NRA-Institute For Legal Action Supports “Guns Save Life” In Lawsuit Against Deerfield Illinois Gun Confiscation Ordinance – Confiscation Of Guns In Broward County Without Due Notice.

by Ruby Henley

So They’re Not Coming for Our Guns, Eh? We call BS.

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

www.courier-journal.com/videos/news/politics/2016/11/30/fischer:-'gun-violence-public-health-crisis'/94663864/

 

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.”

3,272 views