not possession. So...I fail to see how that will accomplish anything other than sending people out of Naperville to purchase them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted July 14, 2022 at 12:42 AM Author Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 12:42 AM On 7/13/2022 at 7:36 PM, ILgunguy said: They are approaching is from the sales point of view, not possession. So...I fail to see how that will accomplish anything other than sending people out of Naperville to purchase them. Why it makes them “feel good” of course lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted July 14, 2022 at 01:35 AM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 01:35 AM I know there is a Shoot Point Blank in Naperville....that will hurt. They could probably move to Oswego or something and not miss a beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagSlap Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:50 AM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:50 AM The should give Highland park a jingle.... And see how well their 'bans' are working out.... Just sayin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:40 AM Author Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:40 AM On 7/13/2022 at 10:50 PM, MagSlap said: The should give Highland park a jingle.... And see how well their 'bans' are working out.... Just sayin.... Oh you mean bans didn’t do anything to deter people determined to commit a crime on a massive scale? I’m shocked..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Flag Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:17 AM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:17 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdDinIL Posted July 14, 2022 at 12:48 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 12:48 PM On 7/13/2022 at 6:50 PM, Lou said: https://naperville.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11054503&GUID=613032FD-8F36-49A9-85DF-608C8AE63D6D This is the draft text of the proposed ordinance. It is sure to close down at least two established businesses. Naperville's not my neck of the woods. What businesses would shut down, and should we help them out by buying up their stuff before SHTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted July 14, 2022 at 01:06 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 01:06 PM On 7/13/2022 at 8:35 PM, 2smartby1/2 said: I know there is a Shoot Point Blank in Naperville....that will hurt. They could probably move to Oswego or something and not miss a beat. Except for millions of dollars wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted July 14, 2022 at 02:36 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 02:36 PM I think people are getting a bit too excited, the SCOTUS ruling clearly states any commonly owned firearm is protected, bans on assault weapons is just not going to hold constitutional muster. Even Joe says we are "awash" in them, I think the fits commonly owned (as someone here pointed out, very studently). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:05 PM Author Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:05 PM On 7/14/2022 at 12:17 AM, Black Flag said: Thursday bulletin is out. No mention of this (Naperville)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:31 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:31 PM I know Naperville very well. For a city that believes they are so smart, they are stupid on this subject. I have read and teach the preemption sections of the FOID and FCCA. I just read their DRAFT ordinance and they are actually violating 65/13.1 of the FOID act. Guess they will find out in court if they pass this. Someone will sue and win. Dumbasses. 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:46 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:46 PM As this is a sales ban; all this seems to do is run any gun shop in Naperville out of town. Law Weapons & Supply and Range USA come to mind as two in Naperville that would be run out of town due to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinois_buckeye Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:50 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 03:50 PM Who know they just set up again outside town or the next town over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:00 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:00 PM I'm deciphering this... Does this mean you have to have a sales receipt for a magazine you purchased 5 years ago? Any person that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the Commercial Sale of an Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine was completed prior to the Effective Date of January 1, 2023, which means that prior to January 1, 2023, the purchaser completed an application, passed a background check, and has a receipt or purchase order for said purchase, without regard to whether the purchaser has actual physical possession of the Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine, shall be considered a pre-existing purchaser. For said pre-existing purchaser, the delivery of physical possession of the Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine may be completed, even if such activity would otherwise be in violation of the new provisions of Chapter 19 (Regulation of the Commercial Sale of Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines) of Title 3 (Business and License Regulations). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if physical possession of the Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine will not occur until more than sixty (60) days following the Effective Date of this Ordinance, that person is not a pre-existing purchaser and said purchase shall constitute a violation of the provisions of this Chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:16 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:16 PM On 7/14/2022 at 11:00 AM, SiliconSorcerer said: I'm deciphering this... Does this mean you have to have a sales receipt for a magazine you purchased 5 years ago? Any person that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the Commercial Sale of an Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine was completed prior to the Effective Date of January 1, 2023, which means that prior to January 1, 2023, the purchaser completed an application, passed a background check, and has a receipt or purchase order for said purchase, without regard to whether the purchaser has actual physical possession of the Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine, shall be considered a pre-existing purchaser. For said pre-existing purchaser, the delivery of physical possession of the Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine may be completed, even if such activity would otherwise be in violation of the new provisions of Chapter 19 (Regulation of the Commercial Sale of Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines) of Title 3 (Business and License Regulations). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if physical possession of the Assault Weapon or Large-Capacity Magazine will not occur until more than sixty (60) days following the Effective Date of this Ordinance, that person is not a pre-existing purchaser and said purchase shall constitute a violation of the provisions of this Chapter. As I read it. Yes you will have to show some type of proof. Whatever documentation satisfies the city attorney. Also this is not just a "sales ban". The city is using a play on words with that language. They are actually regulating the possession and ownership by means of a so called "sales ban". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:25 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:25 PM Lay out today’s paper, clearly showing today’s date, pile your mags on the paper and take a picture of them. While the city attorney might not “accept” this proof he’ll be hard pressed to disprove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:30 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:30 PM I think that means just take a good picture of today's paper without anything on it I hate naperville I avoid it like the plague unfortunately I live in a snob ville just a smaller version but I do know the mayor and head of about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:35 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:35 PM On 7/14/2022 at 10:31 AM, THE KING said: I know Naperville very well. For a city that believes they are so smart, they are stupid on this subject. I have read and teach the preemption sections of the FOID and FCCA. I just read their DRAFT ordinance and they are actually violating 65/13.1 of the FOID act. Guess they will find out in court if they pass this. Someone will sue and win. Dumbasses. 🙄 Can you explain that passage. When I read it, it sounded like municipalities could enact further restrictions, and those restrictions are not invalidated or impacted by the FOID card rules. Maybe (hopefully) I am missing something, although from a SCOTUS standpoint this is all toast anyway. (430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1) Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any municipality which requires registration or imposes greater restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not invalidated or affected by this Act. (Source: P.A. 76-1939.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:51 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 04:51 PM On 7/14/2022 at 10:31 AM, THE KING said: I know Naperville very well. For a city that believes they are so smart, they are stupid on this subject. I have read and teach the preemption sections of the FOID and FCCA. I just read their DRAFT ordinance and they are actually violating 65/13.1 of the FOID act. Guess they will find out in court if they pass this. Someone will sue and win. Dumbasses. 🙄 Naperville does not care. Neither will any other municipality, home-rule or not, that will pop up for the feel-good disturbance. They are looking forwards to the friction and the suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:00 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:00 PM On 7/14/2022 at 11:35 AM, 2smartby1/2 said: Can you explain that passage. When I read it, it sounded like municipalities could enact further restrictions, and those restrictions are not invalidated or impacted by the FOID card rules. Maybe (hopefully) I am missing something, although from a SCOTUS standpoint this is all toast anyway. (430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1) Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any municipality which requires registration or imposes greater restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not invalidated or affected by this Act. (Source: P.A. 76-1939.) That is the first paragraph under 13.1 that you posted. Read the next paragraph that says notwithstanding subsection (a). Subsection (b) does invalidate ordinances and specifies the 10 day time frame for enactment. Personally I have no idea why subsection (a) is still in 13.1. It's confusing people at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:11 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:11 PM On 7/14/2022 at 12:00 PM, THE KING said: That is the first paragraph under 13.1 that you posted. Read the next paragraph that says notwithstanding subsection (a). Subsection (b) does invalidate ordinances and specifies the 10 day time frame for enactment. Personally I have no idea why subsection (a) is still in 13.1. It's confusing people at best. Well that is really interesting, and makes much more sense. I got that paragraph from here. https://law.justia.com/codes/illinois/2012/chapter-430/act-430-ilcs-65/ And is stops at what I posted. Nothing about withstanding subsection a/b/c. But when I actually pulled up the official version from here https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/043000650K13.1.htm Yeah...I got the complete wording, and the later subsections is what I sorta remember about AWB's, but could not find. Good to know that some sources out there are shady AF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:22 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 05:22 PM On 7/14/2022 at 12:11 PM, 2smartby1/2 said: Well that is really interesting, and makes much more sense. I got that paragraph from here. https://law.justia.com/codes/illinois/2012/chapter-430/act-430-ilcs-65/ And is stops at what I posted. Nothing about withstanding subsection a/b/c Note that the URL specifies 2012 -- which is prior to the changes and likely accurate for the state of the law at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILgunguy Posted July 14, 2022 at 07:06 PM Share Posted July 14, 2022 at 07:06 PM On 7/14/2022 at 11:16 AM, THE KING said: As I read it. Yes you will have to show some type of proof. Whatever documentation satisfies the city attorney. Also this is not just a "sales ban". The city is using a play on words with that language. They are actually regulating the possession and ownership by means of a so called "sales ban". In the opening declarations, they lament the fact that they cannot enforce a total ban because of the change to the FOID act when CCW was passed. They go onto say, however, nothing in the revised FOID act keeps them from regulating sales, so that is what they re doing. They cannot pass an ordinance against possession, so they want to make sure no one can buy one in Naperville. IANAL, but that also seems to me to suggest that you can buy whatever in another town and possess it in Naperville. The ordinance is nothing but a veneer as it stand right now in draft form. Again, IANAL, but my understanding of the "pre-existing" purchaser definition is that if you initiated a commercial sale before the ordinance goes into effect, and you can prove it, then the commercial sale can be completed after the effective date of the ordinance (in this case, Jan 1, 2023). For example, you ordered X or plunked your money down for Y and the background check was not cleared and item picked up until after the effective date. My reading of this is that the sale can be completed and you can go get and possess your item. It has nothing to do with proving that you had in your possession anything before this ordinance would go into effect. Remember, this is not a ban on possession, but an effort to signal by stopping sales within the city limits. It will basically put Range USA and LAW Weapons out of business as we know it if they decide to stay in Naperville. Naperville also stands to be hit with a legal challenge, but not from the usual angle. The angle would have to be the unconstitutionality of hindering the acquiring of firearms. There is a legal precedent there, but I cannot remember the exact case. I can see this being applied to ammunition next (type, caliber, amount) or any other component (as described very vaguely in the draft ordinance) if it survives a legal challenge. Perhaps even down the road, any and all firearms. Make no mistake, this is a "test case." There is also a Daily Herald article floating around out there about this issue, and it appears that at least 1 council member wants to talk to gun shop owners and law enforcement before moving this, revising it, or settling it. That doesn't mean it is a hard no or an easy pass, it just means what I said. Enough said. IMO, any further strategic discussion of this issue might be better in The Back Room or Townhall forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.