SAF Wins Injunction Against Deerfield IL’s Assault on 2A

Second Amendment Foundation call to action for donations

Deerfield IL jumped in with both feet when it entered the foray to be what many would consider to be the most oppressive gun control community in the nation. Fortunately, it looks like local lawmakers bit off more than they could chew when they went after the Second Amendment rights of citizens, thanks to the efforts of pro 2A groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association.

Second Amendment Foundation call to action for donations
SAF and ISRA had challenged the ban on the grounds that it violates the state’s preemption law that was adopted in 2013. That change amended state statute that declared “the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State.

A circuit court judge in Lake County, Illinois has granted an injunction against the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, blocking the village from enforcing a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and handing a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday, who is a lawful firearms owner. SAF and ISRA had challenged the ban on the grounds that it violates the state’s preemption law that was adopted in 2013. That change amended state statute that declared “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…”

There was a short grace period during which municipalities in the state could change or adopt their gun laws, and Deerfield maintained that its ban was merely an amendment to an earlier ordinance that regulated firearms.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flew in the face of state law,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The village tried to disguise its extremism as an amendment to an existing ordinance. The ordinance bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.

“Worse, still,” he added, “the ordinance also provided for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines. It was outrageous that the ban would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refused to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village. This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns.’”

Plaintiffs were represented by Glen Ellyn attorney David Sigale.

Do you believe the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association will be successful in defending the Second Amendment rights of the residents of Deerfield IL against a ban of “so-called” assault weapons? Share your answer in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog. "The Shooter's Log", is to provide information - not opinions - to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decicions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (19)

  1. It’s sad that gun owners even have to fight uninformed gun grabbers in our free America. Chicago with it’s unconstitutional gun control is a model of how their unconstitutional gun control DOES NOT work.

  2. I really do hope all Americans stand up for their rights to own and bear arms. As the filthy scum Prime Minister of Australia named John Howard illegally stole the weapons of all Australians. And masses of sackless Australian cowards allowed it to happen. Fight for the god given rights you have to your last breath and never allow the corrupt and unlawful governing bodies attempt to convince you that they have the right to implement laws when ever they please because it either a. Disarms the people or b. Makes them money. F@ck them…..f@ck them all.

  3. I sure hope the GCers lose… I live in the town next door…
    So long as the injunction holds until the case winds it’s way to the state and perhaps then national supreme courts, i may be dead, or at least out of ILL by then.

  4. I certainly hope they are successful. It would send a powerful message to other municipalities contemplating violating our rights

  5. As always, Communists want their serfs (citizens) to be disarmed as far as possible. It is past time for a clear, unambiguous ruling by the Supreme Court. That court passed up a chance to that recently and Clarence Thomas and another justice wrote a scathing commentary on the courts reluctance to make a clear ruling. I don’t know why the Supreme Court writes such narrow rulings that States and other localities feel they can still infringe on our rights. The Heller decision contained one sentence that doomed us to on-going attacks on our rights. Here it is:

    ÔÇ£Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.ÔÇØ

  6. Other than the fact that an AR-15 an “Assault Weapon” or “Assault Rifle”, it’s good news for the Constitutional protection of citizens’ rights under the 2nd Amendment. Stop buying into the Leftist hoplophobes’ narrative and using their terminology. The German SturmGewehr-44 was an “Assault Rifle”, the AR-15 is a shoulder held, gas operated, magazine fed, center fire semi-automatic carbine that fires a medium powered round significantly less powerful than the popular and venerable old Winchester .30-30.

    1. @Neal — Here in America there is no such thing as an “ASSAULT RIFLE” as you correctly mention “Sturmgewehr” StG-44 is the German origin of assault rifle. Sturm is the word for storm as in the Storm troopers which Schutzstaffel was thought to have meant the Schutzstaffel (protection squad) were the first to be assigned this waffen (weapon) because of it’s limited effective range. The left attempts to employ that politically correct term for it’s shock value designed to scare (intimidate) those who are of weak character to go along with and support their usurpetive unconstitutional and illegal idiot-ology.

      AR is what the Armalite Corporation (manufacturers of the M-16) labeled product. We Marines labeled them as the MM-16 for Matty Mattel toy gun

  7. It is interesting that even the NRA is unaware of IL preemption law. I just watched a Grant Stitchfield show and he reported that the state didn’t have a preemption law and that’s why Deerfield was attempting this and that the injunction issued by the court was on 2nd Amendment grounds. I know that another community had such a law that had to be repealed due to the new preemption clause passed by the state. Same as Chicago had to repeal their handgun ban at the same time. I live just across the river in MO. So, I’m wondering who is correct?

  8. I am sincerely hoping that the Deerfield politicians get handed their lunches over this blatant and despicable display of governing above the law and the constitution. This is exactly the attitude of gun grabbers that if not fought and put in their place from groups like the SRA, SAF and the NRA they just run amok and think they can do as they please removing others rights and then want to charge them $1,000/day if they do not comply. I hope Deerfield residents pay close attention to whom they voted into office so they don’t make the same blundering mistake twice! What a bunch A-holes!

  9. As a conservative I will always defend the constitution, and yet it does not escape my attention that those who share my political views are in favor of local laws being supreme… unless those laws are ones we don’t like. Hypocrisy will continue to damn us in the eyes of the young.

    1. There is no hypocrisy here. Unconstitutional law can’t be passed at any level. Local law can’t reinstate slavery or abolish suffrage for women either. There is also the matter of preemption if it exists in state law for Ill. Simple answers to the mushy brained young folks there.

  10. I certainly hope so. I’m having trouble understanding how something guaranteed, needs to be defended. Or interpreted. I mean really…come on now. Its not even 30 words. How much fluctuation can there possibly be in their meaning. My oath of service NEVER needed any “interpretation”.
    So, to me, any attempt to alter the original amendment, is by its very action, unconstitutional.

    As always
    Carry on

    1. Well said! Those of us who have taken that Oath fully understand. Sadly, those who haven’t taken that Oath may never fully understand.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.