Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments

Brady Campaign Deerfield Gun Ban Lawsuit Mayor Harriet Rosenthal

Courtesy Chicago Tribune.

The Village of Deerfield board voted unanimously back in April to ban many of America’s best-selling rifles based solely upon their cosmetic features. Soon after, the Illinois gun rights group Guns Save Life announced a suit challenging the ban with support from the NRA-ILA. To fight the legal challenges against their gun ban, the Village of Deerfield has brought in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Yes, the Brady Campaign.

The Bradys used to be the nation’s most prominent voice for gun control. If you haven’t heard much from them lately, you aren’t alone. Today, they play second or third fiddle in the fight for civilian disarmament and are mostly trying to remain relevant. And solvent.

Following legal challenges from both Guns Save Life and the Illinois State Rifle Assocation, the Village of Deerfield and its mayor, Harriet Rosenthal (above) announced that the Brady Campaign has joined a pair of Chicago law firms in representing the Village in its legal battle.

Brady Campaign Helping to Defend Deerfield, IL Gun Ban

Since the deadline for compliance with the new ordinance is fast approaching, GSL sought a temporary restraining order to block the ban’s imposition while the case winds its way through the court.

Meanwhile, Brady & Co. have come up with some rather astounding arguments to defend their gun ban.

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

Thankfully, Guns Save Life has the National Rifle Association in its corner in the case. Meanwhile the Illinois State Rifle Association has the Second Amendment Foundation backing their suit.

The court should give its ruling on the petition for a temporary restraining order in the coming days. Not a moment too soon, either.

comments

  1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    It is asking too much for a sensible argument from a bunch of idiot socialists.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      “The undisputed record establishes that in July 2013, the Village of Deerfield passed an
      Ordinance heavily regulating the possession, sale and use of assault weapons within its
      jurisdictional borders” That’s the first line and the ONLY truly important part. The argument that John is making is that they can not amend the original Ordinance, and I don’t think is is valid. The rest is fluff.

      Funny how in 500 words John is not bringing that up, looks like the anti-gunners are not the only ones the the smoke an mirrors.

      And I need to reiterate, If GSL manages to win, I would say that the chances of EVERYONE losing State Preemption of long guns is about 5 times higher. The GSL win would provide all the political cover needed to strip that protection from the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

      Then again, if GSL wins the injunction, I’m guessing they are going to drag out the lawsuit for about 5-10 years.

      1. avatar J says:

        If they’re allowed to amend that ordinance but not pass a new one then what would stop another township from amending any ordinance to include gun grabbing legislation?

  2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    one. more. judge. until then…

    looks like she eats potato salad everyday.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Her teeth are stained with matzo ball soup.

      1. avatar J says:

        Seems I’m not the only one that noticed that the mayor and nearly every council member of Deerfield is a bagel American.

        1. avatar Eagle1105 says:

          As a “Bagel American”, a fellow Gun Rights advocate and Patriot, I don’t like where you are going with those comments. Why go there? Makes you look like a bigot and a$$hole! Thinking like that fuels the fire for hatred towards law abiding and fair-minded people gun owners.

      2. avatar Eagle1105 says:

        Really? Why start the anti-semetic bullshit?

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      “Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it”

      Rodney Dangerfield

  3. avatar Jim Smith says:

    We need to call out the supporters of this kind of action as the simple-minded bigots that they are. The Deerfield ban is nothing more than harassment and discrimination against gun owners.

    1. avatar Lost Down South says:

      AND it’s being handled PRO BONO by an outside group. That should not be allowed. The village choose to go down this road, they should pay for the defense.

      1. avatar Eagle1105 says:

        Agree. They have no basis for this. Violent Crime in Deerfield is non-existent. There has been one killing in Deerfield in the last 60 years! A football player’s ex-wife shot his girlfriend. The ordinance is nothing more than a feel good policy enacted by the Mayor and Board members that infringes on the rights of lawful gun owners!

  4. avatar The Rookie says:

    Ack! Someone buy that woman some toothpaste!

  5. avatar KMc says:

    Is Harriet the Village Idiot?

    1. avatar Eagle1105 says:

      Yes, she is!

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Ummm…they want to ban shotguns & handguns TOO. The end game…

  7. avatar Djm says:

    Perkins – Coie does a lot of work for the Clinton Foundation. They are also involved in the whole Russian collusion fiasco

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      That’s where my mind went as soon as I saw the name.

  8. avatar W says:

    Anyone recall when the Brady Campaign “helped” the Aurora Colorado massacre victims?

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html

    Note to antis and trolls: If they offer you help, run away and change your phone number.

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      Shhh! Don’t tell Harriett.

  9. avatar ironicatbest says:

    A person could shorten the barrel and the stock of a rifle and use it as handgun. If the majority of the people of Deerfield want this law passed, then that city ordinance should be implemented. No firearms in city limits via hero Wyatt Earp. It worked in Tombstone

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      I’ll be your huckleberry…

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      Shortening a rifle into a handgun, without paying a $200 tax…had better include changing to a receiver that had never been classified as a rifle…

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Prove that it was ever classified as a rifle.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Prove? You think the ATF and federal prosecutors have to prove anything? These are the people who will lock you up on conspiracy charges if you have washers in your tool box.

          But, if they have the unlikely misfortune to run into a judge who cares about justice:
          Send the manufacturer’s serial number to the manufacturer and ask for their records on the gun in question.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Send the manufacturer’s serial number to the manufacturer and ask for their records on the gun in question.”

          Are not stripped lowers listed as “Other” on the 4473?

          My 300 BLK build will start life as a stripped lower…

        3. avatar Binder says:

          Geoff PR, that is why you have to be 21 to BUY a stripped lower, but most peoples AR were sold as rifles.

  10. avatar Cloud says:

    Don’t comply. F*ck these jackbooted thugs.

    1. avatar Eddie Hubbard says:

      I agree 100%

  11. avatar m. says:

    f every one in queer-field that authors & supports gun control “legislation”

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Why “queer-field”?
      If you want to make some clever quip about this policy being fascist, communist, or some other form of totalitarian, that makes perfect sense. If you want to point out that the law abiding gun owners of Deerfield have nothing to do with Chicago’s growing murder problems, that would make sense as well.
      But when you use queer as a pejorative like this, it makes gays think that gun owners are a bunch of bigots, when most of us don’t care about other people’s private lives.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Until they march into a church and demand that they throw out their scriptures or force children to sit through homo-sex-ed in 3rd grade. Then we care a lot. The gaystapo have officially crossed a line.

        1. avatar Derringer Dave says:

          “Until they march into a church and demand that they throw out their scriptures…”
          Paranoid much? I have a lot of gay friends, and none of them have ever “marched into a church and demanded that they throw out their scriptures.”
          Your paranoia and bigotry reminds me of the gun grabbers’ paranoia and bigotry about POTG, thinking that we’re all potential school shooters, so they need to grab all our guns from every law-abiding gun owner, because “today’s law-abiding gun owner is tomorrow’s school shooter,” and they say that any POTG might someday wake up in the morning, go crazy, and decide to shoot up a school. You have the same bigoted paranoia that gay people might someday snap and “march into a church and demand that they throw out their scriptures.”

          Except your paranoia and bigotry is worse, because when has any gay person ever done that? Never. You’re a bigot, plain and simple. If you want to live in a nation that’s bigoted against gays, move to Saudi Arabia or Iran, because your attitude is un-American. Go move to Saudi Arabia or Iran and practice your Sharia law, as it sounds like you love Sharia Law, they’re your kind of people, as the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia are just as bigoted against gays as you are.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        JasonM,

        Pwrserge summed it up quite well.

        My personal position is that homosexual activity is unnatural, perverse, and destructive to society. If homosexuals did nothing more than engage in homosexual sex in private, I would strongly advocate for simple, respectful, and PRIVATE speech statements. Since homosexuals are now actively and openly promoting homosexual lifestyles in schools and public, we have to call them to task. And if calling them to task and getting their attention requires provocative language, so be it.

        Note that the very definition of the word “queer” is unnatural and perverse. That being the case, I am having a hard time seeing the word “queer” being a pejorative.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          Not to mention the TV shows that are written for the middle and high school audience. Maybe they can get kids convinced that Homo is right, it is easier. The guy who is a 4 who wants a 10 girl can get his rocks off with some guy who is a 5 and everyone is happy. What a lifestyle choice.

  12. avatar Geoff says:

    Politically Incorrect, but I don’t care anymore.
    I’m waiting for the day when the Leftist Liberal Anti-American gun grabbers finally discover that the law abiding gun owners who have NOT been the the problem with legally owned guns DO become the problem because of their continued efforts to disarm us.
    It’s a scenario I don’t think they want.

    1. avatar Eddie Hubbard says:

      I agree 100%.

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The Village of Deerfield press release says:

    Over four years ago, the state gave home rule communities a window of time to adopt some form of regulation of assault weapons, with the understanding it could be revisited at a later date.

    If their statement, “with the understanding it could be revisited at a later date,” is accurate, that sounds to me like they could have a rock-solid legal argument.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Oh, that was EVERYONE’S understanding when they passed the FCCA. That is what scares me, because it would not take much to strip out State Preemption if the courts fail to recognize legislative intent. And if the Democrats manages to strip the handgun protections too, it will put every CCL holder at risk. (Braced AR-15 are a hell of a lot more popular now than when Illinois passed the FCCA)

  14. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    All anyone needs to know about the Brady Cabal to Ban All Firearms:

    James Brady = Vegetable Lasagna, that is until he met his way overdue end.

    Sarah Brady = Wrinkled Anti-Gun Harpie & profiteer that is until she up and croaked which wasn’t soon enough to help law-abiding gun owners

    Jake Tapper of Very Fake News CNN was their spokesman, he dated Monica Lewinsky and is virulently anti-gun.

  15. avatar Eddie Hubbard says:

    All I can say it they are eat up with the DUMB ASS, just like all the left. The people are plain ass stupid if they abide by this BULLSHIT. There are a hell of a lot more gun owning people than these nut jobs that run that state. Maybe it’s because I am old & don’t give a damn anymore. These idiots don’t want the problem they are going to create when they try to shove the BS down the law abiding gun owners throat. They better think twice before they go to far.

  16. avatar tom jennings says:

    First of all the government officials are the ones committing the crime . They are to be working for all the people and not on their own agenda . And for the police they are to protect the innocent and should be arresting the criminals and that would be the officials. any public office and law enforcement is funded buy the people the tax payer . Anyone that goes against our constitution is and should be considered a terrorist of our country and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law . So to everyone of the law abiding gun owners I am suggesting you all to group together and remove these non American officials from their position it is your constitutional right as American’s . Don’t Fear we will all die someday and nothing better that protecting your rights . And God Bless

  17. avatar Alan says:

    Correct me if I’ve misunderstood, but I believe that the town ordinance has suffered court rejection.

    1. avatar Eagle1105 says:

      From the article…
      “The court should give its ruling on the petition for a temporary restraining order in the coming days. Not a moment too soon, either.”

      The restraining order was granted. The case still has not been heard in court.

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