Ill. Judge Strikes Gun Ban in Chicago Suburb; Gun Group Declares Victory

Opinion

An Illinois circuit judge has blocked the Village of Deerfield from banning so-called “assault weapons.” (Dave Workman)

ILLINOIS – -(AmmoLand.com)- An Illinois Circuit Judge has issued a permanent injunction against a ban on so-called “assault weapons” in the village of Deerfield, a Chicago suburb, in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb declared it a victory against legislative extremism, adding that, “it has no place on American soil.”

Deerfield Village trustees last year adopted the ban, which included fines of up to $1,000 per day for violations. According to the Chicago Tribune, Lake County Circuit Judge Luis A. Berrones ruled that the village had “overstepped its authority.”

In addition to SAF and ISRA, Deerfield resident gun owner Daniel Easterday was also a plaintiff. They were represented by Glen Ellyn attorney David Sigale. The newspaper quoted Sigale stating, “We are very gratified with the judge’s ruling and we are glad the court recognized the ordinances were unenforceable.”

This is not the first time SAF and ISRA have joined forces in a legal action. They partnered in the landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which led to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that nullified the Chicago handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb

“We are delighted with the judge’s decision, which we hope sends a message to other municipal governments that they can’t try to sneak around the state’s preemption statute in an effort to ban legal firearms ownership,” Gottlieb said. “Last year, we were granted a temporary injunction by the circuit court, and this order making it permanent simply solidifies our position.”

When the Deerfield Village trustees adopted the ordinance, SAF and ISRA moved quickly. A separate lawsuit was filed by Guns Save Life and Deerfield resident John W. Wombacher III, with support from the National Rifle Association, the Chicago Tribune noted.

Deerfield contended that the ban was merely an amendment to a previously adopted gun regulation in 2013. But Judge Berrones granted a temporary order in June 2018. Gottlieb said at the time that the village was attempting to disguise its anti-gun efforts by claiming the ban was an amendment.

The central issue is the state’s preemption law, and it’s not the first time that SAF has moved to defend such a statute. Currently, SAF and NRA are partners in a Washington State lawsuit challenging a “safe storage” ordinance adopted by the City of Edmonds. Just days before the Deerfield victory, a Snohomish County judge allowed the Edmonds lawsuit to go forward, rejecting a city motion to have the case dismissed.

A similar lawsuit against Seattle in neighboring King County was thrown out by a Superior Court judge there, so there is considerable interest in how the Edmonds case proceeds.

SAF and NRA are joined in that action by two private citizens, Brett Bass and Swan Seaburg. The order rejecting the city’s attempt to dismiss was signed by Judge Anita L Farris, who said in her order that, “the Plaintiff’s claim that the ordinance is preempted by state statute is ripe for determination.”

Washington has one of the oldest preemption statutes, dating back to 1985. Traditionally anti-gun municipalities such as Seattle have long wanted to repeal that law or have it overturned because it prevents them from adopting their own gun laws that might be confusing or contradictory.

“We’re encouraged by Judge Farris’ order,” Gottlieb said in a prepared statement. “The city knows this ordinance violates the state preemption statute, and we believe this ordinance, and the one in Seattle, were passed specifically to erode the state law.

“Their ultimate goal,” he said of the cities, “is to discourage citizens from exercising their rights under the state and federal constitutions by financial intimidation through fines that could climb to $10,000 under the Edmonds ordinance. The cities want to take Washington State back in time, to an era when a patchwork quilt of confusing, conflicting gun laws existed. State Preemption did away with that, and it’s time for the courts to end this nonsense.”


Dave Workman
Dave Workman

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

 

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tionico
Tionico
2 years ago

quote:

The order rejecting the city’s attempt to dismiss was signed by Judge Anita L Farris, who said in her order that, “the Plaintiff’s claim that the ordinance is preempted by state statute is ripe for determination.”

This judge should be taken to task for not simply reading the Washington State preemption laws, and the Edmonds ordinance, and declaring the latter contravenes the former and thus rendering summery judgement with prejudice and findinf conclusively FOR Plaintiffs. She is being lazy and a coward. SHE has the authority to do that. Her failing to do so is derelictioin of duty.

JC
JC
2 years ago

These attempts to control gun ownership are the feeble but shady workings of Democrat insane effort to circumvent 2nd Amendment rights and are illegal. That doesn’t stop the Democrats from trying to thwart the rights of citizens anyway so they can control citizens for their purposes.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
2 years ago

The pre-emption laws need to include severe penalties upon those that present and pass illegal acts. Winning in court isn’t enough to stop these people from passing these laws and ordinances to begin with. There needs to be a real and very costly punishment exacted upon them to make them think twice about proposing these acts to begin with. It, as this case shows, costs a lot of time, money and effort, to fight these illegal acts.

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
2 years ago

CAUTION! BIG BALLS ARE BEING UTILIZED TO DEFEND “YOUR” RIGHTS! SUBMIT!

LARRY PENCE
LARRY PENCE
2 years ago

So what is considered a assault rifle is it the rapid fire If so could a semi auto shot gun with 6 rounds could be one my point is if you train enough you can make any firearm load fast enough to be a assault rifle

Tionico
Tionico
2 years ago
Reply to  LARRY PENCE

the new “law” shoved down the throats of Washington residents by Bloomie and his Bux now defines ANY semi automatic rifle as an “assault rifle”. That definition now includes the venerable Ruger 10/.22, the most popular .22 WRF rifle ever made. It also includes similar rifles by Mossburg, Winchester, REmington, Savage…. yes, .22 rinfire plinkers are now “assault rifles” in the State of Washington. This is the subject of yet another lawsuit in that crazy state. It was a Citizens Initiative, and the law as written, and sent out for signatures, violated multiple portions of the State Constitution. Should never… Read more »

m.
m.
2 years ago

thnx Your Honor. so solly, queer-field.