Politicsconstitutionrules

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 03:22 AM

Judge Blocks Assault Weapons Ban from going into effect in Illinois town



A circuit court judge in Lake County, Illinois granted an injunction Tuesday that blocked the Chicago suburb of Deerfield from enforcing a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

The injunction was granted 24 hours before that ban was to go into effect.

According to a press statement, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association and Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday filed a lawsuit against the local prohibition on the basis that it violates the state’s preemption law that was adopted in 2013.

The law amended the state statute to say, “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…”

Following the passage of the law, Illinois municipalities had a period of time in which to alter or adopt their gun laws, and Deerfield argued its ban was simply an amendment to prior ordinance that regulated firearms and became the first municipality to ban assault weapons following the Parkland high school shooting.

If the ban went into effect, any person found to have what the town considered to be an “assault weapon” after Wednesday, July 13, would have faced a penalty of up to $1,000 per day.

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

“Worse, still,” he added, “the ordinance also provided for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines. It was outrageous that the ban would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refused to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village. This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns.'”

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/12/judge-blocks-assault-weapons-ban-illinois/

The Constitution "Trumps" Liberal Feelings

9 replies, 254 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 04:17 AM

1. municipalities have historically banned various weapons in certain locations

including the cow towns of the old west where the cowboys were expected to turn in their weapons before entering the town.

what has changed about the 2nd amendment since 1876? did wyatt earp have an imperfect understanding of the original intent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 04:39 AM

2. That was for Trail Cowboys driving Herd

And coming into town to Party

The Residents had their weapons at Home

(See the Great Northfield Minnesota Raid for Context)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 05:10 AM

3. The law has been solidified through specific court cases

Since the days of the old west.

Wyatt Earp had the authority at the time, but that authority to enact a blanket ban on guns has since been nullified through the Heller decision, among others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 06:24 AM

5. What the above said

Plus incorporation happened after the 14A overturned Barron v Baltimore.
Also, the Tombstone town ordinance was about carrying, not owning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 05:49 AM

4. We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flew in the face of state law,

And every gun control law in the country infringes upon the constitutional clause of "shall not be infringed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 09:44 AM

6. Trick will be if it survives the appeal court

Illinois has state preemption on gun laws, Highland Park passed a similar law that survived due to the fact there was a 30 day window when Illinois passed their current CCW laws that allowed cities to have separate gun laws to ban weapons. Highland Park passed their law on the last day of the window so the appeals court ruled in their favor and the USSC declined to hear the case.

This law here was passed 2 years after the window, so unless the appeals court is packed with anti gun liberals (which I think is likely) they'll have to rule on the letter of the law instead of "feelings" and strike down the law.

If the activist judges rule on their anti-gun agenda instead of the rule of law then the USSC will have to take the case instead of ignoring it as they've been doing gun cases the past few years. You would have conflicting laws and the state of Illinois's constitution is set up where state laws take precedence over local ordinances like this.

Gun rights won a battle, the culture war still wages and liberals have no problem ignoring laws when it suits their agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 09:57 AM

7. The 2013 Illinois concealed carry law pre empted local regulation state wide

It was the only way to stop a patchwork of local laws that changed with every election.

Deerfield had 10 days when the law passed to put in an AWB but they didn’t. Now they’re just ignoring the state law in the heat of the moment and the gun grabbers are supporting them. At least until they get the attorneys bills.

But I would like to see this ban go to the “new” Gorsuch SCOTUS for a decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DP46 (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 10:09 AM

8. I'd rather they wait until Kennedy retires

He's not reliable when it comes to gun rights. Scalia added a couple things that allowed locals like Highland Park to set their own gun laws to appease Kennedy and get his vote on both Heller and McDonald.

As I said in my post, we'll have to see what happens at the appeal court. If it's packed with anti gun activist judges (which is likely given it's Chiruq) then they'll support the grabbers. Then we have to hope Kennedy votes in favor of the rule of law over feelings. Problem is I'm betting the USSC ignores this one too, like they've passed on all gun rights cases since Newtown

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 11:24 AM

9. Kennedy, Ginsburg, one or the other is going to retire in the next year

Either by their choice or the good lord’s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsconstitutionrules