Deerfield AWB Enjoined

For now at least, the courts aren’t allowing Deerfield to enforce its new “assault weapon” ban.

A judge has temporarily barred Deerfield from enforcing its ban. That’s very good news. This lawsuit against Deerfield is not a Second Amendment lawsuit, but a preemption lawsuit. Deerfield had a safe-storage ordinance on the books for “assault weapons.” Under Illinois’ preemption law, passed with the Concealed Carry bill, existing ordinances were grandfathered, but new ones preempted. Deerfield decided that since they had an assault weapons related ordinance on the books, they could change that into a ban and still claim the grandfathering.

This is good news for us, but not as much as it could have been if it was a Second Amendment case.

15 thoughts on “Deerfield AWB Enjoined”

  1. I think the most significant effect of this case is to put lie to the claim that “nobody wants to ban your guns.”

  2. Need I say that the Deerfield Gun Ban is also a 3rd Amendment issue to. This ordinance would’ve allowed the Police to FORCEFULLY enter and in a sense, “Quarter” themselves into a person’s home against their will and only with the issuance of a “General Warrant”.

    The ordinance also utilizes the RIGHT of Gun Ownership as a measurement to strip people of the property and privacy rights.

    Remember everyone; All 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights are equal to, and, of one another. This Deerfield Gun Ban is just a further showing of how the Political Left has no honoring views of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and is firm in it’s belief and ideology that America is to be forcefully run by the dictatorial totalitarianism of their word, ideology, and actions.

    1. I think it’s a stretch to claim a 3rd Amendment violation; however, there are definitely 4th and 5th Amendment issues involved.

      (I’d only consider it a 3rd Amendment violation if the police forcefully took over a home for the purposes of surveillance of another home, *particularly* if they started treating themselves to the contents of the fridge and cupboard.)

      1. 6th Amendment Violations too. That “Daily $1,000 Fine” definitely throws that Right out the door as well.

  3. Thanks for the explanation on how this all started, Sebastian. Like I mentioned before, my understanding was the legislative package negotiated after the McDonald decision ended any future action on guns at the local level but left current ordinances (unenforceable as it was) in place. The fact that they had to do an end run and insert this language into an existing “safe storage” law is so ridiculous that it actually did get the attention of the judiciary in some way. If this injunction hadn’t happened, just think what this would portend for lawmaking bodies in general (and not just on gun rights).

  4. Deerfield is still going to win. Just like Boulder. Preemption is going to be tossed out the window because guns. Then when the courts have said preemption is null and void in issues involving guns expect literally hundreds of counties to follow.

    I’m amazed they did this. Only because of preemption. After all all judges hate gun owners.

      1. I LOL’ed at that one. But as I said before many times I have literally zero faith in the courts at all. That most if not all courts are openly hostile to gun rights. It doesn’t matter if it’s a preemption case. It doesn’t matter if it’s a case that has nothing to do with Second Amendment. If firearms are involved the courts will side with the government. And tell me that the pattern that we are seeing isn’t happening: a gun case goes to a district court which side with the government and then the Supreme Court refuses to hear it.

        Am I hoping Deerfield loses? Of course. Same thing with Boulder. And same thing with Oregon When that ballot initiative passes. I’m not a pessimist, I’m an optimist with experience.

    1. The Deerfield Gun Ban has 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendment Violations to it. There are many angles that can be taken to stop this ordinance for good.

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » Good
  6. Got to quit playing defense. We need criminal prosecutions of local officials for denying civil rights under color of law.

Comments are closed.