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

[Molly B.]

 

[ILgunguy]

Thanks,Molly, for posting this here.  Important information! 

[Jeffrey]

On 7/13/2022 at 7:42 PM, steveTA84 said:

Why it makes them “feel good” of course lol

This.

 

The ordinance is a knee jerk reaction to the shooting that just happened last week in downtown naperville, or the armed robbery at the gas station last week, or the armed car jacking at starbucks last week.  They must do something, other than find the guy doing the robberies.  Rough week for the city..

[steveTA84]

DC Project and I know IGOT showed up. Some Reverend spouted off too 

 

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20220719/emotions-run-high-as-naperville-officials-community-members-debate-ban-on-some-weapons

Edited July 20, 2022 at 11:13 AM by Molly B.

[Molly B.]

web page

https://naperville.granicus.com/player/clip/1500?view_id=4&redirect=true

 

direct download of the video

http://archive-media.granicus.com:443/OnDemand/naperville/naperville_7d142fc0-7730-4579-ab70-cc59a31db280.mp4

[Matt B]

“After Tuesday's debate, the city council voted to make changes to the ordinance, directing staff and the city attorney to add an exemption for police, law enforcement and military personnel. The changes also remove handgun sales and the sale of large capacity magazines for handguns from the proposed ban.“

 

I wonder what the point of this change is. It’s not like the two gun shops would be able to stay in business selling only to LEO and military.

[Molly B.]

The women who spoke out against the ordinance are amazing!  Thank you, ladies!

[Dx54r]

On 7/20/2022 at 8:35 AM, Matt B said:

“After Tuesday's debate, the city council voted to make changes to the ordinance, directing staff and the city attorney to add an exemption for police, law enforcement and military personnel. The changes also remove handgun sales and the sale of large capacity magazines for handguns from the proposed ban.“

 

I wonder what the point of this change is. It’s not like the two gun shops would be able to stay in business selling only to LEO and military.

 

It's an attempt to get around state CCW preemption.

[mikew]

Was there anyone there from ISRA?

And I heard a rumor that ISRA sent an alert on this, did anyone here get one?

[mauserme]

On 7/20/2022 at 11:30 AM, mikew said:

Was there anyone there from ISRA?

And I heard a rumor that ISRA sent an alert on this, did anyone here get one?

 

I didn't get anything from ISRA.

 

NRA, yes.

 

ISRA, no.

 

 

[Scotty425]

I'm sure we'll get an update about what the ISRA is doing in tomorrow's newsletter. <purple on>

[THE KING]

On 7/20/2022 at 12:21 PM, Scotty425 said:

I'm sure we'll get an update about what the ISRA is doing in tomorrow's newsletter. <purple on>

And then asking for money 🤬

[steveTA84]

On 7/20/2022 at 12:16 PM, mauserme said:

 

I didn't get anything from ISRA.

 

NRA, yes.

 

ISRA, no.

 

 

Time for the new breed to replace the dinosaurs. 

[Tango7]

A resident should also file a complaint with the ILAG about their violation of the Open Meetings Act. They were apparently shielding the discussion of the proposed ordinance under the "security measures" exemption and the public meeting was the first time they admitted to it.

[yurimodin]

Quote

 to add an exemption for police, law enforcement and military personnel

14th Amendment violation......but welcome to IL

[Yas]

https://thereload.com/federal-judge-blocks-colorado-countys-assault-weapons-ban-other-localities-agree-to-halt-enforcement/

 

Quote

For the second time in as many months, a federal judge has blocked a Colorado locality from enforcing an “assault weapon” and ammunition magazine ban ordinance.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, a Biden appointee, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Tuesday against Boulder County. It stops enforcement of the county’s ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons, which include the popular AR-15, and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

“On this admittedly limited record and with a liberal analysis of this factor, the Court finds that Plaintiffs establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” Judge Sweeney wrote, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen as justification for her analysis.

More details at the link

[mab22]

On 9/1/2022 at 8:42 AM, Yas said:

https://thereload.com/federal-judge-blocks-colorado-countys-assault-weapons-ban-other-localities-agree-to-halt-enforcement/

 

More details at the link

Sounds like it was a national effort to ban the sales.

 

[steveTA84]

For the second time in as many months, a federal judge has blocked a Colorado locality from enforcing an “assault weapon” and ammunition magazine ban ordinance.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, a Biden appointee, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Tuesday against Boulder County. It stops enforcement of the county’s ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons, which include the popular AR-15, and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

“On this admittedly limited record and with a liberal analysis of this factor, the Court finds that Plaintiffs establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” Judge Sweeney wrote, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen as justification for her analysis.

[Skolnick]

On 7/14/2022 at 11:30 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

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. 

 

 

That newspaper trick does not work.

 

Anyone can go into their attic and get a copy of an old Chicago Tribune from 1865 (or some such) and take a picture of their item (e.g., firearm, magazine, iPhone) with it. Since the photograph could have been taken at any time, it only proves possession some time before, during, or after 1865.

[steveTA84]

More FOIA’s obtained with the Naperville city attorney and Steve Elrod. Bragging about not having to worry about costing the city $$ and also appears that Northbrook is going to be dropping some stuff. 
 

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/more-foias-regarding-attorneys-plotting-gun-bans-in-il

Edited September 7, 2022 at 04:21 PM by steveTA84

[bmyers]

Naperville and Highland Park being sued over the bans.

 

 

[Euler]

On 9/7/2022 at 5:47 PM, bmyers said:

Naperville and Highland Park being sued over the bans.

...

 

The Naperville case is Bevis v Naperville. Robert Bevis owns Law Weapons & Supply.

 

The Highland Park case is Goldman v Highland Park. Susan Goldman is a private individual who owns firearms and magazines of the types that are banned.

[Matt B]

I love that Highland Park was sued. Maybe they can worry more about defending their own doomed gun ban instead of lobbying Springfield and DC to pass new AWBs.

[Tvandermyde]

I am not impressed

[steveTA84]

On 9/7/2022 at 8:47 PM, Tvandermyde said:

I am not impressed

With the lawsuits? How come?

[Tvandermyde]

First off I'm not a fan of rocky Mountain gun owners and their founder. 

Second, I think there is a complete missed opportunity I was working on that goes tot he right to repair. If you can own a firearm, then you have the right to maintain it in good safe working order. that would get us tot he parts and frames/recievers type issue. They also missed citing Ezell which first tipped the issue of they can go somewhere else. 

I would have also used quotes from the city council members about how people could go else where. 

 

here is a memo I was working on about the issues to get SAF interested but they didn't want to get involved I'm told by a lawyer that asked and pitched it to them. 

 

 

 

Naperville has banned the commercial sale of so called assault rifles. This is done by a list of specific firearms as well as a single feature test. Under the definitions they also include “parts or combination of parts” as well as frames or receivers.

 

 XXX has indicated they feel a case against Naperville would get caught up in the Cook County/ Wilson case as some of the same issues are being litigated, as it would be in the same federal district.

 

I see this a bit differently as we can cast this case in a different light building off of Illinois Retail Firearms Assn v Chicago.

There the 7^th district found the ban on gun shops was unconstitutional. The Court said:

“The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm, although that acquisition right is far from absolute: there are many long-standing restrictions on who may acquire firearms (for examples, felons and the mentally ill have long been banned) and there are many restrictions on the sales of arms (for example, licensing requirements for commercial sales). But Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve. For the specific reasons explained later in this opinion, the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.”

 

It appears the Circuit court decision has been cited over a dozen times in other cases from other gun shop litigation in Chicago to the right to acquire case in Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and explosives.

 

While the Cook County case takes on the personal ownership and possession issue, this case has a couple of other facets that I don’t think have been fully explored, such as the right to repair.

If people have the right to keep and bear arms, and there is the right to acquire a firearm, then there must be a corresponding right to repair, maintain or improve that firearm through the acquisition of parts and components, up to and including the assembly of one’s own firearm.

 

Additionally, Naperville takes the position that there are other gun shops in the Chicagoland area where people can buy these firearms. Much like the case Chicago made about banning firing ranges in Ezell I:

“The judge thought it significant that none of the individual plaintiffs had “testif[ied] that s/he was unable to travel outside of the [c]ity's borders to obtain the one-hour range training and all three have shown that they are capable of doing so and have done so in the past .” The court held that although the Ordinance may force the plaintiffs to travel longer distances to use a firing range, this was a “quantifiable expense that can be easily calculated as damages.”

This reasoning assumes that the harm to a constitutional right is measured by the extent to which it can be exercised in another jurisdiction. That's a profoundly mistaken assumption. In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ “ Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76–77, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939)). The same principle applies here. It's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a freespeech or religious-liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.”

 

Naperville wanted to make a political statement and act as if they were doing something in light of the Highland Park shooting. They have been in contact with over a dozen other municipalities and a lot of eyes are focused on Naperville and what happens here. There is a growing fear that this will catch on as the City of Highland Park’s lawyer feels they have found a loophole in the state preemption law for those towns that did not pass a ban in 2013 – banning sales. If left unchecked gun owners across the region could find themselves with limited ability to acquire any number of types of firearms or parts.

 

Additionally this gives us the ability to continue to push Heller’s in common use and the issue of modern firearms.

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

 

Issues presented:

• Sale of modern firearms/right to acquire

• No sales to FFLs

• No sales outside of Illinois

• Prohibition on the right to repair personal firearms – not allowed to obtain necessary “assault rifle” parts.

• Prohibition on gun smithing of these firearms – not allowed to install “assault rifle” parts or components.

• Prohibition on building one’s own firearm – not allowed to obtain “assault rifle” receivers or parts

[steveTA84]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:14 AM, steveTA84 said:

More FOIA’s obtained with the Naperville city attorney and Steve Elrod. Bragging about not having to worry about costing the city $$ and also appears that Northbrook is going to be dropping some stuff. 
 

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/more-foias-regarding-attorneys-plotting-gun-bans-in-il

And there’s where Hanover Park got their stuff from. This city attorney is smarter though and using a private gmail account, not a city provided one that can be FOIA’d (then again, isn’t conducting public business via private stuff kinda a no no?)

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

There's a big difference between To and From, you can't stop anyone from sending you mail responding or forwarding however is another matter. 

Someone within the village should definitely be writing to the president and all board members about this being inappropriate for village business so it's in writing. 

I'm not sure the lawyers legal obligation to notify the sender, but that certainly comes under ethics which I believe can get you disbarred. 

Lawyers on here?

 

[steveTA84]

On 9/8/2022 at 9:19 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

There's a big difference between To and From, you can't stop anyone from sending you mail responding or forwarding however is another matter. 

A FOIA to Naperville using Bernie’s email address can solve that. Since it’s his gmail, it’ll be exempt from a FOIA to Hanover Park.

 

If someone wants to do it, select Legal Dept and request all emails to and from Michael (his email address) and Bernie (his email address) with a date range of 7/1/22-9/7/22 and select delivery via portal 

https://napervilleil.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(0i52xb5ggyhinuzltqwnciqa))/RequestOpen.aspx?rqst=74

Edited September 8, 2022 at 02:29 PM by steveTA84

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 9/8/2022 at 9:25 AM, steveTA84 said:

A FOIA to Naperville using Bernie’s email address can solve that. Since it’s his gmail, it’ll be exempt from a FOIA to Hanover Park.

 

If someone wants to do it, select Legal Dept and request all emails to and from Michael (his email address) and Bernie (his email address) with a date range of 7/1/22-9/7/22 and select delivery via portal 

https://napervilleil.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(0i52xb5ggyhinuzltqwnciqa))/RequestOpen.aspx?rqst=74

I did this for the my village email system for emails from and to, nothing there, also got a "nice" letter from the attorney say there is absolutely no plans for something like this. 

I think it might have annoyed him a bit but this expressed my concern.