Deerfield IL passes a ban on "assault weapons" currently owned and 2nd Amendment Foundation Sues

Status
Not open for further replies.

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
65,882
Location
0 hrs east of TN
The state has a preemption law in place, but Deerfield went forward with an AWB and prohibition against ownership ordinance with provisions for confiscation as well as fining owners daily for having what they classify as an "assault weapon" so SAF, ISRA , and a member of the community have sued Deerfield.

We should be financially supporting SAF and their partners in their legal battles against all of the AWB locals. I intend to send $50 to them for this and I encourage all of you to to send something, anything, as well as earmark your Amazon sales for donations to SAF.

https://www.saf.org/saf-lawsuit-challenges-gun-ban-in-chicago-suburb-of-deerfield/
The lawsuit challenges the village ban under a 2013 amended state statute that declared “the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid…”

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flies in the face of state law,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.

“The new ordinance also provides for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines,” he added. “What is particularly outrageous about this new law is that it levies fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refuses to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village by the time the ordinance takes effect in June. This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns.’”
 
If it were not for state preemption laws, we'd be seeing these sorts of ordinances in a lot of places. In my own region of northern Virginia, several localities would be doing this. That's why the SAF lawsuit is so important.

I'm worried about the whole state flipping. Virginia is one legislative election away from an AWB, and the newly-elected governor has vowed to push for this. The only question is what sort of grandfathering we'll be able to get. Virginia is far past the point where stonewall opposition is likely to be effective. We'll be lucky to get a Maryland--style gun regime.
 
It is important for weapons laws to be consistent across a state to avoid the problem of traveling through local jurisdictions that are more restrictive. Many of the villages and towns don't post their local ordinances leaving you a victim of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when no ready means of finding out what the law is exists. Having a patchwork of ordinances on trashcans is one thing, but criminal prosecution for a weapon (firearm or knife) that is legal when you leave home in the morning and illegal two different ways before you get to your grandmother's is intolerable.
 
Last edited:
Pre-emption laws are worth less than people imagine. San Antonio has some laws that violate the TX pre-emption laws but they have stayed on the books for years now.
 
AZ has a preemption law AND a backup law that allows cities who violate it to be financially punished, even while the law is being challenged. The Leftists are trying VERY hard to get that overturned to no avail, so far.
 
Good ol' SAF. Did a life membership recently. They do a lot of good courtroom work, like McDonald v Chicago. They're always quietly plugging away in the background, getting stupid laws overturned.
 
Sometimes I wish I did live in some of those goofy towns that do some of this type of stuff just so I had another reason to fight with the local gov.
On the other hand I'm glad I don't.
 
Agreed. But it's going to be a hassle for someone to go through the process if San Antonio decides to make an issue of it and try to prosecute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top