WATCH: John Boch on Fox & Friends Talking About the Deerfield, IL ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

john boch gun save life deerfield assault weapons ban fox & friends

As many of you know, in addition to his role here at TTAG, John Boch is also the executive director of Guns Save Life, the central Illinois gun rights advocacy group. Among other duties, John spends a lot of his time in Springfield lobbying for gun owners’ right to keep and bear arms. No small feat in a legislature dominated by Chicago-area anti-gun crusaders.

This morning, John got up at OMG-dark-thirty for a Fox & Friends interview. Did GSL’s weekend expedition to Chicago catch a Fox producer’s eye? We thought using Windy City money to send downstate kids to NRA shooting camp was plenty newsworthy, but Fox wanted to talk about “assault weapons.” Specifically, the city of Deerfield’s new law outlawing the sale and possession of scary black rifles.

That’s right, Deerfield residents have only a few more days to either turn in their guns or move them outside city limits. Guns Save Life, along with the NRA, is suing the city over the gun grab. Here’s John’s interview . . .

We hear Dana Loesch will be talking to John this evening on her NRA TV show this evening, too. Keep and eye out.

comments

  1. avatar Jacob says:

    I predict 0% compliance after next Wednesday, and I don’t think anyone is going to pay the fines either. I doubt there are many of these guns in Deerfield to begin with, and the people who do own them are probably not the types who kneel before whatever a few guys in City Hall say.

    1. avatar LibertyToad says:

      Based on a couple of conversations with some Illinois police friends, they are very doubtful that the ordinance will be enforced.

      Still, it shows how Deerfield is more interested in the optics, and have completely ignored the Defensive Gun Usage stats.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Good job John! Deerfield deserves every bit of derision they get…I doubt they have many(or any) AR’s in this upscale enclave anywho.

    1. avatar binder says:

      I hope you feel the same way when long gun preemption is pulled from the FCCA. That is the likely outcome if GSA manages to win the lawsuit.

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        Could you expand on that a bit?

  3. avatar Setnakhte says:

    This is the guy who says we shouldn’t “self-deploy”, right? Who cares about him?

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      You did read that article the other day yes? Where the parents of students showed up with guns to a school where an active shooter alert was reported (false alarm)?

      I have to agree with John on that one – what those parents did may have been a natural parental instinct but it sure as hell wasn’t a good idea.
      🤠

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        I don’t want to weigh in, at all, about the good idea / bad idea of the parent’s reaction. I am just very glad that the local LEO community handled the additional stressers very very cooly.

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Self deploying is stupid.

      You’ll show up too late, poorly informed, get in the way, and possibly get shot by police.
      That’s completely UNLIKE armed school staff responding to an active shooter. Why?

      Teachers are more apt to defend in place and have a class full of students with them, whereas you’re just running around on your own. Armed staff will probably have engaged the shooter directly. They’ll know whether he’s dead, disarmed, or has fled and will stay in place waiting for police to come clear the building, on case there are others. You’ll show up and rush around with a gun not knowing your muzzle from a hole in the ground trying to get up to speed.

      Armed and trained teachers will already have a post-incident protocol to follow. You spring to the scene, in full parental protection mode overload, trying to devise a plan on the fly.

      Geez, if seconds count and the police are minutes away, some parent im a meeting, on a job site, running errands, or whatever is not going to get there anywhere near in time to contribute positively.

      Now, if you happen to live across the street, have the day off, are reasonably proficient with a firearm, and know from EXPERIENCE, not arrogance, that you can keep your [stuff] together in a life or death emergency, then maybe you should go for it. For the 99.9999999% of the time that isn’t applicable, just drive to the school blockade perimeter and do the thoughts and prayers thing like everyone else.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “Self deploying is stupid.

        You’ll show up too late, poorly informed, get in the way, and possibly get shot by police.”

        When it’s *your* child in that school, rational thought goes right out the window. Being shot by the cops is something I can see being an acceptable risk for the responding parent.

        The utterly infuriating thing is, we wouldn’t have that problem if the bad apple cops had done their damn job. So I lay the blame on this on the bad apples and the media for the extensive publicity of their chickenshit actions.

        And all in support of a media pushing a hate anti-2A ideology…

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          If your school has any sense, the doors are closed and locked during instruction. If you self deploy, you’ll be standing outside with your di<k in your hand unless a hooligan tool is in your EDC. Even then, you probably don't want to be caught doing a forcible entry when the police roll up.

          Our school district has text notifications and automated calling. I've experienced the feeling of the need to do something. I've gotten notices that the school was in lockdown, gotten the sinking feeling in my stomach, and had the urge to race down there, although I was 45 minutes away. Turns out someone saw a coyote in the open space adjoining the school.

  4. avatar Shawn says:

    The NRA will lose and Deerfield will keep there ban. It is pre ordained that EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY gun ban will be upheld. When’s the last time a gun ban has been overturned in court after Heller and McDonald? Zero. Preemption? Guns are involved, preemption is out the window.

    I have come to the conclusion that in most if not all courts that if a state or locality passed a ban of gun ownership; blanket gun ban, no one can have a gun. No ‘buyback’ either. And moving them out would not fly as you still own them. Just imagine California finally goes all the way: the complete banning of private gun ownership. We already know what would happen. The ninth circuit would uphold it and SCOTUS won’t hear it. Even if the punishment was execution in your front yard without trial the courts would still uphold it. I have by extension come to the conclusion that most if not all courts and judges hate gun owners and want us all to die.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Is is NOT a 2nd amendment or a AWB lawsuit, it is a state preemption suit. And if GSL manages to win, expect to see preemption removed.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      It is bad, but not that bad. Groups in Ohio (Buckeye Firearms Assoc.?) have had good success at enforcing OPhio’s pre-emption law against the three big “C” cities who passed their own gun control laws in violation of state law.
      California has only limited pre-emption. Even then, although it will allow the State to tread the line, it will not ban the private ownership of (most) firearms because of Heller, although it will no doubt uphold regulations of evil black rifles. Basically, it will go so far as only protecting a right to keep (and “bear”) arms only in the home, as long as they are on your person or unloaded and locked up. Mag limits, the Roster, probably even the microstamping law, will pass muster.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        The problem is Deerfield put in a placeholder law specifically for FCCA preemption. Yes it can be argued to be a “trasportation” law, but is very much a placeholder. The reason that municipalities were allowed to have placeholders was because the Cook County AWB suite is still working its way through the courts, and a lot of towns did not want to get embroiled in that mess. But if it turns out the placeholders “don’t work” now the anti-gunners can claim that the agreement was a lie, and will push to repeal long-gun preemption.

        FYI the Cook County AWB is still not enforced to prevent further challenges to the law. I personally know of “law abiding” gun owners that were busted with “assault weapons” in their house in Chicago and the cops only confiscated any magazines with more that 15 rounds.

    3. avatar John Boch says:

      Shawn:

      You wrote: “The NRA will lose and Deerfield will keep there ban. It is pre ordained that EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY gun ban will be upheld.”

      The NRA is not a party to this suit. Guns Save Life does act as the institutional plaintiff. Although I must credit the NRA for their partnership with us. The National Rifle Association has tremendous resources and has brought those to bear in Illinois not only legislatively, but also assisting the people on the ground — the grassroots — with litigation as well.

      “Pre-ordained” that every gun ban will be upheld? You must have missed the Ezell decisions, plural, overturning Chicago’s ban on public ranges. TWICE.

      You must have missed the court case that ruled a lack of concealed carry was an unconstitutional ban. And Moore v. Madigan gave Illinois residents concealed carry.

      And I have tremendous optimism that both this suit against Deerfield and our suit against the Cook County gun and ammo tax with each prevail at the end of the day.

      Think positive, brother. Bellyaching and making things out as far, far worse than they really are might make you feel like you’re doing something, but it helps nobody except Michael Bloomberg and his ilk.

      John

      1. avatar Toni says:

        All i can say John is keep up the good fight. these traitors need to be brought to heel and made to rethink where they live if they want to live with the restrictions they want in place. i have been saying much the same here in australia since well before our NFA was forced on the states with blackmail of withholding revenue which the Federal govt took control of unlawfully.

    4. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      “When’s the last time a gun ban has been overturned in court after Heller and McDonald? Zero.”

      Delaware, December 8th, 2017

      In a 3-2 ruling, the state Supreme Court ruled that two government agencies violated the Delaware Constitution by banning the possession of firearms in state forests and parks.

      Massachusetts, April 17th, 2018

      The state’s highest court tossed out Massachusetts’ ban on stun guns, ruling that the weapons are protected under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state’s 2004 ban on private ownership of stun guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

      Soooo……

    5. avatar frank speak says:

      this is what happens when municipalities are allowed to do this…this should only come from the state…SCOTUS will hear a case when actual gun ownership is threatened…much like what they did with heller…non’compliance will eventually force a court case…

  5. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Well if I lived in Deerfield I’d say ” FUUUUUUCK YOU” to the ass salt gun bans and go for a boat ride………. As far as showing up to skool with weapons, message to LEO’s. Badges? We don’t need no steenking badges.

  6. avatar binder says:

    John Boch is good at misleading the press. It is a preemption lawsuit, not a second amendment or a AWB lawsuit. I really think they are going to lose. The argument that the original law was ONLY for transport is probably going to fall on it’s face as it was clearly a placeholder in response to the Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

    If GSL manages to win, I would expect to see long gun preemption REMOVED from the Illinois FCCA law (no super-majority required) at the next legislative session. As it has been, no one really wanted to make any significant changes to the FCCA, well I think John Boch will likely trigger some, and not for the Pro-Gun side.

    Has ANY “assault weapon” law ever been overturned?

    1. avatar binder says:

      Just as a side note, I agree with John on a LOT of things, but I really think he is playing with fire on this one. Illinois is kind of weird, and when you pull this kind of stuff, don’t expect the result you are hoping for. For example, Pat Quinn’s AWB bill rewrite that was hammered by pro and anti gun sides.

    2. avatar JeffR in IL says:

      With Democrat majorities in both chambers of the legislature and the increasing likeliness of a Dem governor next term, it’s pretty likely that all of the hell that we’ve gone through this legislative session will return… and removing preemption has already been proposed in multiple bills.

      It’s not a question of if.. or barely when. Count in it. :-/

      1. avatar Binder says:

        And how is it any different then when we had Quinn? As much as I hate Mike Madigan, I’m not too worried as long as he is still around. Pissed off Machine Democrats are less of a threat than Pissed off Blue Dog and Republicans. But part of the FCCA deal was if you want to have long gun laws, put something on the books now and you can change it later. Well Deerfield put something on the books, so if it turns out that can’t change it, well…..

    3. avatar John Boch says:

      Binder:

      Rest assured, we’re playing the long game, not a short game.

      John

      1. avatar Binder says:

        The go after the gun and ammo taxes, SBRs, suppressors or Assault Weapon Bans. But playing with the preemption laws is not going to help the pro gun side.

        I can’t see how pulling preemption from the FCCA is going to be a risk to Mike if you manage to win your lawsuit. Because if he pulls it for the whole state, there is NO bases for a lawsuit, unlike an AWB. The only upside of losing preemption is it might take some pressure off a statewide AWB, but I doubt it.

        1. avatar John Boch says:

          You mean like our suit against the Cook County gun & ammo tax? The one where in a deposition, the Chicago DA’s office asked me what my wife’s favorite gun was and why?

          Already there, brother.

          John

        2. avatar Binder says:

          I know about the suit, so when is that going to go anywhere? I would like to see FFLs inside Cook County again. Is that the plan, have in injunction in place, or just not have the law enforced for 10 years?

  7. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    John, thank you.

    It’s nice to be reassured I’m not the ugliest TTAGer. 😉

    (Good luck on the lawsuit…)

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      Yeah, I’ve got a face for radio.

  8. avatar John J. McCarthy, Jr. says:

    Isn’t this the kind of tyranny the 2nd Amendment was designed to address?

  9. avatar frank speak says:

    as long as you have some type of firearm [modern] to defend yourself the courts will probably defer

  10. avatar Anonymous says:

    Good job John.

    Make it happen.

  11. avatar m. says:

    queer-field commies deserve whatever lawsuits come their way. maybe city will pass out a pail of rocks for every turn-in.

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