2AF files against Deerfield Illinois AWB confiscation plan

[SharpDog]

The Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Illinois, passed a surrender and confiscation ordinance for “assault weapons” Monday night and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) responded by filing suit on Thursday.
Breitbart News reported that that ordinance is designed to give Deerfield residents 60 days to get rid of any “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines. This includes being sure no such weapons or magazines are in residents’ homes. The ordinance empowers the police chief to confiscate and destroy any “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines which residents’ hold to after 60 days.

This builds on a 2013 Deerfield ordinance that banned “assault weapons” but allowed possession of them in one’s home if stored properly.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/05/second-amendment-foundation-suit/

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's see if someone can find/link to the actual complaint filed by the SAF.

 

[GAF]

This link might give someone other ideas for what/where to search.

https://www.saf.org/saf-lawsuit-challenges-gun-ban-in-chicago-suburb-of-deerfield/

 

[GEM]

IIRC, a similar ban was put in force by Highland Park, Illinois. It was supported by the 7th Circuit and SCOTUS wouldn't take it up.

Here's some documentation:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Highland-park-op-below.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-133

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedman-v-city-of-highland-park/

So I wouldn't hold my breath for a different outcome.

There was a proposal in Congress to rope in such laws:

https://chriscollins.house.gov/media...-guarantee-act

However, the party in power had other priorities once it successfully suckered in folks for voting for it. Not that there was a good proactive progun choice anywhere out there.

 

[gc70]

Highland Park adopted a ban prior to the state's preemption of the field for assault weapons.

Deerfield had adopted a storage and transportation ordnance prior to the above preemption.

The preemption law allows pre-existing ordnances to be amended.

SFA's website says Deerfield is trying to sneak a new, prohibited assault weapon ban in as an amendment to a different type of ordnance.

 

[GEM]

So was the Highland ban invalidated? Then why the court cases? Sorry not to know the ins and outs of this issue.

 

[gc70]

So was the Highland ban invalidated? Then why the court cases? Sorry not to know the ins and outs of this issue.

The Highland Park ban was not invalidated by the preemption law (grandfather clause) and courts to and including the 7th Circuit allowed the Highland Park ordnance to stand.

The current case claims that Deerfield adopted a ban after state law prohibited it from doing so. Deerfield claims state law allows it to amend its storage and transportation ordnance to now include a ban.

 

[HankB]

IF the Deerfield ban is ruled invalid as a violation of the Illinois state pre-emption law on the grounds that it is a new law rather than a valid amendment to Deerfield's storage and transportation ordinance, is there any provision in Illinois law for persons/entities bringing suit against Deerfield to recoup their legal expenses from Deerfield?

 

[DoubleMag]

Deerfield filed a fickle filing...

oh that's a tongue twister lol
I remember something about this somewheres else...hmm....aah yes! Here it is...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ned-and-2nd-amendment-foundation-sues.835153/


I don't even live anywheres near that state, but along with commenting on a bored, I donated $$MONEY$$ to the lawsuit.

No dinero, cabbage leaves, buckskins, pelts, shekels, no lawsuit.

 

[F-111 John]

Let's see if someone can find/link to the actual complaint filed by the SAF.

Closest I can come to so far:

I can't seem to get a link to work, so go to the County Clerk website here: https://circuitclerk.lakecountyil.gov/publicAccess/html/common/index.xhtml

and search for case 18CH00000427.

All that shows up is that the complaint and injunction has been filed, but no text of the complaint.

Edit to add: The Chicago Tribune has the full text of the complaint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-df...s-assault-weapons-ban-20180405-htmlstory.html

 

[AlexanderA]

It's extremely telling that the entire complaint case hinges on state preemption grounds, and not on the underlying 2nd Amendment grounds. You would think that the plaintiffs would throw in the 2nd Amendment at least as an alternate theory.

I guess we've gone pretty far down the path of infringement.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's extremely telling that the entire complaint case hinges on state preemption grounds, and not on the underlying 2nd Amendment grounds. You would think that the plaintiffs would throw in the 2nd Amendment at least as an alternate theory....

The complaint is filed in state court, and I can see preferring not to try to address constitutional issues in other than the federal court. And while in theory the federal court could consent to consider the state law preemption issue if it's included in a federal court suit based primarily on a constitutional issue, the federal would not necessarily be the best forum, or could even decline to hear the claim based on state law. Only certain types of claims may be brought in federal court.

What is comes down to is that certain types of claims can not, or should not, be pursued in certain courts.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I blame the Law & Order franchise (and may be Nancy Grace) for dumbing down American understanding of law and courts and matters like jurisdiction and standing. If the proposed law violates state preemption law, you argue that in state court. If it fails there, you argue violation of the federal Constitution in federal court. I can be dumb as a bag of bricks at times, but I have read Gerry Spence's books, helped typeset Levy's "Encyclopedia of the American Constitution", and Edward T. Wright's "How to Use Courtroom Drama to Win Cases".

 

[Spats McGee]

The complaint is filed in state court, and I can see preferring not to try to address constitutional issues in other than the federal court. And while in theory the federal court could consent to consider the state law preemption issue if it's included in a federal court suit based primarily on a constitutional issue, the federal would not necessarily be the best forum, or could even decline to hear the claim based on state law. Only certain types of claims may be brought in federal court.

What is comes down to is that certain types of claims can not, or should not, be pursued in certain courts.

Let's not forget that if the Plaintiffs bring in federal law, they open the door to allowing the Defendants to remove the case to federal court. That would allow the Defendants to choose the forum.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's not forget that if the Plaintiffs bring in federal law, they open the door to allowing the Defendants to remove the case to federal court. That would allow the Defendants to choose the forum.

Good point.