The Assault Weapons ban issued in Deerfield, Illinois has effectively been thrown out.
So, Illinois, breathe a sigh of relief and stock up on assault weapons online, safe in the knowledge that one day you might have to lose them in a tragic boating accident.
The decree seemed to subvert The Second Amendment and introduce such sweeping rules that a large number of law abiding citizens would soon face fines of $250-$1000 a day until they handed over any weapons that fell foul of the new legislation. June 13th was the official deadline for removing, disposing of or handing in those weapons.
AR-15s, AK-47 and Lots of Others Under Threat
That would have included any Modern Sporting Rifle, including the much-maligned AR-15 and modern-day AK47. Basically it was down to small capacity hunting rifles if these rules went through.
Legal Ways Work For Now
Now a Judge has put the brakes on this dramatic piece of legislation, though. As soon as the ban was announced, two separate lawsuits landed on Deerfield’s door. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association both challenged the legislation.
Fighting Back Against the Gun Control Lobby
SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said:
We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flies in the face of state law. …
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. …
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.”
You Can’t Just Reinterpret Gun Laws Like This
Deerfield has argued it is simply reinterpreting the existing laws and amending the Firearm Concealed Carrry Act, but the Judge isn’t buying it. Circuit Court Judge Luis Berroness issued a temporary restraining order and agreed that the legislation was going too far.
In his conclusion in favor of the plaintiff(s), Berrones wrote in part:
The court finds that: (1) the 2018 Ordinance is preempted by the FOIDCA [Firearm Owners Identification Card Act] and the FCCA [Firearm Concealed Carry Act] and therefore unenforceable. (2) The 2018 Ordinance is a new Ordinance and not an amendment of the 2013 Ordinance and is therefore preempted by FOIDCA and FCCA. (3) The 2018 Ordinance does not prohibit ownership or possession of large capacity magazines.
The court also finds that: (1) plaintiff has raised a fair question that he has a clearly ascertainable right not to be subject to an unenforceable ordinance’s restrictions, prohibitions, fines, penalties and resulting deprivation of full use and enjoyment of his property; (2) plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction as he will not be able to pursue a remedy that will fully compensate him if he is subject to an unenforceable ordinance whose subject matter is preempted by the State. …
It is hereby ordered that:
1. A temporary restraining order is issued enjoining defendant Village of Deerfield, its agents, officials or police department from enforcing any provision of the 2018 Ordinance relating to the ownership, possession, storage or transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazines within the Village of Deerfield.
Deerfield’s officials aren’t ready to give it up just yet. An official statement on it website Tuesday reads:
“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the Judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the Court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance; but we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the Village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.”