ELGIN — A state appels panel has unlocked a suburban village's assault weapons ban, though the court, in its divided ruling, said the village remains unable to enforce its desired limits on ammunition.
The village of Deerfield had enacted an initial ordinance regulating assault weapon transportation and storage in July 2013. About five years later, in April and June 2018, it adopted tighter restrictions, citing a state law giving it the power to ban the possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, for anyone outside the military or law enforcement.
The 2018 ordinances prompted separate legal challenges from the Illinois State Rifle Association, jointly suing with Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday, as well as the Second Amendment rights organization, Guns Save Life Inc.
Illinois Second District Appellate Justice Kathryn Zenoff
| Illinoiscourts.gov
Lake County Circuit Court Judge Luis Berrones consolidated the lawsuits and granted summary judgment to both plaintiffs, barring the village from enforcing the bans.
Deerfield appealed, and on Dec. 4, a three-justice panel of the Illinois Second District Appellate Court issued its opinion.
Justice Kathryn Zenoff wrote the opinion. Justices Donald Hudson and Robert McLaren concurred, though McLaren wrote a partial dissent.
According to Zenoff, both plaintiffs challenged the panel’s jurisdiction in the case.
Easterday argued Deerfield waited too long to file its appeal, because Easterday said Judge Berrones’ consolidation was different from a merger, and the final order appealed by the village came too long after the judge had ruled on his case. Guns Save Life raised the same concern — noting their permanent injunction was identical to a temporary injunction granted to Easterday — while also taking issue with Berrones’ “after-the-fact explanation” about his intent to consolidate.
While the panel recognized confusion surrounding the consolidation timeline, it found “no prejudice to any party” because all plaintiffs and defendants have equal access to the appellate court. That turned the focus to whether the states Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) Act and Concealed Carry Act pre-empt Deerfield's village ordinances or if Deerfield’s home rule authority holds sway.
The village’s initial gun regulation ordinance took effect eight days before Illinois lawmakers amended the Concealed Carry Act and FOID Act. Deerfield argued it acted in a 10-day window the General Assembly specified for home rule units, permitting its participation in a “unique, hybrid form of concurrent jurisdiction over assault weapons.” The majority agreed.
“The Legislature intended that home rule units would be precluded from regulating assault weapons unless they took steps, within the prescribed timeframe, to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with the FOID Card Act,” Zenoff wrote.
The majority also said neither the parties nor Berrones correctly identified lawmakers’ intention in the FOID law, noting the sole purpose was regulating who can buy or own guns, not which types of weapons.
The village ordinance was inconsistent with that law because it added a new layer of regulations that would otherwise be improper, but by doing so in the approved window, Zenoff wrote, the village “preserved its power to regulate assault weapons concurrently with the state.” As such, the village’s 2018 amendments remain permitted.
In his dissent, McLaren said the 2013 ordinance focused solely on gun possession, not ownership, rendering the 2018 regulations improper. He explained rules about storing and keeping guns inside the village didn’t address who could own what type of gun, meaning the village missed its window to pass a rule that conflicted with the FOID Act.
Zenoff disagreed, writing “ownership and possession are interrelated concepts” such that courts can’t distinguish application of disparate regulations.
The majority also split with McLaren in rejecting arguments that Deerfield’s 2018 actions were new ordinances rather than amendments of the 2013 rules.
“Again,” McLaren wrote, “Deerfield did not regulate ownership in 2013; its addition of ownership in the 2018 ordinance indicates an attempt to write new legislation, not to amend an ordinance that did not regulate ownership.”
However, the panel sided with the plaintiffs in its challenge to the large magazine bans, finding Deerfield didn’t have the power to regulate ammunition as it didn’t adequately define “large capacity magazines” as the exclusive provenance of assault weapons.
As such, the panel concluded, Deerfield can’t enforce ammunition regulations against anyone with a valid FOID or concealed carry permit. But it vacated the remaining permanent injunctions and sent the case back to Lake County court for further proceedings.
The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys David G. Sigale, of Wheaton; Christian D. Ambler, of Stone & Johnson, of Chicago; and Brian W. Barnes, of Cooper & Kirk PLLC, of Washington, D.C.
Deerfield was represented by attorneys Christopher B. Wilson, John B. Sample and Christopher P. Eby, of Perkins Coie LLP, and Steven M. Elrod and Hart M. Passman, of Elrod Friedman LLP, both of Chicago, and Jonathan E. Lowy, of Washington, D.C.