Jump to content

Hanover Park moves to ban semi-auto rifles


steveTA84
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/3/2022 at 1:56 PM, mab22 said:

Range USA just opened in Hanover Park, that’s why this is coming up.

So residents could still own them, they just don’t want gun stores selling them in their township.

 

If it's solely an issue of commercial sale of semi-autos and "large capacity" magazines, I would think the ball is in Range USA's court to sue the crap out of them if HP refuses to "grandfather" (exempt) that business from the ban.  You can't tell a gun shop that just opened that, "hey, now, we're not gonna let you sell semi-auto rifles or magazines over 10 rounds."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 2:15 PM, 2A4Cook said:

If it's solely an issue of commercial sale of semi-autos and "large capacity" magazines, I would think the ball is in Range USA's court to sue the crap out of them if HP refuses to "grandfather" (exempt) that business from the ban.  You can't tell a gun shop that just opened that, "hey, now, we're not gonna let you sell semi-auto rifles or magazines over 10 rounds."

 

In principle, I agree with your comment.  I'm opposed to any restriction like this, but I'm not a lawyer, so please tell me why they can't do that. 

Edited by EdDinIL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 2:21 PM, EdDinIL said:
On 8/3/2022 at 2:15 PM, 2A4Cook said:

If it's solely an issue of commercial sale of semi-autos and "large capacity" magazines, I would think the ball is in Range USA's court to sue the crap out of them if HP refuses to "grandfather" (exempt) that business from the ban.  You can't tell a gun shop that just opened that, "hey, now, we're not gonna let you sell semi-auto rifles or magazines over 10 rounds."

 

In principle, I agree with your comment.  I'm opposed to any restriction like this, but I'm not a lawyer, so please tell me why they can't do that. 

 

Because it can be called a .gov bait and switch as it is blatantly and obviously unethical.

(looks at map).  Oh...this is DerpInOis... Carry on...

 

ETA:

Its probably correct to assume that since the opening of that new range, the Karens are 'reacting' to it. 

Funny thing about that... .gov 'could' say that ".... 'you should have known' about that shop opening up when it was originally debated.  You had you chance. Now shut up and sit down...let the 2A...and commerce shine"

But..  .gov Herp Derp..Derp...Pfffthhh....mUh asssssAAaalt...black...Ewwww..guns!!!  Vote for me.

 

 

Edited by MagSlap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 2:21 PM, EdDinIL said:

 

In principle, I agree with your comment.  I'm opposed to any restriction like this, but I'm not a lawyer, so please tell me why they can't do that. 

 

You have to put the  body of case law together to see the problem.

 

The Heller court instructed that arms in common use cannot be banned.

 

The opinion in Ezell I states in regard to ranges:

 

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.’ ”

 

In Ezell II, that opinion was clarified to include a right to acquire arms:

 

The Plaintiffs claim that the challenged regulations burden the installation of a range and therefore violate their Second Amendment right to acquire and maintain proficiency in the use of firearms. See Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.”). 

 

More recently in the New York case, the burden is put on the government to prove that their regulation was common in 1791 and 1868, in this case a prohibition on sales of otherwise lawful firearms the acquisition of which is a right protected by the Second Amendment.  I don't believe they can successfully argue that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree considering they’d just fought the revolutionary war, and I can’t imagine they would have wanted any restrictions Street that.  After all the war of 1812 wasn’t long after 1791.  As far as 1868, how many had just gotten home from the civil war.  Tell those guys they couldn’t be armed.

Edited by illinois_buckeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 7:28 PM, steveTA84 said:

We just struck gold in a FOIA to Naperville on their new go at a AWB ;)

Read this very carefully. Perkins Coie is the main lawfirm of the DNC too. Since Perkins Coie will be fighting these idiotic laws pro-Bono, city officials don’t have to worry about a financial fallout and are not worried about anything. They’re also purposely keeping things from the public .....

AE734004-1D7D-4D7B-8B13-3B624F07C68F.thumb.jpeg.ad06e820b9e128a892fdc18c853db64a.jpegBB8B6467-A022-411C-B26E-F0D33FE6D3C9.thumb.jpeg.c9d0a9293d4cc396d09e83f668c50641.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mayor Craig, 
 
I'm writing you about the proposed ban on the sale of semi-auto firearm and magazines in Hanover Park. 
 
Allow me to introduce myself I'm the former NRA contract lobbyist for Illinois, which I did for over 25 years. Aside from lobbying the General Assembly, my job also included vetting and prepping cases for litigation. You may have heard or seen some of my work with the Shepard case that found Illinois ban on carrying a handgun for self-defense as unconstitutional. Recently the 2nd Appellate district, which Hanover Park is a part of found the magazine ban in Deerfield violated the state preemption law. 
 
Another of my cases, Illinois Assn of Firearms Retailers v Chicago found their (Chicago's) ban on gun shops unconstitutional as the 'right to acquire a firearm' was part of the Second Amendment. Specifically, they said:
 

“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 longstanding 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).”

Ill. a**'n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago
 
Based upon the case law, and the recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, any attempt by Hanover Park to ban the sale of commonly used firearms will most likely be met with litigation. while we are aware that some law firms are offering pro-bono representation, it would behoove the village to consider that all of their work was prior to New York being decided, they lost the issue of magazine bans in Deerfield prior to New York and despite free legal work the Village would still be on the hook for the legal fees of plaintiffs once they prevail. 
 
I would point out that post New York, the test for gun control laws and ordinances is:
 
"we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”"
 
Nothing in our Nation's history supports the banning of the sale of commonly used firearms. And while some may be claiming some sort of loophole in the State's preemption clause, I would again urge you to consider the ruling in Ill. a**'n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago, and then ask yourself if you think the Village can overcome the precedent and test from New York.
 
Recently the village of Batavia found they were in fact preempted by State law and declined to pursue the same subject matter. I would be happy to discuss this further with you. or your village counsel.
 
Todd Vandermyde
Yorkville, IL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 2:15 PM, 2A4Cook said:

If it's solely an issue of commercial sale of semi-autos and "large capacity" magazines, I would think the ball is in Range USA's court to sue the crap out of them if HP refuses to "grandfather" (exempt) that business from the ban.  You can't tell a gun shop that just opened that, "hey, now, we're not gonna let you sell semi-auto rifles or magazines over 10 rounds."

 

Not sure I follow that logic on the grandfathering, villages, towns, cities over the years have banned certain items from being sold in their jurisdication and were not required to grandfather any business that sold them before that ban.  On thing that comes to mind is all the 'upper pills' sold at gas stations over the years or bath salts and analog synthetics sold in 'head shops' over the years.  Or cities that have banned things like selling dog and cats, that put many a pet shop out of business over the last few decades.

 

I think a better argument could be that outlawing their ability to sell an item in common use and protected under the 2nd infringes on their 2nd rights under the Bruen test, as mauserme outlined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think a better argument could be that outlawing their ability to sell an item in common use and protected under the 2nd infringes on their 2nd rights under the Bruen test, as mauserme outlined."

 

Absolutely agreed, but I don't know if that would allow a gun shop to recoup its financial losses.  If the right is an individual's 2A right to purchase these items, does that necessarily confer upon the commercial entity the right to recoup its losses due to its inability to sell them to those individuals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 11:44 PM, Tvandermyde said:
Dear Mayor Craig, 
 
I'm writing you about the proposed ban on the sale of semi-auto firearm and magazines in Hanover Park. 
 
Allow me to introduce myself I'm the former NRA contract lobbyist for Illinois, which I did for over 25 years. Aside from lobbying the General Assembly, my job also included vetting and prepping cases for litigation. You may have heard or seen some of my work with the Shepard case that found Illinois ban on carrying a handgun for self-defense as unconstitutional. Recently the 2nd Appellate district, which Hanover Park is a part of found the magazine ban in Deerfield violated the state preemption law. 
 
Another of my cases, Illinois Assn of Firearms Retailers v Chicago found their (Chicago's) ban on gun shops unconstitutional as the 'right to acquire a firearm' was part of the Second Amendment. Specifically, they said:
 

“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 longstanding 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).”

Ill. a**'n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago
 
Based upon the case law, and the recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, any attempt by Hanover Park to ban the sale of commonly used firearms will most likely be met with litigation. while we are aware that some law firms are offering pro-bono representation, it would behoove the village to consider that all of their work was prior to New York being decided, they lost the issue of magazine bans in Deerfield prior to New York and despite free legal work the Village would still be on the hook for the legal fees of plaintiffs once they prevail. 
 
I would point out that post New York, the test for gun control laws and ordinances is:
 
"we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”"
 
Nothing in our Nation's history supports the banning of the sale of commonly used firearms. And while some may be claiming some sort of loophole in the State's preemption clause, I would again urge you to consider the ruling in Ill. a**'n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago, and then ask yourself if you think the Village can overcome the precedent and test from New York.
 
Recently the village of Batavia found they were in fact preempted by State law and declined to pursue the same subject matter. I would be happy to discuss this further with you. or your village counsel.
 
Todd Vandermyde
Yorkville, IL

Thank you for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 6:21 PM, mauserme said:

 

You have to put the  body of case law together to see the problem.

 

<snip>

 

 

Thank you for that!  It's sad that what seems common sense to us needs to be expressed by the highest court of the land, and that may not even stop them from trying.

 

Also thanks to Todd for that letter and Steve for the MAA FOIA info!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2022 at 10:17 AM, EdDinIL said:

 

Thank you for that!  It's sad that what seems common sense to us needs to be expressed by the highest court of the land, and that may not even stop them from trying.

 

Also thanks to Todd for that letter and Steve for the MAA FOIA info!

1CA9F742-3C59-46EC-A385-DC1038788754.thumb.jpeg.524bedb9e311c043c1e2cbe2366f521c.jpeg

 

More turned up. Naperville’s strategy will be used in other villages, just like we saw in Hanover Park. Steve Elrod and (apparently Perkins Coie) will be helping them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2022 at 3:05 PM, mab22 said:

So what is the bigger picture with these law firms wanting to provide pro Bono work, they will not get paid, probably can’t be sued for providing bad legal advice, if the villages and cities loose in court. 
What’s in it for them by doing this throughout Illinois?
 

Perkins Coie is a pro-bono partner for Giffords. I don’t know too much about why they would do it, but it’s clear they’re digging in 

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/action/pro-bono-partners/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...