Judge Grants Guns Save Life’s Motion to Block Deerfield Gun Ban

Yesterday proved a bad day for the Village of Deerfield, Illinois. A Lake County judge savaged the Village’s new gun ban ordinance, hours before its implementation was to take effect. In a 20-page decision, Judge Luis Berrones granted Guns Save Life‘s and the NRA-ILA’s motion for a temporary restraining order. What’s more, the decision proved a big defeat for the three law firms representing Deerfield.

The NRA-ILA trumpeted the win in a press release.

Temporary restraining order issued by circuit court bars enforcement of Deerfield ordinance 

The National Rifle Association scored a significant victory on behalf of law-abiding gun owners with the issuance of a temporary restraining order in the case of Guns Safe Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The temporary restraining order issued by the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, Illinois bars the Village of Deerfield’s enforcement of an ordinance that bans possession of certain firearms and prohibits possession of ammunition magazines that are standard for many of the nation’s most common handguns and rifles.

“The NRA-backed challenge to the Village of Deerfield ’s ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines has cleared its first hurdle in the legal process,” said Chris W. Cox, the executive director of NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “Deerfield’s ordinance violates Illinois law, and we are prepared to fight this anti-self defense ordinance until it’s overturned in court.”

“This ruling is a significant victory because it allows law-abiding Deerfield residents to keep commonly owned firearms and magazines in their homes for self-defense while the case proceeds,” said John Boch, Executive Director of Guns Save Life. “We are gratified by the court’s decision.”

Absent the temporary restraining order the ordinance would have gone into effect on June 13, 2018.

Guns Save Life filed the suit in April with support from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. At the same time, money seems to be no object to the Village of Deerfield’s political leaders when it comes to their Quixotic quest to impose gun control upon residents and visitors.

The northern suburb has retained outside counsel to defend their flawed gun ban. They now have a high-priced Chicago law firm (with ties to the Clinton Foundation and Fusion GPS) representing them, along with the Brady Campaign. The Village also pays another Chicago law firm to represent them as well.

We covered some of their, uh, novel legal arguments earlier.

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessary “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.

But all those high-priced white shoe lawyers couldn’t block Guns Save Life’s motion for a temporary restraining order.   In the end, the judge found:

(1) The 2018 Ordinance is preempted by the FOIDCA and the FCCA and therefore unenforceable.  (2)  The 2018 Ordinance is a new ordnance (sic) and not an amendment of the 2013 Ordinance and is therefore preempted by FOIDCA and FCCA.  (3)  The 2018 Ordinance does not prohibit ownership or possession of large capacity magazines. …

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.  A temporary restraining order is issued enjoining the defendant Village of Deerfield, its agents, officials or police department from enforcing any provision of the 2018 Ordinance relating to the ownership, possession, storage or transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazines within the Village of Deerfield.

Clearly, the judge found all manner of flaws in the Village’s so-called “amended” ordinance. If the judge’s preliminary findings hold, Deerfield will have a tough and expensive road ahead to keep their beloved ordinance.

Meanwhile, the Illinois State Rifle Association, with the support of the Second Amendment Foundation, has filed a similar suit against Deerfield. Like the Guns Save Life suit, the ISRA suit seeks to invalidate the Village’s “amended” ordinance banning guns based upon cosmetic appearances.

Judging by the SAF’s press release, it appears they got a similar ruling in the ISRA/SAF suit, too.

Guns Save Life looks forward to defending Deerfield gun owners’ right to defend themselves as this case winds its way through the courts. And GSL hopes ISRA and SAF continue with their suit because, well, as the old expression goes, two is one, and one is none.

Regardless of which suit permanently blocks this local gun ban in its tracks, job #1 remains stopping these gun-grabbing bigots.

comments

  1. avatar Nigel the Expat says:

    Until it gets appealed and finally gets to a progressive judge or panel (“appeal until we find a judge that thinks guns are icky”).

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Ginsburg just turned 85, Kennedy is about to turn 81, and Breyer is about to turn 80. Hopefully by the time this case gets through the appeals process, Clarence Thomas will get his wish, and the court will hear an “assault weapon” ban.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        That all assumes Trump and Republicans can keep the presidency/Senate until RBG dies. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      All on the taxpayer’s back. 😀

      1. avatar KBonLI says:

        Why are the citizens of Deerfield allowing such a waste of money?

  2. avatar Ogre says:

    Good for you, your organization and the NRA-ILA, Mr. Boch – I hope the judge’s injuction against Deerfield becomes permanent. Good also on the Illinois State Rifle Association, with the support of the Second Amendment Foundation, for filing their suit (and apparently getting a similar temp injunction). The People of the Gun and their organizations can’t be too zealous when it comes to opposing BS like Deerfield tried to pull.

  3. avatar little horn says:

    a breath of fresh air this is.

    1. avatar Master Bloving says:

      Celebrating too soon, we are!
      Continue to fight the power, we must!
      🤠

  4. avatar WhiteDevil says:

    What is the attitude of the Deerfield police department? Just another Jersey-esque group of gestapo foot soldiers or a decent department?

    1. avatar Time4truth says:

      Horrible. I grew up in the area. Super liberal all the way around. I’m shocked they judge ruled in their favor on the TRO. Judges are elected and I’m sure this guy will be fighting for his life. Lake county is a little better then cook but only a little. This is a massive victory for the rule of Law. My every instinct had them losing this because of the hard left bent.

  5. avatar sound awake says:

    doesnt matter

    pritzger is up by 18 points in the polls

    when pritzger wins the governors race madigan and cullerton will pass this same law and place it on his desk and he will sign it before the ink is even dry

    this changes nothing

    move out of illinois

    oh yeah and dont forget pritzger ACTUALLY RAN ON RAISING TAXES

    so even if by some miracle the gun legislation doesnt pass taxes are going up up up

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      Don’t be such a Debbie Downer! Sitting on the couch caterwauling about the hopelessness of our cause is exactly what Mssrs. Bloomberg and Soros would like you to do. Get off the couch, take action and take a stand.

      Folks said Donald Trump didn’t stand a chance and that we wouldn’t have any guns after Hillary was elected. You know what’s missing from that defeatist worldview from 2015 and 2016? Hillary in the White House.

      We work on one problem at a time. We’re four plus months out from the election. That’s an eternity.

      John

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        I dunno John, the fat lady is warming up.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Blah blah blah. The betch(s) has been warming up for at least 50yrs. Yet the “leading” one was REJECTED Nov 2016.

    2. avatar Ironhead says:

      Leaving next week. Lived in il for 42 years and im done.

  6. avatar raptor jesus says:

    It’s a TRO – judges almost always grant them until the case can be heard. This isn’t a big victory, it’s a procedural norm.

    1. avatar P Hall says:

      However, the judges language in this case may indicate that it wasn’t even a close call. Deerfield seemed to be going out of their way to flout procedural norms.

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Well that’s swell…as mentioned it’s going to get MUCH worse in ILLinoisistan. Indiana beckons but until if/ when I move I’ll just deal with this morally and fiscally bankrupt state. Keep yer powder dry😡

  8. avatar Mark says:

    I left Illinois at 18 when I went to college. Glad I never made it back, albeit I eventually ended up in WA which isn’t much better!!! It sure is beautiful here, but me thinks I’ll be in Idaho someday….

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Unless you’re in Seattle, WA is 100% better than Illinoisistan. Even if you are in Seattle, it’s still 95% better. No FOID card nonsense, shall-issue CCW for cheap, and open-carry legal statewide by default. And Seattle is indeed a progtard infestation of giant proportions, but it isn’t anything like the cancer that is Chicago (yet).

      Granted, with the progtards building to critical mass in SeaTac and our own homegrown billionaire quislings convincing masses of morons to vote our rights away, there are ugly storm clouds looming…but we’re not done for yet, not by a long shot.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Thankfully I don’t live in Seattle, but I do live in King County. We did put up a great fight in the legislative session this year. It could have been worse. It is exhausting having to fight every damn year. I put incredible amounts of time contacting legislators after work that I often feel it is a second job. It just infuriates me that I have to fight for a god given right. In Idaho, they don’t have to put up with this shit year after year. And don’t even get me start about the initiative that will be on the ballot in November. Creates a rifle registry. This is why I’ll be completing my rifle collection before it goes into effect.

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    Clearly it’s not about Deerfield Ill, it’s about setting precedence. The SCOTUS needs to stop avoiding this issue while they ponder wedding cakes.

  10. avatar Anon in Ct says:

    Unfortunately, this ban was so badly executed, and in such flagrant violation of the State Preemption Law and the Fifth Amendment, that it is highly unlikely to generate a useful precedent in the fight against various State AWBs implemented in a more competent and less facially draconian manner.

  11. avatar neiowa says:

    Why “TEMPORARY”? Judgiepoo sman up or buy a pair and find the SOBs in contempt and issue a permanent injunction.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    In a way, such an order saves the town (er the taxpayers) as the implementation of such a facially illegal law would likely cause much more in the way of monetary damages than if it is blocked beforehand.

  13. avatar @joe4gov says:

    Let’s Keep our guns & ban dirty, lying, scumbag politicians!

    Preparetotakeamericaback.com

  14. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

    WrongThinkers never get an injunction in their favor. Maybe, just maybe, after the last appeal is exhausted, somebody will think about enforcing what you’ve “won.” Or just ignore what it says, kinda like Heller.

    RightThinkers, in contrast, get an injunction just for filing, no matter how ridiculous or flawed the “case.” When they as usual lose, enforcement takes any intermediate judgment, injunction or so on as the basis for what they do.

    It’s like nobody here understands how the justice system works.

  15. avatar Alan says:

    The village has hired many lawyers to defend it’s actions or antics. Interestingly, their legislative game playing attacks both the rights and the pocketbooks of law abiding residents, for re monies paid to the village’s legal eagles, where in the last analysis, does this money come from?

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