Posted on 06/03/2018 8:18:16 AM PDT by PROCON
Full Title: Gun groups want a restraining order against Deerfield's assault weapons ban before it takes effect in 2 weeks
Gun-rights advocacy groups are asking a Lake County Circuit Court judge to bar the village of Deerfield from enforcing its ban on assault weapons that is set to kick in June 13.
The ordinance enacted April 2 by the Deerfield Village Board gives residents until June 13 to turn in any guns that fit the village’s definition of assault weapons, remove them from the village or modify the guns so they’re no longer considered assault weapons. The ordinance empowers the town’s police chief to confiscate the assault weapons of anyone charged under the ordinance.
Owners found in violation can be fined up to $1,000 a day, according to the ordinance.
Two lawsuits were filed in April challenging the ordinance on various grounds, including a claim that the ordinance deprives gun owners of property they are legally entitled to possess. The plaintiffs in both lawsuits are asking for a temporary restraining order to block Deerfield from enforcing the ban until the court can hear their arguments for a permanent injunction.
A hearing to consider the restraining order motions is set for June 8, just days before the ban is set to take effect.
“The fast-approaching compliance date compels plaintiffs to seek more immediate and intermediate relief until this matter can be fully heard on the merits,” said attorney David Sigale in a petition on behalf of Deerfield gun owner Daniel Easterday, the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Sigale’s petition notes that Deerfield residents in possession of the those weapons face prosecution, confiscation and destruction of their property and hefty monetary fines.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Beta testing of selected Left leaning communities with a grant (bribe) by a Soros connected foundation.
My prediction is the Left will continue to beta test in local communities until they get a win. They need to get the off shore bank account and right councilmen to bribe.
BTW, they will also need to pay off the police.
I think they will go for a very narrow ban and then carefully select a few rotten apple gun owners to pick on and go for the arrest and siezure. With proposals to prevent those simply accused of mental illness (by ex-spouses and Leftist neighbors) from owning guns, they can select their targets. Then, take the story nationally and proclaim the wisdom of selected gun confiscation. After that, the selection criteria will progressively broaden.
That’s why we have to jealously protect our 4th amendment rights and restrict government collection of medical data w/o probable cause of a crime.
Now that ought to be quite a trick if there is no detailed list of all supposed 'assault' weapons attributes that could be modified.
Laws should be written so these council people are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBEL and face jail for passing such unconstitutional laws.
This is a strict scrutiny test since this involves an enumerated civil right.
I’m thinking Void for Vagueness is the first line of defense on this one. How are they defining “assault weapon” and how one modifies it so that it is no longer an “assault weapon”?
My AR-15 identifies as MS-13.
Any talk of confiscation is bigoted.
Florida passed a preemption law. No such ordinances may be enacted by local officials. If they did or failed to remove such laws, they go to jail.
Not a national ban but rather countless local and state assault weapon bans enacted by ballot initiatives.
"Large capacity" is now 11 rounds or more.http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-deerfield-assault-weapon-ordinance-document-20180403-htmlstory.html
Good point; like the initiatives that are proposed in Oregon and soon in Washington state.
I predict a huge number of “tragic boating accidents” in and around Deerfield, the weekend before. . .
this ordinance is an example of the “if we are wrong they can sue us”. This is usually some local attorney who advises (wrongly) the council can get away with this.
This lawyer that green lighted the language probably has no clue about due process, taking without compensation, or what a civil right is.
My question is can the plaintiffs force the city to pay their legal bills since this is a civil rights suit? The ACLU get paid by defendants for their civil rights suits.
“The Deerfield Village Board should be impeached and removed, immediately.”
With extreme prejudice...the filthy bastards.
“This lawsuit is HUGE, stay tuned. “
illannoy has state-wide preemption but knowing how these sleazy filthy democrats operate anything is possible.
“The last 2nd case that went the SC went 5-4 and Kennedy was VERY wobbly. We could easily lose the 2nd in this atmosphere.”
And after what Roberts did with Obamacare he can’t be trusted either.
“The last 2nd case that went the SC went 5-4 and Kennedy was VERY wobbly. We could easily lose the 2nd in this atmosphere.”
And after what Roberts did with Obamacare he can’t be trusted either.
If 'they' want my 2nd Amendment rights, I say, come and take them.
I believe there was a preemption law that was set to go into effect and the council rushed to pass this new regulation beforehand so they would not have to comply, & clearly trying to defy the will of the legislature and the people.
I am truly amazed that Illinois hasn't had this kind of law for decades. I thought things here is CA were out of control, but it seems that Illinois is completely dysfunctional.
A Taurus Judge.
the new law is modeled after one approved by Highland Park in 2013. That ban survived a legal challenge by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand when it declined to take up the appeal.
Unlike Highland Park, Deerfield opted not to enact a total ban on assault weapons during a 10-day window that Illinois lawmakers’ gave home-rule municipalities in 2013 before the state’s new Firearm Concealed Carry Act eliminated their ability to do so.
However, Deerfield trustees did enact an ordinance defining assault weapons and requiring the safe storage and safe transportation of those weapons within the village. That measure, which was enacted during the permitted time frame, preserved Deerfield’s right to amend the ordinance in the future
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.