An expected showdown over an assault weapons ban did not materialize Monday night at Deerfield's Village Board meeting because a proposed ordinance was scaled back. Whether Deerfield will take any action at all remains to be seen, but the emotional issue of gun rights brought out advocates on all sides of the debate to the village board.
Mayor Harriett Rosenthal who has said in the past, “I cannot think of one reason to have assault weapons,” did not propose an outright ban on assault weapons. In its place, a proposal that read “assault weapons should be subject to safe storage and security requirements” was brought out for initial public consumption.
Now that it has had an initial reading, the ordinance is now subject to further adjustments and could be voted on at the next meeting, scheduled for July 1.
Find out what's happening in Deerfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
However, the idea of outright banning “assault weapons” such as an AK-47, a Bushmaster XM-15 or a myriad of other weapons listed on the ordinance did not come forward.
Instead, a proposal with the storage and security requirements was debated for approximately an hour. The language included an exception for self-defense and allowing law enforcement officers or members of the National Guard to have the weapons.
Find out what's happening in Deerfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
If an individual is found guilty of violating the proposed ordinance he or she would be fined no less than $250 and no more than $1,000.
“We felt at this time that was the best thing we could do for our residents,” Rosenthal said.
But the toned-down language did not placate a large group of people who indicated they feared the village was trying to violate individual liberties.
“This is a direct assault on the Second Amendment,” said resident Adam Rich. “This is not about safety, this is about control.”
“None of the present laws currently on the books would have prevented the tragedies in Colorado, Newtown or other places,” added Mitch Shore. “Many state and local laws are already violated.”
Another resident did not believe it was worth the cost of potential litigation, given the relatively small number of gun crimes in Deerfield.
“We don’t have a gun problem here. Why are we wasting our time with this?” asked Alan Kaufman. “This is just an invitation to be sued and I don’t want to pay for it.”
But State Rep. Scott Drury, who voted against the conceal carry legislation in Springfield spoke in favor of the ordinance citing Deerfield’s ability to act as a home rule community.
“This issue is about home rule and local control,” Drury said. “What the state wants to do is take away the power the Village of Deerfield has to regulate assault weapons.”
Trustee Alan Farkas addressed gun rights advocates who feared this was the first step toward the village limiting assault weapons.
“I have no intention that will do anything that will criminalize otherwise lawful conduct,” trustee Alan Farkas said. “What we are attempting to do is to be responsible with the authority that we have and what has been dropped in our laps.”
What to do regarding assault weapons has come to a head because the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that the Illinois ban on carrying concealed weapons was unconstitutional.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan is considering appealing the ruling and asked the court for a second 30-day extension late last week to decide whether she will proceed with such an appeal. In May the Illinois Legislature passed a law allowing concealed weapons to be carried with Governor Pat Quinn not indicating as of yet whether he will sign it in anticipation of July 9, which is when a conceal carry law needs to be on the books, according to the appeals court.
“He is carefully reviewing the legislation right now and is well aware of the impending court deadline.” noted Quinn spokesman Dave Blanchette.
The issue reverts back to Deerfield because as a home rule community, the village has 10 days after Quinn’s signature to decide whether to move forward on assault weapons legislation, according to the legislation passed in Springfield. After the 10-day window, the village would not be allowed to be put in assault weapons restrictions.
Therefore, village officials believed there was a limited opportunity to act.
Farkas was dismayed with the actions taken in Springfield. “We’re here because the state punted an issue to us and the state didn’t do us any favors,” he said.
