Jump to content

Naperville moves to ban the sale of evil featured weapons and mags


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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