Several Lawsuits Filed On Town Ban

The village of Deerfield, Illinois passed an anti-gun ordinance Monday, and by the end of the week was facing legal challenges.


Deerfield’s Village Board went all-in on a local law to fine those with “assault weapons” and detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds inside the city’s limits as much as $1,000 a day. This sparked the promise of a lawsuit from two gun rights groups Wednesday and the materialization of separate litigation filed Thursday by a Deerfield resident backed by another pair of Second Amendment organizations. With the ban set to take effect in 60 days, advocates felt time was of the essence.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flies in the face of state law,” said Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Gottlieb’s group, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, is supporting a lawsuit by Deerfield resident and gun owner Daniel Easterday against the Chicago suburb’s pending new regulations.

At the root of the case is the legality of Deerfield enacting local controls over guns. As a byproduct of Illinois passing a concealed carry reform law in 2013, a 10-day window allowed cities and counties in the state to pass their own ordinances establishing restrictions on firearms and ammunition. Dozens did, including Deerfield whose board at the time adopted a law regulating how some guns were stored in the city. Once the window closed, state law preempted future ordinances, a point the lawsuit filed Thursday holds as legal kryptonite to Deerfield’s new ban, which the city maintains is just an expansion of their prior regulations.

“While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense,” said Gottlieb.

In addition to the suit from Easterday, the National Rifle Association and Guns Save Life have also announced plans to file legal action against Deerfield.

As for the village, Deerfield posted a statement Thursday saying the board “believes it has acted within its statutory authority and will be evaluating the suit in order to respond appropriately.”



  • American Veteran

    Great job Deerfield dumb asses. Tell the whole country where crooks, robbers and other scum bags can go to commit their crimes and not worry about getting hurt. Because they will be the only ones with a weapon. And how many of the Village Board are protected by armed security or live in a secure gated community or at least have their own firearms ??

    • Terry Butts

      There should be a federal law that any city, county, or state that passes such an ordinance are PROHIBITED from allowing any exemptions for the city employees or city council, that no security armed with the BANNED weapons be allowed to any council members since the COUNCIL are CIVILIANS as well as such security would be CIVILIAN in origin and thus prohibited under the same “law” from having the BANNED weapons.

      Technically even the CIVILIAN police are required to obey this “law” unless an UNCONSTITUTIONAL exemption was made based on their employment.

      Since DISCRIMINATING against anyone based on anything including employment is a violation of US law they can not make a law stating that if a CIVILIAN is employed as a police officer they are EXEMPT from any law that bans a product from civilians.

  • Jenett Morgan

    If you want some where to ROB, RAPE & MURDER go to Deerfield. OPEN SEASON.

    • Joseph Morgan

      I agree it is open season for the criminals in Deerfield. I only hope that the people make sure that all the council persons do not have armed protection or extend themselves the privilege to carry while telling all the citizens that they are not allowed to protect themselves.

  • hottrodscars .

    Sue them for damages for violating Constitutional rights; then you can go after their personal assets as well.

  • Alan404

    Yes, legal action against the town is not surprising. The antics of some courts will be most interesting to observe. That said, what of the possibility of legal actions against individual members of the towns governing body, the group who dreamed up and enacted this legislation.

    • jwright673

      Deerfield must have money to burn because they are going to burn through a bunch of it if they continue with this “law” that is direct conflict with the Constitution. One poster here said to go after the members of council individually which is a great idea. Sue their asses off.

      • Alan404

        The towns liability insurance would likely cover judgements and costs in they loose in court, less a deductible.

        • Public_Citizen

          The Liability Insurance probably has a provision to void coverage where a violation of provisions of the US Constitution or State Law are involved.

          • Alan404

            Would be really interesting to actually know the limitations on the towns insurance, respecting what you mentioned.

          • Public_Citizen

            Stay tuned…..
            We may find out.

  • Gary D Flatt

    The thugs (muzzies) around Dearborn won’t feel safe until the police do a house to house search to make sure that no Americans are still armed.

    • Build The Wall

      Deerfield, Illinois is where this is happening, not Dearborn, Michigan.

      But still, the inbred heathen barbarian savages should NOT feel safe around armed Americans. They should instead relocate back to their sh|thole of origin.

  • marten5

    What do you expect from Communists? They want to control your life from top to bottom.
    When it’s all over, you will not even control your own body, it will belong to the state.

  • Joseph Morgan

    See my response to Jennett Morgan.

  • marcus J

    Supremacy Clause , The City Counsel is in violation of Infringing upon the highest law of our land , Not just some of the United States ! All of the United States , Technically Jerry ( Moonbean ) Brown the so called Governor of the State of Commiefornia / Mexifornia should be arrested by Federal Marshall`s for violating Federal Law and the Constitution , Just one example

  • Build The Wall

    Deerfield seems to be an appropriate name for a place where all the people are about to become prey for their criminal element.

    I daresay that criminals will PREFER to victimize residents of Deerfield, Illinois just like they prefer NOT to victimize residents of Kennesaw, Georgia, which is well-known for its mandatory gun-possession ordinance.,_Georgia

    Kennesaw enacted an ordinance that REQUIRES heads of households to keep a firearm for defense. That ordinance was passed in response to a 1981 ban on handguns by Morton Grove, Illiniois:

    Morton Grove was forced to remove their handgun ban ordinance in 2008 due to a US Supreme Court decision that upheld the RIGHT of Americans to possess firearms.

    Deerfield is a mere 10 miles from Morton Grove. Apparently, they didn’t get the above memo ten years ago about possession of firearms being a RIGHT of Americans.

    If there are any Patriots left in Deerfield, they should run those bums out of office.

  • TimeRanger

    Why isn’t the state Attorney General acting on this?

    • Build The Wall

      Because the Illinois AG is just another Democrook Communist a-hole, that’s why.

  • john

    Chase those jokers out of office, They know not what they do!!!!!

  • Ray Tripp

    We certainly can not allow this communist law to stand! It is a liberal wet dream, and against the people of an American city, by unlawful means, each console member should be in a suit as a threat against the constitution of the United States, with big jail time! They should have to pay for there own defense too

  • Donald Ort

    How far is Deerfield from Chicago? Maybe all the illegal gun owners in Chi could find Deerfield a “Golden Target!!

    WHAT STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Bernie

      I’m a life long Chicagoan. It’s a middle/upper class suburb about 35 miles north of the infamous South Side.
      More than stupid is what’s happening.

  • Kent Powers

    Criminals love & support liberal democrat cartel, why not, most democrats are crooks, do you really think every pimp, drug dealer, thief, murderer, lawbreaker of every kind is not on food stamps, welfare, unemployment, free food, free housing, they don’t work, have plenty of time to do the paper work, file the claims, & have people who will tell them & help them get the free stuff. Take away honest citizens guns, you’ve got yourself the movie The Purge on the city’s streets, really really smart,huh?

  • Paul Thomas

    If you get killed they need to charge the judge for the murder.

  • Bill

    more liberal threatening the citizens. Time to get the liberal A hats out of the office that they were elected to in which they took an oath. How about looking into that part of the scenario.

  • Louis G. Valiante

    You want to take gus away from the innocent people. I want you, if you have guts to go up to a criminal, and tell him you are wanting to take his gun away. PLEASE let me know, because I want to video-tape this incident. Do anyone of you have that kind of guts? I may see you at your final services. Cant you stupids read? Please let mr know so I can take a flight to Ohare.

  • randolph.poole

    I’ve never been to Deerfield and I admit that I don’t know anything about the community. I could be way off base here. However, I have this vision in my head of a very White, very affluent, and very liberal community who has an over-representation of Range Rovers and BMW’s in garages and driveways. This is a perfect “gun free” zone for criminals to visit and apply their skills!

    • Bernie

      I’m a life long Chicagoan.
      Your description is not far off….
      Anything else you want to know, just ask.


    I hope thew city of Deerfield loses.

  • Bob101st

    I have said it before and I will say it again now. Ant-gun activists and the Democrats, want to ban certain firearms or firearm related items, so if by chance, you have these items or refuse to surrender such items, you could conceivably be charged with a felony. If convicted of a felony, violating one of the gun-grabbers new laws, you could be banned from having or owning any firearm, which is the true goal of the Democrat Party and leftist socialists. Remember the quote from our founding fathers; “The easiest way to enslave a people, is to disarm them”. Using fines as a method of getting you to surrender firearms and ammunition, which you legally own, is just another social communists path, to disarming American citizens, and ultimately destroying our Constitution. Everyone owning a firearms, ammunition or firearms related gear, that various governments are trying to ban, should stand together and tell the government “I am not surrendering my 2nd Amendment Rights to you or anyone else. You want my guns, come and take them”. You see. the 2nd Amendment. is primarily in place, for the very actions, the government is taking, in trying to ban your firearms or surrender them. All you gun grabbers can go to hell. God Bless our Constitution, Our Way of Life, and this Great Nation.

    • Public_Citizen

      In addition, if they can make you a felon you are no longer a voter who can vote against the Dementedcrats.

  • Paladin

    I think the ban on knives by the London mayor is even more stoopid!!!

  • Jim Graves

    class action lawsuit against every board member.

  • Terry Butts

    Since ASSAULT weapons must be capable of FULL AUTO or they are not ASSAULT weapons just who are they going to FINE?

    The LEGAL definition of ASSAULT WEAPON comes from the MILITARY decades ago the politicians can not CHANGE IT on a whim to include all SEMI AUTO HUNTING/TARGET guns simply because they DISLIKE that MILLIONS OF CITIZENS WHO NEVER HARMED ANYONE OR HAVE ANY PLANS TO DO SO own them and the GOVERNMENT does not want to do anything about the less than 20 that used them in “mass shootings”(the media falsely refers to any shooting with more than one victim as such even if they have to count the criminal as a victim).

    Frankly that one criminal who killed 84 and injured 202 others used a TRUCK but I see no one trying to REDEFINE trucks as assault trucks and BAN THEM or fine people thousands a day simply because the OWN THE SAME KIND OF TRUCK the criminal USED to commit the crime.

    The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT regulates Full auto weapons to a degree that most if not all ANTI GUN politicians could not pass the requirements to LEGALLY own one and it would be a VIOLATION of the states agreement with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to go after those who DID PASS the requirements and pay the SPECIAL FEES the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT requires for permission to own an ACTUAL ASSAULT WEAPON which would of course have to have been made prior to the 1980s amendment prohibiting NEWLY MANUFACTURED full auto weapons from being sold on the CIVILIAN market.

    Not to mention it is ILLEGAL to RETROACTIVELY enforce a BAN ON SALES to sales that happened long before the law was passed which is EXACTLY what California did when they BANNED the sale of certain guns then went after people who bought them as much as 30 years before the law that prohibited the sale existed.