Posted on 06/13/2018 8:36:33 AM PDT by rktman
On Tuesday the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) secured an injunction blocking Deerfield, Illinois, pending “assault weapons” ban.
On April 3, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Deerfield was not only banning said weapons but empowering its chief of police to confiscate them and destroy them. He would also be empowered to confiscate and destroy “high capacity” magazines. On April 5, 2018, Breitbart News reported that SAF filed suit against Deerfield, claiming the village’s “assault weapons” ban violated Illinois’ preemption law. SAF’s lawsuit was joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The case was filed on State law preemption grounds not constitutional grounds so it probably will never make it to the federal court system.
Must remember to read the details. DOH!
I guess even state pre-emption laws are not enough. For example: Denver law bans assault weapons and the open carry of firearms. In 2003, the Colorado General Assembly passed laws preempting these and several other pre-existing Denver laws, which Denver successfully challenged in Denver District Court in 2004. In 2006, the Colorado Supreme Court let stand the District Court order upholding the Denver laws.
Not sure what drives the case in one state to a state supreme court while in another state it goes to a federal district judge.
Perhaps money is the driver. Must cost much more to go federal.
Or, time, to go state rather than federal.
It's already gone to SCOTUS, and they refused to hear it. See my #6 above.
I think another poster got it. If the case were about constitutionality or the law, then it would be federal. But apparently the case was about the sates pre-emption law, so it stayed in the states court system. Still, it is just frustrating that pre-emption can mean different things in different states, or rather be found to be a legal construct in one state, but apparently not another. Anyone know what the definition of ‘is’ is these days?
[[He would also be empowered to confiscate and destroy “high capacity” magazines.]]
This IS gun confiscation- We are experiencing true gun confiscation in this country- state by state- This is how it begins- Someone else decides what we need or don’t need- and they come and take those previously legal things from us and destroy them
[[The case was filed on State law preemption grounds]]
Apparently staTE preemption law supersedes constitutional/inalienable rights?
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Both are totally separate, individual causes of action. A State preemption claim is pretty easy to prove whereas most of these cases brought on constitutional grounds have lost. Thus, they go with the claim most likely to win.
It is my understanding that much of the Denver “carve out” is related to the Colorado Constitution which allows for home rule cities. Since Denver existed prior to the creation of the State of Colorado, it qualifies as a home rule city.
To change this, a change to the state constitution would be required to remove the home rule exemption.
So is Boulder also using the same carve out for its more recent local ban? Seems like most towns would have been present prior to the state creation.
[[Both are totally separate, individual causes of action.]]
The federal constitutionally affirmed inalienable right to defend oneself —should— extend to everyone nationally- The right to defend oneself should include the right to have effective means of defense against a well armed criminal society or rogue government or hostile foreign entity- but apparently some states feel they have a right to supersede the Constitution and our inalienable rights-
[[A State preemption claim is pretty easy to prove]]
How do you prove a state has a right to violate an inalienable right?
Why would you try to prove such a thing when it has nothing to do with a State preemption claim?
[[Why would you try to prove such a thing when it has nothing to do with a State preemption claim? ]]
What do you mean it has nothing to do with preemptive law? The state is preempting federal law- and the constitution (claiming they have a right to do so =-for the protection of it’s citizens)- by passing laws in the state that prevent people from being able to adequately protect themselves against superiorly armed enemies.
Unless I’m missing something- We have a federally confirmed right to an inalienable right to defend ourselves- but the state thinks it has the right to preempt that that constitutionally affirmed right- Why shouldn’t this go to federal court? Our federally confirmed right is being denied-
[[Why would you try to prove such a thing when it has nothing to do with a State preemption claim? ]]
The state is claiming they have a right to preempt the constitutional right to own firearms, to ban certain guns and clips and gun features- They claim this ‘;right’ on the basis that it is ‘to protect citizens’ Yet they are not protecting citizens by limiting their means of self defense- they are endangering them
As I understand it the state is denying the locality’s attempt to ban firearms.
The state in this case is on the side of the 2nd while the city is on the communists side.
[[As I understand it the state is denying the locality’s attempt to ban firearms.]]
I guess I’ve misunderstood the issue- I thought the state was claiming the preemptive right to ban certain things- I read it quick and assumed the judge had stopped Illinois itself- but i see now it’s just the district-
Is the case citing the state’s preemptive ‘right’? Or federal preemptive ‘right’? I know in NY when they passed their unconstitutional ‘safe act’ it was done, apparently, as a preemptive measure based on the false claim of ‘imminent need’- The state essentially said that their right to control guns was more important than the federally protected right to own guns- and they did so based on again, the false claim of ‘imminent need’
At any rate- I see i misunderstood the crux of this case- Thanks for pointing out that the state is upholding the constitution so far in this case-
State preemption laws just mean a state has fully occupied a particular law subject. That means cities and counties cannot pass laws in that particular subject that go against state law.
That means a uniform set of state laws, instead of a patchwork. So, in the case of firearms, if you are following state law in carry or ownership, you don’t have to worry about breaking the law merely by entering a different county or city jurisdiction.
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.