Cook County IL: Have you complied?
<http://isra.org/>
ANALYSIS OF COOK COUNTY
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Effective November 14, 2006, a Cook County gun ban Ordinance criminalizes the otherwise lawful possession of many common firearms and large capacity magazines. The law provides for imprisonment up to 6 months, fines, and confiscation and destruction of the enumerated weapons. Owners of such firearms or large capacity magazines have until February 12, 2007 to either remove the affected guns and remove any large capacity magazines from Cook County or surrender them to the police for destruction.
What firearms and magazines are affected by this county wide ban? Over 60 firearms are specifically listed as being illegal, including the deer rifle popular in many Midwest states, the SKS with a detachable magazine. Popular self defense weapons like the Mossberg 500 pump, and popular target shooting semiautomatic AR-15 are also illegal. In addition, all magazines that can hold more than 10 shells are banned.
The Ordinance specifically bans any semiautomatic s hotgun that has a fixed magazine with a capacity in excess of five rounds. Since shotgun shell rounds can be obtained in sizes as short as 2 inches, the ordinance can be construed to ban all common semiautomatic shotguns.
In addition to banning over 60 enumerated firearms, the Ordinance defines certain banned firearms with catch-all definitions. One such carefully worded definition bans any semiautomatic rifle that need not have, but has the ability to accept a large capacity magazine and has,
"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel,"
A standard dictionary definition of the word shroud is, "something that covers, screens, or guards." The ordinance defines this "shroud" as something that allows the holding of the rifle in the off hand that would keep the shooter's off hand from being burned. The Ordinance only excludes from this categorization a "slide," a term usually applying to the top piece of a semiautomatic handgun. Missing from the exclusion is any verbiage about "the forearm assembly," "fore-end," or "stock". An arguable interpretation of the word "shroud" as used in the Cook County Ordinance would include the standard forearm or stock that allows normal two handed shooting.
In determining the likelihood of Ordinance being interpreted to cover all standard semiautomatic rifles, we can look to the past history in Cook County. The current and prior States Attorneys of Cook County have previously interpreted criminal statutes in an unreasonable manner to justify charging otherwise law a biding citizens with gun possession crimes. These prior anti-gun interpretations have defied common sense and contradicted prior case law. Because the interpretations have been publicly stated to be the official interpretation, all Cook County Assistant States Attorneys are required to use them in determining what charges would be filed. One of the recent examples of the way Cook County prosecutors interpret the law unreasonably has been their failure to acknowledge that current state law allows the carrying of an unloaded gun in specially designed fanny packs. One would expect the Cook County States Attorney's Office to continue their tradition of interpreting gun laws in a manner to include as many gun owners as possible, and therefore to start charging under the new Ordinance owners of semiautomatic firearms that could be held by two hands, which is for all practical purposes, all semiautomatic rifles.
For a listing of the enumerated firearms that are banned, and the exac t wording of the ordinance, see the third Ordinance listed:
www.cookctyclerk.com/html/111406orddoc.htm: <http://www.cookctyclerk.com/html/111406orddoc.htm>
What can gun owners do? This ordinance primarly affects Cook county residents. For firearm owners living outside Cook County, the ordinance exempts from the statute the "transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazine if such weapons are broken down and in a non-functioning state and are not immediately accessible to any person." Such weapons may be transported while unloaded, broken down and cased in your trunk or otherwise not immediately accessible to the occupants of the vehicle. A locked case would make the weapons not immediately accessible for the owners of station wagons and SUVs.
For Cook County residents who possess the specifically listed firearms, until there is a successful court challenge to this ordinance with a published Appellate opinion, the only prudent legal option wou ld be to relocate the banned firearms outside the geographical boundaries of Cook County. The ordinance criminalizes possession of the banned firearms inside of Cook County, not the mere ownership of the banned weapons possessed outside of Cook County.
Cook County residents who own semi-automatic shotguns and rifles that could arguably meet the generic ordinance definition of a banned assault weapon face a dilemma of uncertainty. Until there is a test case taken up on appeal, those residents may be subject to arrest, conviction and have their weapons confiscated and destroyed. A full criminal defense would cost $10,000 on up with no guarantee of winning the case on appeal. Until the Cook County States Attorney publicly states that under no circumstances will the new ordinance be enforced against owners of ordinary shotguns which could be loaded by more than 5 two-inch long shells, or against owners of long guns with ordinary forearms and stock, those firearm owners would be prudent to also relocate those possibly banned firearms.
There are undoubtedly some Cook County residents who, because of their honestly held beliefs, are willing to knowingly incur the risks of convictions, incarceration, and confiscation of their firearms for violating the Cook County gun ban. Those residents should refrain from engaging in activities that would bring those firearms to the knowledge of their local law enforcement officials. On some isolated occasions the Chicago police proactively sought out otherwise law abiding owners of handguns for the simple purposes of confiscation. However, the vast majority of the over 10,000 firearms that are seized by the police each year in Cook county, are seized by chance . Police seize many firearms as a result of searches of cars stopped for traffic violations, searches of homes and business as a result of responding to calls of crimes, domestic arguments, search warrants for drugs, and other ordinary police caretaking func tions.
Often, police routinely ask for consent to search to satisfy their investigations. Owners of the affected firearms should be aware that they have a Constitutional right to decline to consent to a search of either their cars, homes or businesses. Owners of the affected firearms should likewise absolutely refrain from activities that would bring them into contact with the police. The mere absence of more interactions between the police and citizens have historically resulted in the majority of potential gun violations not ending up as confiscations or arrests. For instance, to date, not a single test case has been made in Cook County concerning the fanny pack exception to the state law that allows the transportation of unloaded firearms with detached loaded magazines in a case designed to transport a firearm.
The new Cook County gun ban can affect tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens. This imprudent law has forced gun owners to make tough decisio ns that the Courts will take years to ponder. Gun owners should individually read the ordinance, and contact the 17 Cook County Commissioners. But unless and until the ordinance is repealed or struck down, owners of the affected firearms should follow the law as best they can.
Also read ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson's Report on the
Cook County AWB. : <http://isra.org/legislation/cook_county_report.shtml>
ANALYSIS OF COOK COUNTY
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Effective November 14, 2006, a Cook County gun ban Ordinance criminalizes the otherwise lawful possession of many common firearms and large capacity magazines. The law provides for imprisonment up to 6 months, fines, and confiscation and destruction of the enumerated weapons. Owners of such firearms or large capacity magazines have until February 12, 2007 to either remove the affected guns and remove any large capacity magazines from Cook County or surrender them to the police for destruction.
What firearms and magazines are affected by this county wide ban? Over 60 firearms are specifically listed as being illegal, including the deer rifle popular in many Midwest states, the SKS with a detachable magazine. Popular self defense weapons like the Mossberg 500 pump, and popular target shooting semiautomatic AR-15 are also illegal. In addition, all magazines that can hold more than 10 shells are banned.
The Ordinance specifically bans any semiautomatic s hotgun that has a fixed magazine with a capacity in excess of five rounds. Since shotgun shell rounds can be obtained in sizes as short as 2 inches, the ordinance can be construed to ban all common semiautomatic shotguns.
In addition to banning over 60 enumerated firearms, the Ordinance defines certain banned firearms with catch-all definitions. One such carefully worded definition bans any semiautomatic rifle that need not have, but has the ability to accept a large capacity magazine and has,
"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel,"
A standard dictionary definition of the word shroud is, "something that covers, screens, or guards." The ordinance defines this "shroud" as something that allows the holding of the rifle in the off hand that would keep the shooter's off hand from being burned. The Ordinance only excludes from this categorization a "slide," a term usually applying to the top piece of a semiautomatic handgun. Missing from the exclusion is any verbiage about "the forearm assembly," "fore-end," or "stock". An arguable interpretation of the word "shroud" as used in the Cook County Ordinance would include the standard forearm or stock that allows normal two handed shooting.
In determining the likelihood of Ordinance being interpreted to cover all standard semiautomatic rifles, we can look to the past history in Cook County. The current and prior States Attorneys of Cook County have previously interpreted criminal statutes in an unreasonable manner to justify charging otherwise law a biding citizens with gun possession crimes. These prior anti-gun interpretations have defied common sense and contradicted prior case law. Because the interpretations have been publicly stated to be the official interpretation, all Cook County Assistant States Attorneys are required to use them in determining what charges would be filed. One of the recent examples of the way Cook County prosecutors interpret the law unreasonably has been their failure to acknowledge that current state law allows the carrying of an unloaded gun in specially designed fanny packs. One would expect the Cook County States Attorney's Office to continue their tradition of interpreting gun laws in a manner to include as many gun owners as possible, and therefore to start charging under the new Ordinance owners of semiautomatic firearms that could be held by two hands, which is for all practical purposes, all semiautomatic rifles.
For a listing of the enumerated firearms that are banned, and the exac t wording of the ordinance, see the third Ordinance listed:
www.cookctyclerk.com/html/111406orddoc.htm: <http://www.cookctyclerk.com/html/111406orddoc.htm>
What can gun owners do? This ordinance primarly affects Cook county residents. For firearm owners living outside Cook County, the ordinance exempts from the statute the "transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazine if such weapons are broken down and in a non-functioning state and are not immediately accessible to any person." Such weapons may be transported while unloaded, broken down and cased in your trunk or otherwise not immediately accessible to the occupants of the vehicle. A locked case would make the weapons not immediately accessible for the owners of station wagons and SUVs.
For Cook County residents who possess the specifically listed firearms, until there is a successful court challenge to this ordinance with a published Appellate opinion, the only prudent legal option wou ld be to relocate the banned firearms outside the geographical boundaries of Cook County. The ordinance criminalizes possession of the banned firearms inside of Cook County, not the mere ownership of the banned weapons possessed outside of Cook County.
Cook County residents who own semi-automatic shotguns and rifles that could arguably meet the generic ordinance definition of a banned assault weapon face a dilemma of uncertainty. Until there is a test case taken up on appeal, those residents may be subject to arrest, conviction and have their weapons confiscated and destroyed. A full criminal defense would cost $10,000 on up with no guarantee of winning the case on appeal. Until the Cook County States Attorney publicly states that under no circumstances will the new ordinance be enforced against owners of ordinary shotguns which could be loaded by more than 5 two-inch long shells, or against owners of long guns with ordinary forearms and stock, those firearm owners would be prudent to also relocate those possibly banned firearms.
There are undoubtedly some Cook County residents who, because of their honestly held beliefs, are willing to knowingly incur the risks of convictions, incarceration, and confiscation of their firearms for violating the Cook County gun ban. Those residents should refrain from engaging in activities that would bring those firearms to the knowledge of their local law enforcement officials. On some isolated occasions the Chicago police proactively sought out otherwise law abiding owners of handguns for the simple purposes of confiscation. However, the vast majority of the over 10,000 firearms that are seized by the police each year in Cook county, are seized by chance . Police seize many firearms as a result of searches of cars stopped for traffic violations, searches of homes and business as a result of responding to calls of crimes, domestic arguments, search warrants for drugs, and other ordinary police caretaking func tions.
Often, police routinely ask for consent to search to satisfy their investigations. Owners of the affected firearms should be aware that they have a Constitutional right to decline to consent to a search of either their cars, homes or businesses. Owners of the affected firearms should likewise absolutely refrain from activities that would bring them into contact with the police. The mere absence of more interactions between the police and citizens have historically resulted in the majority of potential gun violations not ending up as confiscations or arrests. For instance, to date, not a single test case has been made in Cook County concerning the fanny pack exception to the state law that allows the transportation of unloaded firearms with detached loaded magazines in a case designed to transport a firearm.
The new Cook County gun ban can affect tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens. This imprudent law has forced gun owners to make tough decisio ns that the Courts will take years to ponder. Gun owners should individually read the ordinance, and contact the 17 Cook County Commissioners. But unless and until the ordinance is repealed or struck down, owners of the affected firearms should follow the law as best they can.
Also read ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson's Report on the
Cook County AWB. : <http://isra.org/legislation/cook_county_report.shtml>
0
-
quote:Originally posted by SuburbanNoize
ok,
id like to hear from each person what they would do if a LEO or any other offiial showed up at your house wanting YOUR guns? i would really like to see what you guys would do, to see if my opinions are crazy.
Kyplumber has a history of attempting to kill people over parking spaces. I'm sure he will be the first to drop his plunger and take up arms.0 -
A bill has already been introduced in the Illinois general assembly by Senator Emil Jones to take the Cook County ban statewide. SB0016.
http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=16&GAID=9&SessionID=51&LegID=27226
There isn't much info posted yet, probably because they know they need to keep it quiet and get it passed while nobody is looking just like they did here in Cook County.
My Illinois brothers and sisters, call your state reps and senators please.0 -
quote:Originally posted by BlackRoses
They are getting what they ask for.[xx(]
I'd agree but people in Illinois don't even ask for it. They let it happen too them! Because they're too d@mn lazy to go to the polls. See here: http://www.kwqc.net/news/election06.html#Illinois Races
You see, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Apparently people don't care about the midterm elections. I think it's a real sad statement when the reality of this past election is that 25% of the population voted. Of that 25%, only 50% voted for Blagojevic... and that was enough! That was PLENTY! All he needed for another easy win and 4 more years.... Yeah, this state is a joke. [V]
Gun owners alone could have turned the tide but I'd bet most people have no clue what's on this administration's agenda. There's no sense of urgency.
The state of Illinois website is a propaganda machine hailing the administration as heroic for every anti-gun proposal they come up with whether it's passed or not. Thankfully, a few of our other elected officials have enough sense not to pass half the bs. If gun owners paid any attention at all to that site, EVERYONE would have been voting.
We'll see what happens in another 4 years. I believe the feds are already investigating hiring practices... again. We've already convicted George Ryan on 21 counts. Don't be suprised by anything that happens once Blago is voted out. Seriously, and unfortunately. [xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
quote:Originally posted by SuburbanNoize
ok,
id like to hear from each person what they would do if a LEO or any other offiial showed up at your house wanting YOUR guns? i would really like to see what you guys would do, to see if my opinions are crazy.
Kyplumber has a history of attempting to kill people over parking spaces. I'm sure he will be the first to drop his plunger and take up arms.
where do you come up with this? Maybe you should spit instead of swallowing, as you're becoming full of it.0 -
By not going to the Polls and voteing, the populace so much as said "Give us just any dim wit , it doesnt matter to us".[:(] 0 -
I'll be looking for work shortly. One of the placed I've informed my wife that we won't be moving to, no matter how great the job offer, is Chicagoland. 0 -
My opinion is it is unconstitutional. Hope it doesnt spread to Indiana. Oh yes they would have to pry them from my cold dead hands. 0 -
There is a possibility this could spread to the rest of the state. Downstate Republican and Democrat legislatures have been very much opposed to the idea, but there is still Chicago. The collar counties surrounding Chicago are very much Republican upper middle class and yes, white, but they can swing either way on this "social" issue. Downstate, it does not matter, Republican or Democrat, the legislature doesn't want it at all.
The Governor is Mayor Daley's lap dog. The majority leader in the stat e Senate is an old black dude with a bad case of an inferiority complex. The majority leader in the house is a machine politician from Chicago who does not like the black dude in the senate and the Gov. He would likely oppose it for political reasons. His daughter wants to be governor someday, and he does not want to piss off the downstate vote.
Now having said all that. I want an AR. I want one before this state turns all ca-ca, but I have to also ask myself the question, "What is the value of one if they are all banished from the state?" What is the resale value with no grandfather clause if I decided to give it up?
I could not shoot it even on the privacy of our own pasture. Neighbor sky dives. They probably don't care for any bang-bang, and could easily drop a dime. That would leave the only value as closet contraban or for that one in a million SHTF scenario. Not many hurricanes in the Midwest, but there is still the potential of the big earthquake.
I'm rambling aimlessly here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by vess1
quote:Originally posted by BlackRoses
They are getting what they ask for.[xx(]
I'd agree but people in Illinois don't even ask for it. They let it happen too them! Because they're too d@mn lazy to go to the polls. See here: http://www.kwqc.net/news/election06.html#Illinois Races
You see, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Apparently people don't care about the midterm elections. I think it's a real sad statement when the reality of this past election is that 25% of the population voted. Of that 25%, only 50% voted for Blagojevic... and that was enough! That was PLENTY! All he needed for another easy win and 4 more years.... Yeah, this state is a joke. [V]
Gun owners alone could have turned the tide but I'd bet most people have no clue what's on this administration's agenda. There's no sense of urgency.
The state of Illinois website is a propaganda machine hailing the administration as heroic for every anti-gun proposal they come up with whether it's passed or not. Thankfully, a few of our other elected officials have enough sense not to pass half the bs. If gun owners paid any attention at all to that site, EVERYONE would have been voting.
We'll see what happens in another 4 years. I believe the feds are already investigating hiring practices... again. We've already convicted George Ryan on 21 counts. Don't be suprised by anything that happens once Blago is voted out. Seriously, and unfortunately. [xx(]
During the last election Crook County had a non-binding referendum -- basically public opinion poll on the ballot that stated "...for the safety of the children, should Illinois ban all assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles."
Crook County includes Chicago and a bunch of liberal suburbs outside the city basically was trying to tell the rest of the state how it should run. The people of Crook voted yes overwhelmingly.
The Cook County board went ahead in a closed session and passed this new ban. They already had one in place but this one restricts even more guns and bans the possesion of hicap mags.0 -
"During the last election Crook County had a non-binding referendum -- basically public opinion poll on the ballot that stated "...for the safety of the children, should Illinois ban all assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles." And how many kids have you ever seen with a .50 cal rifle??????[:p] 0 -
This is why I work in Chicago but live in Dallas, traveling back and forth every week is a pain but at least I don't have to put up with Cook County's obscured restrictions. On the flip side at least I have the freedom to purchase liquor in Cook County. 0 -
WELCOME TO THE STATE OF CHICAGO AND COOK COUNTY 0 -
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2007/01/04/daley-proposes-more-gun-laws/
Daley proposes more gun laws
Thursday, Jan 4, 2007
Mayor Daley has had little luck with his annual gun control agenda at the Statehouse, but that doesn't keep him from trying year after year.
Once again, Daley wants to ban assault weapons statewide, license gun dealers and limit handgun purchases to one a month per person. He also wants to mandate trigger locks in homes whose residents include anyone under 18, instead of 14 as now required. [.]
The mayor's plan would mandate a background check on every gun purchase and require that all transfers be conducted through licensed dealers. Reporting and record- keeping would be the same as required of gun shops. Dealers would be permitted to charge a small fee to cover processing costs. The only exceptions would be gun transfers between spouses, from parent to child or grandparent to grandchild.
The other new proposal would use driving privileges as a lever to punish a wider array of gun crimes. Instead of suspending or revoking drivers licenses only after a aggravated discharge of a firearm, the bill would add such offenses as unlawful use of a weapon, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and reckless discharge of a firearm.
The larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate have some saying that at least a few of Daley's ideas could pass, but the pro-gun groups beg to differ.
Todd Vandermyde, Illinois legislative liaison for the NRA, countered that only one of the five new Democratic senators is "definitively anti-gun." He argued that requiring a firearm owners identification card makes it unnecessary to crack down on private gun sales.
"There's gonna be a lot of hollering and screaming, but you'll end up with the status quo," without any gun control legislation, he said.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments