Posted on 06/12/2018 3:59:56 PM PDT by Simon Green
The Village of Deerfield, Illinois assault weapons ban that would have required residents to turn in or remove their scary black rifles from the town was set to take effect tomorrow. But John Boch reports that after hearing arguments in a suit brought by Guns Save Life and the NRA today, a Lake County circuit court judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the law until the suit can be decided.
The Deerfield law is in direct conflict with Illinois preemption law that prohibits cities from enacting gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law. Deerfield flipped a metaphorical middle finger at that legal restriction, daring someone to challenge them. So far, Guns Save Life and the NRA have been up to the task.
More when the judges opinion becomes available.
Good job. Now put the machinery in place to strike it down.
Good, some judicial sanity.
And on further thought, why just temporary decision? Since the law is in conflict with Illinois preemption, couldn’t the judge just shut it down permanently? Why waste everyone’s time confirming the obvious?
Freedom wins another battle!
Perhaps if you read ......
They only asked for the restraint order. The case on merits of the law has not been brought up yet.
The State of Illinois has a rather strict preemption law. Municipalities are forbidden from passing any law more stringent than State law. There are some exceptions for Home Rule entities but they dont apply to Deerfield.
The Illinois State Rifle Association did yeomans work in conjunction with the Concealed Carry law.
Deerfield will lose this suit.
L
Seems the judge could have gone further since the law is in violation of state law. But, alas, lawyers need to help other lawyers milk the system for billable time. City apparently has some very deep pockets to be enacting a law in direct violation of state law so relieving them of it might be in the public interest.
Hi Reno -
The language of the vernacular for injunctions is that the underlying lawsuit will take time to brief, develop evidence, present argument. So, sometimes a TRO (temporary restraining order) is sought until the case is heard. Its purpose is to hold things in status quo ante (the same as they were before) until the judge has docket time to examine fully all competing issues. Perhaps another way of looking at a TRO is an “emergency” order to hold statuses in the same condition. TROs require a finding by a judge that the injunction will most likely be granted. TROs are usually granted without notice (one of those due process prongs under the Constitution) to the other side. Since this is America, the Communist, gun grabbing politicians have a chance to argue their side of the case, and get their due process.
Gwjack
People here were saying out in CA they are looking to ban AR’s too which I find very hard to believe it would ever pass even for CA
>>Deerfield will lose this suit.
And what are the penalties to the city politicians when they do?
“Seems the judge could have gone further since the law is in violation of state law.”
You can’t settle a case before it is tried.
And what are the penalties to the city politicians when they do?
There are none. Thats up to the voters.
Unfortunately.
L
What would be an exception for a Home Rule entity?
What would be an exception for a Home Rule entity?
Well in Illinois, where ALL politics is corrupt to the core, Home Rule generally only applies when the Illinois Legislature has specifically allowed it in relation to a specific law. For instance the City of Chicago and the County Of Cook were specifically allowed to pass assault weapons bans but NOT allowed to forbid Concealed Carry.
They were permitted to add additional classes in order to make it more difficult and expensive for residents of Chicago to obtain their CCL. The special City class requirement adds another $100 or so to the cost.
However, all State of Illinois CCL are honored in the City no matter where in IL you reside.
Messed up, I know.
L
Great question.
It appears these legislators simply disregarded a law specifically designed to safeguard the rights of local citizens. It could be argued if they did not seek an opinion from the state AG as to the appropriateness of their planned action that they significantly abused their office. Such behavior might be enough to warrant blanket recalls and special elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.