Deerfield Assault Weapon Ban Challenged In Lake County Court

DEERFIELD, IL — A Deerfield firearms instructor and two gun owner advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the village from enforcing an ordinance trustees approved Monday that defines and bans "assault weapons" and magazines containing more than 10 bullets. The lawsuit argues that Deerfield's ban violates the state law forbidding municipalities from enacting new assault weapon regulations after July 2013. Village officials have contended, however, the ban is merely an amendment to the town's existing regulations on the storage and transportation of such guns.

Daniel Easterday, the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation sued Thursday in Lake County Court, asking a judge to block the village from enforcing its new ban. The suit said the local ordinance is preempted by a pair of state laws, the Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card Act and Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act – both passed in 2013.

Lawmakers in Springfield included the 10-day deadline for towns to pass their own assault weapons regulations as they passed a swath of new laws five years ago, spurred by a court invalidating many of their strict gun regulations to make Illinois the last state to provide a legal route to carrying a concealed weapon.

Several municipalities – Highland Park, Chicago, Skokie and Evanston – enacted outright bans on specified semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns within the allotted time frame. A few others, like Deerfield and Buffalo Grove, passed "placeholder" ordinances at the within the deadline. A bill subsequently submitted by Sen. Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) to re-open the window for new local firearm regulations died in committee.

Both sides now agree the village's previous ordinance passed within the time limit and is lawful. At issue is whether the amendment that passed unanimously Monday expanding the scope of that ordinance is permitted. The state law specifically said municipal gun regulations "may be amended."

That's not what happened here despite the village's claims, according to the legal challenge.

"Rather than being a mere amendment," the ban Deerfield trustees passed unanimously on April 2 "is actually a new ordinance," according to the suit.

The law "does not allow the municipality to broaden the ordinance to the point where it is no longer the same ordinance."

The attorney for Easterday and the two groups, David Sigale, said he was unaware of any precedent for asking a court to determine an amendment should not count as an amendment.

"We're comparing the two ordinance and saying is this merely amending it, or is this just passing something totally different and putting it in the same numbered section and saying, 'Oh it's just an amendment,'" he said. "Clearly, we don't think it is."

For instance, the amended village ordinance includes a completely new provision authorizing local police to confiscate any banned weapon or ammunition magazine and ordering their destruction when they are no longer needed as evidence. And while the previous ordinance had no restrictions on high-capacity magazines, they're now completely banned, his lawsuit noted.

"We don't think the courts will let them get away with that," Sigale said.

Deerfield disagrees.

“Over four years ago, the state gave home rule communities a window of time to pass some type of assault weapon law with the understanding it could be revisited at a later date,” Deerfield Mayor Harriet Rosenthal said.

She directed staff to draft a ban less than a week after the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

"It's my opinion it's entirely lawful, this draft ordinance, under the Second Amendment, as a valid regulation of assault weapons, and as a valid Home Rule ordinance to amend the villages prior regulation of assault weapons to ban assault weapons – the possession, manufacture and sale of them within the village of Deerfield," Village Attorney Matthew Rose said, upon its March 5 introduction.

The language of the recently adopted amendment to Deerfield's ordinance was modeled closely on Highland Park's, which has so far survived Second Amendment challenges in federal court.

In 2014, Highland Park's ban was challenged by local gun owner Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The following year the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided 2-1 in favor of the city and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, effectively leaving it in place.

"A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs," wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook in the majority decision. "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events."

Judge Daniel Manion dissented, writing that the ban was directly at odds with 2008's D.C. v. Heller, and 2010's McDonald v. Chicago. He said there was no evidence for Easterbrook's supposition.

"The court is not empowered to uphold a regulation as constitutional based solely on its ability to diving public sentiment about the matter," he wrote. "[T]he right to keep arms in the home for self-defense is central to the Second Amendment and is not conditioned on any association with a militia. Instead of following this clear principle, the court engages in a gerrymandered reading of those cases to hold directly contrary to their precedents."

The recently filed legal challenge does not address those Second Amendment questions. Instead, it solely deals with whether the ban conflicts with state law.

The named plaintiff in the challenge, Easterday, is a Deerfield resident who told trustees that he moved his family from Highland Park in 2014 after the neighboring town "gave in to fear" with its weapon ban. He described himself as a pistol instructor and recreational shooter, and he is a member of the other two organizations signed on the suit.

With the ban set to go into effect in June, "irreparable harm is imminent" for Easterday, according to the suit.

Speaking during several sessions of public comment during discussions of the ban, he said that forcing him to travel outside city limits in order to access his firearms was "inherently less safe."

"Everybody assembled here who is for gun control says, 'Well you may be a good person but because of these things that we're scared of, we're worried that it's going to go do bad things,' instead of embracing myself and the other members of the community who are gun owners," Easterday said.

"The legal gun owners in the United States are responsible for such an infinitesimal number of crimes that it can't even be studied. There's no tracking it."

His backers in lawsuit from the state rifle association said everyone is looking for solutions to criminal violence.

"But enacting bad public policy for the sake of 'doing something' is not the answer. Lawful citizens should not be forced to pay penance for the misdeeds of others," ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said in a release. "Our lawsuit demonstrates our willingness and resolve to protect the constitutional rights of the good people of Illinois."

Easterday had urged the board to provide exemptions for retired law enforcement officers and those – like him – with state-issued concealed carry permits.

An amendment was eventually added for retired police, but not for permit holders.

"To require lawful owners who have been background checked multiple times to dispose of lawfully owned property is not the way to do this," Easterday told the village's elected officials. "We are literally the safest members of your community."

The ban takes effect June 13.

“We hope that our local decision helps spur state and national leaders to take steps to make our communities safer,” Mayor Rosenthal said.

A status hearing in the Lake County case has been set for July 5.

Read More:

• Deerfield Moves Forward With Assault Weapons Ban
  
• Deerfield Assault Weapon Ban Set For Final Approval
  
• Deerfield Bans Assault Weapons, High-Capacity Magazines

Relevant Portion: 2013 Firearm Owners Identification Card Act

Sec. 13.1. Premption.
...
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly. Any ordinance or regulation described in this subsection (c) enacted more than 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly is invalid. An ordinance enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly may be amended. The enactment or amendment of ordinances under this subsection (c) are subject to the submission requirements of Section 13.3. For the purposes of this subsection, "assault weapons" means firearms designated by either make or model or by a test or list of cosmetic features that cumulatively would place the firearm into a definition of "assault weapon" under the ordinance.

Full Document: Complaint in Easterday et al vs Village of Deerfield (18-CH-427)