by Ruby Henley
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action recently announced support for a lawsuit brought by Guns Save Life challenging the Deerfield, Illinois’ gun confiscation ordinance. The lawsuit challenges Deerfield’s recent attempt to criminalize so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” within village limits.
“Every law-abiding villager of Deerfield has the right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones with the firearm that best suits their needs,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA. “The National Rifle Association is pleased to assist Gun Save Life in defense of this freedom.”
By amending an existing 2013 ordinance, the Village Board of Trustees has now empowered local authorities to confiscate and destroy all “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” possessed within village limits. The amendment also imposes a daily fine ranging between $250 and $1,000.
I previously wrote an article on the Ordinance, and I felt strongly it was not in compliance with the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States. I feel a slow creep is occurring as other towns will do the same thing. It is almost like it is the plan of the Far Left, and someone has to stop them from assaulting the Second Amendment.
Here is the link to the document and I have copied the document’s contents below.
Here is a link to the document: assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4429919/Deerfield-Assault-Weapon-Ordinance.pdf
QUOTE
“VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD LAKE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS ______________________________________________________________________________
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 (MORALS AND CONDUCT), ARTICLE 11 (ASSAULT WEAPONS), SECTION 15-87 (SAFE STORAGE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS) AND SECTION 15-88 (TRANSPORTATION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD TO REGULATE THE POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Chapter 15 (Morals and Conduct), Article 11 (Assault Weapons), Section
15-87 (Safe Storage of Assault Weapons; Exceptions) and Section 15-88 (Transportation of
Assault Weapons; Exceptions) of the Municipal Code of the Village of Deerfield, as enacted by
Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013), regulate the possession, storage and
transportation of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield; and
WHEREAS, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, 430 ILCS 65/13.1(c), as amended by
Public Act 98-63, § 150 (eff. July 9, 2013), provides that the Village of Deerfield, as a home rule
unit of local government under the provisions of Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution
of 1970, may amend Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24, which was enacted on, before
or within ten (10) days after the effective date of Public Act 98-63, § 150, pursuant to the Village’s
home rule exercise of any power and performance of any function pertaining to its government
and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public
health, safety, morals and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that, since the
enactment of Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013), assault weapons have
been increasingly used in an alarming number of notorious mass shooting incidents at public
schools, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation including “
but not
limited to, the recent mass shooting incidents in Parkland, Florida (Margery Stoneman Douglas
High School; 17 people killed), Sutherland Springs, Texas (First Baptist Church; 26 people killed),
Las Vegas, Nevada (Music Festival; 58 people killed), and Orlando, Florida (Pulse Nightclub; 49
people killed); and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that assault weapons
are dangerous and unusual weapons which are commonly associated with military or antipersonnel
use, capable of a rapid rate of fire, have the capacity to fire a large number of rounds due to large
capacity fixed magazines or the ability to use detachable magazines, present unique dangers to law
enforcement, and are easily customizable to become even more dangerous weapons of mass
casualties and destruction; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that amending
Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013) to prohibit the possession, manufacture
and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield may increase the public’s sense of safety
at the public schools, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation located
in the Village of Deerfield; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that amending
Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013) to prohibit the possession, manufacture
and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield may increase the public’s sense of safety
by deterring and preventing a mass shooting incident in the Village of Deerfield, notwithstanding
potential objections regarding the availability of alternative weaponry or the enforceability of such
a ban; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that amending
Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013) to prohibit the possession, manufacture
and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield may increase the public’s sense of safety
by effecting a cultural change which communicates the normative value that assault weapons
should have no role or purpose in civil society in the Village of Deerfield; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that, since the
enactment of Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013), the possession,
manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is not reasonably necessary to
protect an individual’s right of self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
militia; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that, since the
enactment of Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013), courts throughout our
State and Nation have uniformly upheld the constitutionality of local ordinances and legislation
prohibiting the possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons including, but not limited to,
an ordinance enacted by the City of Highland Park, Illinois; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that, since the
enactment of Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013), State and Federal
authorities have failed to regulate the possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the
best interests for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the Village of
Deerfield; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield request that State and
Federal authorities enact Statewide or Nationwide regulations to prohibit the possession,
manufacture or sale of assault weapons; and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that amending
Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013) to prohibit the possession, manufacture –
and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield is in the Village’s best interests for the
protection.” END OF QUOTE
This is no joke, and it is extremely important the NRA and Guns Save Life fight back. As if one town can do this, others can, too. “We are going to fight this ordinance, which clearly violates our member’s constitutional rights, and with the help of the NRA I believe we can secure a victory for law-abiding gun owners in and around Deerfield,” said John Boch, president of Guns Save Life.
I felt this would begin as a slow creep, but it is speeding up. Yesterday, the Boulder City Council passed Ordinance 8245 to Second Reading. This gun control measure seeks to ban some of the most commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms used for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting, as well as ban magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds. The ordinance has only been debated on first reading and will require further consideration.
Further, we see more attacks on gun owners. The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action released the following statement today regarding the Massachusetts Federal District Court’s ruling in the case of Worman et al v. Baker:
“Like all law-abiding Massachusetts gun owners, the NRA was extremely disappointed that the court upheld Massachusetts’s ban on many of the most popular firearms in America. Even more disturbing was Judge Young’s assessment that the ‘AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material’ and that ‘Justice Scalia would be proud’ of this ruling.
“It is outrageous that Judge Young is taking advantage of the fact that Justice Scalia is unable to refute such a claim. Justice Scalia’s position on the question of whether the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment is clear. In the 2015 Friedman v. City of Highland Park case, Justice Scalia joined a dissent which stated that the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes ‘is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.’ As long as politicians and judicial officials continue to flout the law in order to advance a political agenda, the five million members of the NRA will be here to hold them accountable.
twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/982102260976160768
Here we see another case – Under House Bill 101, which was filed by state Rep. Darryl Owens of Louisville, a “consolidated local government” would have authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, storage and transportation of firearms and ammunition. Louisville Metro is the only “consolidated local government” under state law, according to the Kentucky League of Cities.
Here is the Bill: www.lrc.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/17RS/HB101/bill.pdf
QUOTE
“AN ACT relating to the regulation of firearms and ammunition by local
governments.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
SECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 65 IS CREATED TO
READ AS FOLLOWS:5
(1) This section is intended by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky to grant to consolidated local governments the power to regulate
firearms by ordinance in order to reduce gun violence.
Consolidated local governments may regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase,
taxation, transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, storage, and transportation of
firearms, firearms components, ammunition, and ammunition components, to an
extent not in conflict with the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or of
the United States.
The power granted by this section shall be in addition to all other powers granted
to consolidated local governments by other provisions of law.
An ordinance regulating firearms or ammunition that is issued by the council of
a consolidated local government shall apply within the jurisdictional boundaries
of all cities within that consolidated local government, and no city within the
consolidated local government’s boundaries shall preempt the controls.
Section 2. KRS 65.870 is amended to read as follows:
(1) Except for consolidated local governments, no existing or future city, county,
urban-county government, charter county,[ consolidated local government,] unified
local government, special district, local or regional public or quasi-public agency,
board, commission, department, public corporation, or any person acting under the
authority of any of these organizations may occupy any part of the field of
regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, taxation, transfer, ownership,
possession, carrying, storage, or transportation of firearms, ammunition,
UNOFFICIAL COPY 17 RS BR 467
Page 2 of 3 BR046700.100 – 467 – XXXX Jacketed
components of firearms, components of ammunition, firearms accessories, or
combination thereof.
(2) Any existing or future ordinance, executive order, administrative regulation, policy,
procedure, rule, or any other form of executive or legislative action in violation of
this section or the spirit thereof is hereby declared null, void, and unenforceable.
(3) Any person or organization specified in subsection (1) of this section shall repeal,
rescind, or amend to conform, any ordinance, administrative regulation, executive
order, policy, procedure, rule, or other form of executive or legislative action in
violation of this section or the spirit thereof within six (6) months after July 12,
(4) Pursuant to Section 231 of the Constitution of Kentucky, insofar as any person or
organization specified in subsection (1) of this section other than a consolidated
local government is considered an agent of the Commonwealth, it is the intent of
the General Assembly to exempt them from any immunity provided in Section 231
of the Constitution of Kentucky to the extent provided in this section. A person or
an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance,
administrative regulation, executive order, policy, procedure, rule, or any other form
of executive or legislative action promulgated or caused to be enforced in violation
of this section or the spirit thereof may file suit against any person or organization
specified in subsection (1) of this section in any court of this state having
jurisdiction over any defendant to the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. A
court shall award the prevailing party in any such suit:
(a) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the laws of this state;
and
(b) Expert witness fees and expenses.
(5) If any person or organization preempted by[specified in] subsection (1) of this
section violates this section or the spirit thereof, the court shall declare the improper
ordinance, administrative regulation, executive order, policy, procedure, rule, or
other form of executive or legislative action specified in subsection (1) of this
section null, void, and unenforceable, and issue a permanent injunction against the
person or organization specified in subsection (1) of this section prohibiting the
enforcement of such ordinance, administrative regulation, executive order, policy,
procedure, rule, or any other form of executive or legislative action specified in
subsection (1) of this section.
(6) A violation of this section by a public servant shall be a violation of either KRS
522.020 or 522.030, depending on the circumstances of the violation.
(7) The provisions of this section shall not apply where a statute specifically authorizes
or directs an agency or person specified in subsection (1) of this section to regulate
a subject specified in subsection (1) of this section. END OF QUOTE
According to the bill, the Metro Council could create rules regulating firearms that would include all suburban cities within Louisville’s borders. Those smaller jurisdictions would be prohibited from pre-empting the firearm regulations, the measure says.The bill comes on the heels of a record-breaking 124 criminal homicides citywide last year, far surpassing the previous citywide recorded high of 110 slayings in 1971. In addition, Louisville Metro Police statistics showed a 40 percent increase in shootings compared to 2015.
Of the 497 shooting victims last year, police data show 100 were fatal; 39 percent were 18-25 years old; 70 percent were men; and 76 percent were African-American.
“It’s an obvious disparity in Louisville,” Owens said. “The fact that we’ve had an extraordinary number of killings as a result of guns in the street over the last year is reason enough for this bill.”
I had no idea gun bans had progressed so far in this Country. It makes sense, it seems to the United States is breaking into pieces. You have Illinois, where the United Nations has made Chicago a model UN City, and Rahm Emanuel has ordered that President Trump is not allowed there. How can he do this? Is this some type of civil war in the US we just are beginning to be aware of?
California has basically breaking away, too. The United States is being attacked from within, and these tow
n ordinances and bills of gun bans is just a symptom of the fact we are not united as a Country any longer.
In Broward County, Florida, guns were confiscated without due notice.
“Residents in this sunny state were caught off guard when a Broward County judge ordered the first gun confiscation under the new Florida gun-control laws. The judge ordered that the man, a 56-year-old, have four guns and 267 rounds of ammunition removed from his belonging. The man was claimed to be a threat or risk to himself and others, and his weapons were taken away by what is called the “risk protection” law. Some people refer to it as the “red flag” as well.
It was also reported that the man who had his guns taken away was involuntarily taken to a hospital for psychiatric treatment which is also something covered under Florida’s “Baker Act.” It is unknown what the man’s treatment was. It is also unknown what the treatment was, but it appears to have been forced upon the man.
The new legislation allows Florida authorities to confiscate weapons when someone is deemed a threat or risk to themselves or others. Some think there is a fine line drawn upon who is considered a real risk and who is fraudulently labeled a risk. It’s not above or below the authorities to find someone a threat merely to target them in a personal attack.
The man who was targeted is also now prohibited from buying another gun or any ammunition. It is unknown if the man has a criminal history.”