Fighting Back: NRA-Backed Suit Challenging Deerfield Gun Ban Filed

This morning, in Lake County, Illinois circuit court, Guns Save Life filed a legal challenge against the newly-amended Deerfield, Illinois gun ban. With the help of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, GSL seeks to have the local ordinance overturned.

As Guns Save Life’s Executive Director, I can say the NRA has proved magnificent in their support. One could not ask for a better or more experienced partner in this fight. We need to block Deerfield’s unconstitutional effort to deny its residents firearms based merely upon cosmetic appearances.

Frankly, the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban makes as much sense as the village banning brown M&Ms because they don’t like the color. However, unlike M&Ms, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution.

The NRA released this statement this morning.

NRA Backed Challenge to Illinois Village Gun Ban Filed

Fairfax, Va. – With support from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), Guns Save Life has officially filed their lawsuit today challenging the Deerfield Village, IL ban on recent attempt to criminalize so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” within village limits.

“Deerfield’s so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban prohibits possession of the most widely owned sporting rifles in the United States,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA. “These firearms are incredibly popular with law-abiding citizens for self-defense, target shooting, hunting, and other lawful purposes.”

The lawsuit contends that Deerfield’s bans is preempted by both the Illinois Concealed Carry Act and the Illinois Wildlife Act. The bans also violates the Illinois Constitution’s guarantee that private property shall not be taken or damaged without just compensation.

“This ordinance bans firearm because of their cosmetic features and not because of the actual operation of the gun,” said Guns Save Life executive director John Bosh. “The people of Deerfield have the right to choose which firearm is best to use when defending their families, businesses, and homes. We thank the NRA for their assistance in this fight.”

The lawsuit was filed today with the Circuit Court of Lake County.

Interestingly, the Village (press release) and the mainstream media have made claims that the amended ordinance bans so-called “high capacity” magazines. From the Deerfield Patch:

DEERFIELD, IL — Deerfield trustees voted unanimously Monday to approve an amendment banning certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines carrying more than 10 bullets. Starting June 13, those who are found to have the banned weapons within village limits will be subject to fines of up to $1,000 per day.

However, the language in the amended ordinance does not ban magazines. And our suit points out that the emperor has no clothes.

GSL’s press release on the suit…

Guns Save Life Challenges New Ban on Commonly Owned Firearms and Magazines

Village of Deerfield, IL—Guns Save Life (GSL) filed a lawsuit today on behalf of its members who reside in the Village of Deerfield and are injured by a recently enacted ordinance that Village officials have described as banning “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” GSL claims that notwithstanding statements to the contrary by the Village, the ordinance does not in fact prohibit possession of any magazines within the Village and that any provisions in the ordinance that are interpreted to ban certain magazines and firearms violate the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act, the Illinois Wildlife Code, and the Takings Clause of the Illinois Constitution.

“The firearms and magazines that Deerfield’s ordinance labels as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large capacity’ magazines are widely owned by law-abiding gunowners throughout Illinois,” said John Boch, Executive Director of Guns Save Life. “The General Assembly has already determined that Illinois gunowners should not be subjected to a confusing patchwork of inconsistent local regulations, and the Deerfield ordinance flies in the face of that important principle of Illinois law.”

In addition to arguing that the ordinance is preempted by state statute, GSL also contends that it violates the Illinois Constitution by providing for the confiscation and destruction of private property without payment of just compensation.

Simply put, the Village of Deerfield seems to think a creative interpretation of Illinois law (and ignoring the Heller and McDonald decisions) allows them to ban most semi-auto firearms. We prefer to follow the rule of law rather than feelings and emotions.

comments

  1. avatar Bloving says:

    So how is this same fight going in the other Slave States? Not that I’ve no appreciation for the liberation of Illinois – the very thought of fully restoring civil rights in Obama’s old stomping ground does put a smile on my face… just curious where any court cases are in other places.
    🤠

    1. avatar TommyG says:

      Pretty much stalled here in NY. On the other hand enforcement of the SAFE ACT when it comes to the black guns has been been selective at best and non-existent outside of NYC.

      1. avatar beefeater says:

        The NRA doesn’t care to fight the laws in places like NY. Where were they before the SAFE act, with the 2 feature AWB? The arbitrary administrative restrictions on concealed carry licenses? The magazine size limits? The NRA needs states with restrictive gun laws, so they can point to us when they come begging for donations from people in states with better gun laws.

        1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

          It’s sad to find groups that prefer to bang the drum for their cause rather than take arms against a sea of troubles and oppose injustices in the first place.

          It always seems harder to dislodge bad laws than to fight them before they’re passed.

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “The NRA needs states with restrictive gun laws, so they can point to us when they come begging for donations from people in states with better gun laws.”
          Total BS and you obviously have no idea why NRA isn’t able to do much in places like NY state. GSL is a grassroots-based organization in IL that took up the initial battle, NRA joined in once there was some real effort being made by Illinois folks.

          Without active groups already engaged from/in the states in question, why should NRA or any other organization come in and dump money when the citizens of that state won’t even take up the fight in the first place? Especially with the attitude you’re expressing about NRA. It would do no good to come in as carpetbaggers and be a complete waste of time, money and political capital.

          Now, if John Cushman’s old group or some other would show any signs of mounting a serious campaign against a particular law as a starting point and gather some serious in-state support, NRA would likely be willing to help in a major way. Without home-based support and at least a large number of NY citizens rallying (and I’m not talking about a bunch out in the streets) in support in the first place like GSL is doing in IL, it’s a loser.

          Haven’t seen any support from the Prattards/Browntards, have you? Other than saying they “never compromise?

        3. avatar Jim S. says:

          No, that’s exactly how the NRA does it. There have been and still are multiple lawsuits in NY against the SAFE Act and, more recently, the Sullivan Act.
          The NRA is no where to be seen.
          They make these half-assed offers of “help” to lawsuits while backing GRVOs and bump stock bans.

      2. avatar Craig in IA says:

        And how “big and powerful” are the grassroots orgs that have filed any lawsuits in NY? Can you/will you name the organizations that have filed? Are they based in NY State?

        Where are Larry and Dudley???

        I’ll probably run into Cushman in a couple weeks. see what he says.

  2. avatar zaphod says:

    Since Deerfield has a neck that crosses I-94, are they going to put up little customs booths on the Interstate? Or choose to admit that it’s their own residents they hate and fear?

    It would seem hard to enforce any law while admitting they are ignoring hundreds of transiting scofflaws daily.

  3. avatar KenW says:

    This is what some assholes are trying to do in Florida. Can you imagine trying to wade through the maze of local laws that would quickly result if the state ban on local politicians making gun laws is overturned?

  4. avatar Shawn says:

    It doesn’t matter if the ban called for door to door confiscation and the execution without trial of the owners of those firearms The courts will uphold the ban.

    I have come to the conclusion that All judges hate gun owners and gun ownership. To them they want us all exterminated. I literally believe that every single solitary judge in United States views gun ownership like Roland Freisler viewed Jews. And the only reason they do not publicly say that we should all be killed as part of their judgment is because it will be the end of their career. Or maybe not.

    I have already come to the conclusion that the courts are so far gone even SCOTUS would say door to door confiscation, Setting up extermination camps for conservatives and gun owners, and even authorizing the use of nuclear weapons to kill millions of gun owners on United States soil on united states citizens to kill over 100 million people because they own guns is totally constitutional and legal. And anyone who opposes that move is a traitor who should be executed for it.

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      That’s certainly a pessimistic view.. however… I dont think your far off the mark here. The raging communists want a genocide against anything not liberal enough. They would gladly cheer on a holocaust of all conservatives, and gun owners. Even gun owning liberals will be killed, just as the Nazis would kill their own for suspected links to Judaism, or some other inferior class.

    2. avatar Bloving says:

      Easy now, yall… many a slip twixt a cup and a lip, as they say…
      What you describe may indeed be the wish of a few on the left – but they are only a very few… and I daresay a significant number of their “supporters” fall into the same category as some of our own supporters – ie: they are only lukewarm at best. Sure, there is no shortage of people who will tell a loaded survey that more gun owner control would be nice but I’d like to think the leaders of the Bigots would see their support crumble as they begin to call for the Nazi-esque tactics you’re describing.
      And we still have these things called “elections”… for now.
      🤠

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” I literally believe that every single solitary judge in United States views gun ownership like Roland Freisler viewed Jews.”

      Not all of them, it just seems that way.

      Justice Thomas is *solid* on the 2A. His dissent of ‘Peruta’ not being granted cert. was blistering on SCOTUS not giving the 2A the respect it deserves.

      “Thomas described the 9th Circuit’s approach as “indefensible,” and California’s scheme as part of a “distressing trend” of treating the Second Amendment “as a disfavored right.”

      “The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others,” Thomas wrote, “and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights.”

      In closing, Thomas eloquently stated:

      For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”

      https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/dissent-justices-thomas-gorsuch-defend-second-amendment/

      When we get *one* more solid 2A SCOTUS justice, justice Thomas will be our new Scalia…

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Shawn,

      There are a few judges in the U.S. who enthusiastically defend the Second Amendment. Chief Justice Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is one of them.

      Read his dissenting opinion in the Silveira v. Lockyer case where he states:

      The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed … However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

  5. avatar Joe R. says:

    great.

    We all know how much the NRA loves a challenge.

    It’s like they’re addicted to it. They love gun-grabbing the way the Susan G. Komen Foundation loves breast cancer.

    That battleground is their real estate, their territory. The NRA doesn’t want to win, they just want to keep fighting.

    We cured Polio faster than the NRA ‘overcame’ anything, and a .224 Valkyrie doesn’t stay supersonic as long as the NRAs push to throw bump stocks under the bus.

    F em All,

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      This battle for private ownership and use of firearms will never be over, it’s been going on since the Constitution was ratified and your grandkids will still be fighting it unless we allow the bedwetters to win.

      SCOTUS deems the Second Amendment is an individual right and I suppose a bunch of folk think the battle’s won? No- there’s always legal opinion and has been since Marbury v Madison, in 1803. Quit bitching, join NRA, organize in your lacality and state, run for political office if you think you have the right stuff and ideas, contribute money to the cause, and keep fighting.

      1. avatar Desert Ranger says:

        Huzzah!

  6. avatar binder says:

    “The lawsuit contends that Deerfield’s bans is preempted by both the Illinois Concealed Carry Act and the Illinois Wildlife Act. The bans also violates the Illinois Constitution’s guarantee that private property shall not be taken or damaged without just compensation.”

    Judging by that statement there are NO 2nd Amendment violation challenges in this suit. Just challenges to preemption of State law. All the rest is the Guns Save Life blowing hot air.

    So far NO 2nd Amendment violation challenge has ever been successful other than the total banning of the broad classifications of handguns and stun-guns (and they can still be highly regulated). We have yet to see ANY court overturn magazine bans or AWB bans and this suit is NOT challenging them.

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      If we file on federal 2A grounds, then it goes to federal court where this region has precedent (Highland Park suit) that scary gun bans are okay. So then we would just be wasting everyone’s time, money and energy. But I thank you for your input, no matter how ill-advised, considered or reasoned it might have been.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        is there a notable difference between higland park’s (not ravinia) ban having been implemented before the pre- emption window closed and deerfield’s (not winnetka, and frustrated because of it) ban having come after?

        1. avatar binder says:

          I think we may lose this one, Did a little digging and the dates MAY be off, but looks like the original Deerfield Assault Weapons law was passed July 1 2013, the CC act went into effect on July 9 2013. so it looks like the City may be good. Some of the “assault pistol” stuff may be thrown out, but my be is the long gun stuff is going to stand. I have a feeling the the NRA is getting involved to keep GSL from making a real mess of it.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Found the file
          https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4432465-1-Complaint.html#document/p1

          Looks like they are going with 2 things:
          The way the law was amended (and I think they fixed that part), but not challenging that they have a right to amend the original 2013 law.
          The fact that it includes “handguns”, but if Deerfield is smart, they will fix that part too.

    2. avatar binder says:

      I think “ill-advised” is a little off. It’s just that you are making it sound like it is anything other than a suit against “preemption” and TAG adding in “(and ignoring the Heller and McDonald decisions) ” ads fuel to that.

      Now I do agree that the suit that you are filing needs to be done. And unless Deerfield gets some outside money I think that they may just end up dropping the law after about a year of asking for delays in court. On the other hand I’m betting this is going to end up as more as a political move to kill the state preemption.

      Do you mind posting a link for the actual filed suit?

      Also, is it my imagination or did Deerfield use a photocopy of the Cook County AWB for the law?

      1. avatar J says:

        It was city counsel of Northbrook, Il that used Cook County AWB documents.

    3. avatar binder says:

      Also the 7th is probably one of the “better” Federal courts to file in, Moore v Madigan. Still I understand you probably do not have the resources for that mess. I would not want to bite that one off either.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Bring on the pain. Let all these municipalities split in politically partisan ways so we’ll know the borders of the next civil war. The more absurd and inconvenient this all is the faster it will break down.

  8. avatar billy-bob says:

    Is she shouldering a pistol with a Sig brace?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      NO !

      THERE IS ‘INCIDENTAL CONTACT BETWEEN SAID ‘STABILIZATION DEVICE’ AND SAID ‘SHOOTER’S SHOULDER’.

      REQUIRED CONTACT PRESSURE FOR ‘SHOULDERING’ WHOULD HAVE PLEATED SAID SHOOTER’S SHIRT.

      ; )

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        Oooh… Now the ATF will be usurping the definition of ‘pleated’.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          . . . and measuring ‘depth of pleat’. 511 and Crye Precision will come out with a “pleat-proof blouse”, and MagPul will come out with their “anti-pleat” Butpad.

    2. avatar Mal says:

      Nope, right titty…

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    I support GSL and the NRA fighting the leftards in Deerfield…coming soon EVERYWHERE. I’m not turning in shite!

  10. avatar RA-15 says:

    I think N.Y. should receive some assistance on the same unlawful ban’s of large capacity magazines. And , scary black guns. A felony to own an Ar-15 with a detachable magazine. Any other semi automatic such as my Ruger 10/22 takedown can have a removable magazine so long as it is 10 round capacity or less. No BX-25 magazines allowed or I’m a felon. So I have to buy 10 round mag’s at $25 each. That is so wrong. Yet a 22 tube fed rifle can have 18 rounds. WTF is wrong with this so called state ? G.S.L. come help N.Y. Lord knows we need someone to defend our rights. Rid us of these unconstitutional bans , until one commits a crime or threatens such, don’t treat law abiding citizens like we are children or common criminals. We are not. I want a large capacity magazine for my Ar-15 and to be able to remove it If I please to reload or replace with a second mag. I don’t want to wear out my forward pin on my rifle that I spent $$$$ on. I don’t want to buy 3 10 rd mag’s for $25 each ,when I should be able to buy 3-25 rd mag’s for less $ for my 10/22. It would be nice to not be treated like a criminal because I am not one. I am not wealthy , I am a lowly , average American. Should I be treated with any less respect than if I were rich ? I think Not. If moving were an option I would not be here. N.Y. stinks of leftist shite , that’s right. Oh and who is going to pay for my next Ar-15 when my upper and lower recievers don’t align correctly rendering it useless ? Not my uninformed , leftist , rich , politicians. One nation under God ? Popycock. We are being infringed on.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Guns” ain’t the only problem with the POS (D) in NY/NYC.

      You’re worried about being kept to 10 round magazines by/from fV<k-sticks that'll jail ya for not paying into their Planned Parenthood baby eradication scheme where they sell chopped up pre & new-borns for food and 'medicine' [and by medicine, I don't mean the stem-cell research con, I mean the Chinese homeopathic 'special powdered pancreas'].

      F em all

  11. avatar barnbwt says:

    “The bans also violates the Illinois Constitution’s guarantee that private property shall not be taken or damaged without just compensation”

    And this is different from the incipient bump-stock ban regulation the NRA supports, how again?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      What ban? “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

      I don’t see a ban there. And if bumpfire stocks were regulated as if they were machine guns, wouldn’t the machine gun registry need to be reopened?

      1. avatar Sian says:

        If bump stocks end up classified and restricted as machineguns, Trump has the power to open a NFA registry amnesty to allow these (and any other post-86 device in someone
        s possession) to be properly and legally registered as machineguns. He can do this at any time.

        I doubt he even knows this.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I doubt he even knows this.”

          TTAG has connections very high in Washington. Jon Wayne Taylor’s ex-boss holds a cabinet post in Trump’s White House.

          How about making a call for us, Jon? Let’s get the registry re-opened…

    2. avatar binder says:

      And this is different from the incipient bump-stock ban regulation the NRA supports, how again?

      Let me explain, you sue the government and you will probably win the cost of the stock. Keep your receipt. There will probably be a class action and you will likely get a check in the mail if you proved that you owned one.

  12. avatar 2aguy says:

    Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…..any vote that doesn’t help keep a Republican in the U.S. senate is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…only Trump can appoint Justices, and we need the Senate to confirm them……we have at least two left wing justices that need to be replaced, ginsburg, and kennedy….maybe even breyer, and we may need to defend Thomas’s seat…..Remember in November and vote against the democrats..

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    John Boch,

    Does Illinois have an analog to our United States Constitution Eighth Amendment which prohibits excessive fines? If so, you could potentially challenge the Deerfield Village law on those grounds as well.

    For example someone who had a “contraband” rifle in Deerfield Village for 90 days would be facing a $90,000 fine. And heaven help the poor sucker who gets caught with a “contraband” rifle in their possession for 365 days and faces a $365,000 fine. That is clearly excessive and I would argue constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment”.

    Causing utter and total financial ruin to someone who demonstrated no malicious intent to harm anyone is blatantly unjust.

  14. avatar Bob says:

    “If bump stocks end up classified and restricted as machineguns, Trump has the power to open a NFA registry amnesty to allow these (and any other post-86 device in someone
    s possession) to be properly and legally registered as machineguns.”

    If existing bump stocks are allowed on the federal level through registration as machineguns, what happens if you legally bought and posse a bump stock in a state that does not allow machineguns. How about states that recently passed bump stock bans. In a state that has banned bump stocks, isn’t registering your bump stocks with the Feds self incrimination of a crime (owning a now banned bump stock in your state) and has been determined by SCOTUS in the past to not be a violation of the law (Federally registering your bump stock)? Question, questions questions!

  15. avatar J says:

    In Illinois, there are more than 10 anti-2nd Amendment bills being pushed through the House and the Senate right now. It is not going well, since the Chicago Democrats that run Illinois and some Republicans have both sided together on most of these bills. it does not look good for Illinois gun owners. If, the governor vetoes all of them they will just override his veto or what to see if a Democrat gets elected in the fall and resubmits all of these gun control bills and more. It is better to look to move to Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, or Kentucky right now if you are pro-2nd Amendment.

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    We have an NRA because it takes millions (5-ish) of regular folks to balance Bloomie’s big money in politics, places where he does not live. Just because he’s a billionaire, he shouldn’t get to dictate what other people can do. (He wants to tell me what to do; hire me.)

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      It’s not all that bad- Bloomberg only gets one vote… (Well, except for the cemetaries and Alzheimer’s places, I suppose.)

      Look at all the money the Witch spent and she couldn’t beat Trump. A better example would be the money Murphy spent on Jeb, for 3 whole delegates. The people still have the vote, they just need to be re-convinced that even in an Illinois or Connecticut they can win and restore things.

      Biggest problem in the worst gun states is that many, many people are now a generation or two, in some states even more, away from seeing a firearm of any kind around the house, let alone actually use it. That’s where we come in- take every pal you can shooting. Show them how much fun it is. Let their kids join in. Let them see what they’re missing. Even if you have to supply the ammo the first time. It works, next time they’ll buy. It may be tough to find a place to shoot in some areas but it can be done. Heck, in Chitown, just go to about the 700 block of S. Wabash under the El, you probably won’t be the only one… 🙂

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email