Village of Deerfield Appeals Guns Save Life’s Win In Blocking Gun, Magazine Ban

Village of Deerfield photo via Facebook.

The Village of Deerfield tried to do an end run around Illinois’ preemption rules to pass a so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazine” ban. Guns Save Life promptly filed suit and won a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law. About a month ago, GSL won a permanent injunction blocking enforcement.

Regrettably, the Village of Deerfield didn’t get the message about infringing on the civil rights of the village’s residents and visitors. Just like southern communities that voted for Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise blacks in an earlier time, today’s Village of Deerfield board jumped back in with both feet and voted unanimously to appeal the judge’s decision to an Illinois Appellate Court.

The Chicago Tribune has the story:

The Village of Deerfield plans to appeal a judge’s March 22 ruling permanently blocking the village from enforcing a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

In a short statement Tuesday, the village announced that Mayor Harriet Rosenthal and the village board had unanimously agreed April 15 to appeal the ruling of Lake County Circuit Court Judge Luis Berrones to the Illinois Appellate Court.

In that ruling, Berrones contended that Deerfield overstepped its authority in April 2018 when it enacted a ban on assault weapons after the Illinois legislature had declared such regulations to be the exclusive power of the state.

Gun rights’ groups that filed suit against Deerfield include Guns Save Life, which has the backing of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action; the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

In 2013, the Illinois legislature had given municipalities until July 19 to enact assault weapons regulations before a new Illinois Concealed Carry Act and an amended Firearm Owner’s Identification Card Act eliminated their ability to do so. Timely laws could later be amended, state statute specified.

Deerfield officials assert that the 2018 ban on assault weapons is an amendment to a 2013 ordinance that defined assault weapons and required their safe storage and transportation within the village.

Recall how the Brady Campaign’s lawyers and Perkins Coie, the firm tied to the Clinton Foundation, have partnered with Deerfield to argue against civil rights. Meanwhile, on the other side Guns Save Life, with support from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action argues for the cause of freedom.

Then there’s the fact that Deerfield’s arguments supporting the need for their would-be radical gun ban make no sense. We covered some of them earlier right here.

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments

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.

I serve as Guns Save Life’s Executive Director and we look forward to our day at the Appellate Court.

Interestingly enough the Illinois Supreme Court just ruled in the unanimous Webb decision that categorical bans on commonly used “arms” is unconstitutional. So if stun guns and TASERs are in “common use” in Illinois, as noted by the Illinois Supreme Court, then America’s favorite rifle and similar modern sporting rifles certainly share that common use designation.

In other words, the Brady legal team and the Village’s Clinton-affiliated law firm will have tough sledding to enact their scheme to deny village residents their rights.

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    Go get’em GSL! Deerfield is a low crime mostly white burb. You go through it on the tollway.
    My brother got a doctorate( in Hebrew!) from Trinity college there. And the weenies who live there must enjoy having their $ wasted…😏

  2. avatar Deer in headlights says:

    Rope!

    Anyone in a BlindDEERField paying taxes should be outraged!

    These idiots are fighting a serious precedent and US Constitution….as to say black is actually white!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Perkins Coie is doing the case pro bono, as I recall, meaning that it isn’t costing the Village a dime. IF the recent Illinois supreme Court case on tasers is applicable, then the appeal is frivolous. I wonder how that makes the Perkins Coie partners feel knowing that it is their profits that are paying the freight.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “I wonder how that makes the Perkins Coie partners feel knowing that it is their profits that are paying the freight.”

        Hell, they are just fine with it.

        They consider it an investment in their Leftist utopia…

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mark N.,

        IF the recent Illinois supreme Court case on tasers is applicable, then the appeal is frivolous.

        How could that case possibly not apply?

      3. avatar Chicago Steve says:

        Two things:

        1. Perkins Cole is the counsel in this case, but they are not actually doing it Pro Bono. They are doing it at a reduced cost and being paid by Brady. Brady is footing most of the bill here.

        2. Just because it is being defended Pro Bono, that doesn’t mean there’s zero cost to taxpayers. For that to be true, that would mean there are no meetings, phone calls, discussions, etc being done by paid village officials.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If it is being paid for by Brady (ie, Bloomberg!), why the hell are they accepting a reduced price?

      4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        There needs to be a penalty such as disbarment for a year or permanent for appealing a decision that is so obviously frivolous.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          For the entire company/partnership.

  3. avatar possum says:

    Okay, I’ll give this a shot. I don’t know nothing about laws, states, cities and what can and can’t be done. But I’m thinking if a city says “we don’t want to gunms ” and the vast majority of that city agree, then the Gov. ain’t got no say so. I don’t like your town laws, and the city ain’t getting no more of my taxes, adios.

    1. avatar possum says:

      to= no, my tail slipped

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Your tail seems to slip a bit when you’ve been into the fire-water, doesn’t it, Possum? 😉

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I just assume he’s suffering the after effects of spider venom.

        2. avatar possum says:

          When you feel the snake bite run through your veins. No firewater

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      What about if a city says they don’t want to allow any churches? Would you just say “adios” and not complain?

      There’s a disturbing trend on this site where the first reaction to a rights violation is to retreat if you live there, or blame those that do live there for not retreating.

      Should freedom-loving people just retreat from California? And everywhere else and just all go to Idaho or Alaska? Maybe they could set up special reservations for us in North Dakota and Oklahoma?

      Should George Washington have just retreated out west instead of fighting?

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        How would you “fight”?
        In courts stacked against You?
        At ballot boxes where you are outnumbered?
        Against laws enforced by armed police?

        Yeah, didn t think so.

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          The courts seem to be supporting us in this case, why retreat?

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          Right up until they don’t. And at that point the actions will be swift and permanent.
          Do you think guns will be returned once confiscated?

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I won’t need mine returned.

      2. avatar Jonndoe says:

        Should freedom-loving people just retreat from California?

        HELL YES…..by the millions and now, the place Is nothing but a steaming political shithole we need to put up a wall around It,declare It a separate country,declare war on It and then nuke the entire site from orbit…It’s the only way to be sure.
        Be a good lesson to the other States who think It’s a good Idea to try and violate the Constitutional rights of the people.
        But hey…That’s just my opinion.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Not bad!

        2. avatar Brian says:

          Nuke CA from orbit…..
          Right. Because nuclear fallout and radiation will be contained to just the blast site(s) and certainly won’t spread to Vegas or Phoenix or other places.

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      Constitutional rights are the supreme law of the land. That’s why we have them. So that limits what Podunk towns and shitties (pun intended) can do

  4. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Hell yeah GSL, good work boys!

  5. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    I’m wondering if the whole town is anti-gun. Are there ANY people there that like guns? Is it like Oak Park, where a few people have guns but no one knows about it? Where 99% of the town is left of left.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Are there ANY people there that like guns?”

      The ones that do keep a low profile, Vic. They don’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t think like they do…

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Yeah, reminds me of the “Hate-doesn’t-live-here” crowd, who hates more than any other group. (And who loves as much as the “religion of peace” loves.)

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          our neighbor’s sign has been modified. it now has an addendum, “but it couch surfs once in a while.”
          pretty easy to modify those “vote like your rights depended on it” bumper stickers, too.

          deerfield ain’t all that. residents stopped development of housing to be made available to minorites in ’59. they remain .3% dark. plenty of original middle class homes and gi bill homes, but tons of starter castles in the last few decades too. and all that that implies.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Is it a real-life Pleasantville?

  6. avatar strych9 says:

    I can’t say I’m shocked. I would expect GSL to win going forward though.

  7. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Calling people like that control freaks is being way to nice.
    Call them what they are.
    Idiots who should be kicked out of their jobs. Fined and jailed.

    Only way to end this BS correctness.
    Don’t show them any for petes sake.
    Call a jackass a jackass already.

  8. avatar I1uluz says:

    Did their “something has to be done” law(s) have a cutout for their police department? If so then my post is a mote point, if not did the police sell or destroy their mags and evil black rifles and pistols when the ban took effect?
    The judges most likely would not like a “Do as I say, not as I do” defense if they didn’t do the cutout for LE.

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    Trump should relocate a few hundred young Hispanic male immigrants into Deerfield and let nature take its course

  10. avatar BatPenguin says:

    I am from Illinois, Southern Illinois to be more precise, and I am a member of GSL. When my step-son graduates high school in four years we are moving across the river to the Missouri side of St. Louis. I grew up in Illinois but I just can’t keep supporting a state that does not even care about its citizens.

  11. avatar DrDKW says:

    Oh No! They need the police ones to go after the civilian ones!

  12. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Assault rifles are only for killing people by the hundreds!
    They have no other use.
    That is why only the police should have them!
    /sarc

  13. avatar Jbw says:

    There is something very wrong with the air or water around Deerfield. The village, township and state politicians are all gun grabbers. The township idiot wanted your Facebook and other social media stuff reviewed before you could buy a gun

  14. avatar Thomas Karones says:

    Gun grabbers aren’t prone to allow logic or the truth to interfere with their desires to disarm the public! They will deliberately distort facts and figures to advance their goal of complete disarmament of all private citizens!

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