This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Open Letter to MG Officials re "Assault Weapons" ordinance

The following letter has been directed to the Morton Grove elected officials regarding the proposed ordinance regarding "Assault Weapons";

Hon. MG Official;

I am writing in opposition to the proposed "Assault Weapons" ordinance that is under consideration.

Find out what's happening in Niles-Morton Grovewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

I will enumerate my general objections first, followed by specific complaints.

DEFINITIONS:

Find out what's happening in Niles-Morton Grovewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Thomas Paine said; "A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal."

One of the operational phrases in the Declaration of Independence says; "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

The 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States read; "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Blacks Law Dictionary defines unailenable as; "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Oxford dictionary definition of "Infringed"; "to act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on..."

The legal definition of "assault"; "The act of intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent or offensive contact."


GENERAL OBJECTIONS:

1. The intent of this ordinance is to limit and/or encroach upon a persons' right to possess in the future something which currently is legal to possess. It is an ex post facto criminalization ordinance. As such, it is an act that governmentally impinges upon an unalienable right.

2. It attempts to define an inanimate object with attributes only applicable to animate objects. An assault is an act. To commit an assault you need an actor. Inanimate objects cannot act upon their own accord. Therefore naming ANYTHING as an assault weapon is creating a definition that contradicts the laws of nature.

3. The proposed ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. The proposed ordinance does not address a specific public safety, quality of life or crime prevention/reduction issue.

4. I believe that the board is possibly operating on inaccurate information. For example, it was stated at the Town Hall meeting of 7/15/13, that Adam Lanza used an "assault rifle" to perpetrate the Sandy Hook shooting. That is in error. On 1/17/13 NBC news reported, (which was later verified by the FBI investigation), that only handguns were used by Lanza in the shooting, (See YouTube NBC NO RIFLES USED IN SHOOTING ). The misinformation based upon emotions, if used to craft legislation, makes for bad legislation.

5. Other inaccurate information regarding so-called "assault weapons" is that due to their high capacity magazines, they in some way are deadlier than weapons will smaller capacity magazines. On April 4, 2013, at a fundraiser in Denver, CO, the President of the United States said that the Sandy Hook shooter used a fully automatic weapon. While it could be put down as ignorance on the part of most folks, the President, being a legal scholar, should be aware of  the 1934 National Firearms Act, (currently codified in Federal Statutes as 26 USCA § 5801 et. seq.). which, while not completely outlawing full auto weapons, severely restricts and taxes them to a point where it is very unlikely that a private citizen would own one. Once again, this is not a problem in Morton Grove and requires no further legislation.

6. As stated on Monday night, by definition, criminals ignore laws while law-abiding citizens obey them. The promulgation of this ordinance will have no effect upon those who would use a firearm for nefarious purposes, but, instead, would unfairly burden and criminalize otherwise law-abiding Morton Grovers. Why is this necessary? How will this make Morton Grove safer? How will it reduce crime in Morton Grove? How will it improve the quality of life in our town?

7. What is the proposed method for enforcement of this proposed ordinance? Will the MGPD be going door to door to search for contraband weapons and/or weapon accessories? If so, how will warrants be issued, or barring warrants, will searches and seizures be done without warrants? I would suggest that you reference the Morton Grove handgun ban ordinance which was basically ignored and unenforceable. How do you as a legislator propose to enforce this ordinance?

8. The argument has been made that we should let the police department protect us and that we don't need firearms to protect ourselves and our families. On June 27, 1985, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a Constitutional duty to protect someone from harm, even a woman who has an order of protection and has called for help, (see New York Times article "JUSTICES RULE POLICE DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO PROTECT SOMEONE" ). If I am being attacked and am in fear for my life or safety or the life and safety of my family, I do not want a village ordinance putting up roadblocks to my right to self-protection. Morton Grove has a fine police department and the response time is something under 5 minutes. Imaging yourself wounded, bleeding and being attacked by superior force. Imagine how painfully long 300 seconds, (5 minutes), is while your life blood trickles away. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

9. Is this board prepared to fund the defense of legal challenges which are sure to come with passage of this legislation? If so, what percentage of an increase in the property tax levy would you consider to underwrite such defense? Are we in such good financial shape that as a unit of government we can set aside anywhere between $100,000 and $500,000 for legal defense? And, if we are, why wouldn't the board use that money to improve the funding of village pensions or infrastructure improvements?

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS:

1. The proposed ordinance language in the "whereas" section states; "WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities believe it is in the best interest of the residents of the Village of Morton Grove to adopt an ordinance pertaining to the possession or ownership of assault weapons before July 19, 2013." My problem here is understanding exactly how the Corporate Authorities believe this is in the best interests of the residents? SPECIFICALLY, will it improve public safety in Morton Grove? If so, how will that be accomplished? SPECIFICALLY, will it reduce crime in Morton Grove? If so, how will that be accomplished? (It seems to me by passing this ordinance it will create a whole group of otherwise law-abiding criminals... see general objection #6 above).

2. Regarding section 6-2-1; Definitions, of the proposed ordinance, the following language occurs; "ASSAULT WEAPON:  Any firearm combined with an immediately accessible magazine ;as defined in this ordinance, in which the magazine is capable of containing 31 or more rounds of ammunition." What makes 31 the magic number? Why not 72, or 3 or 167? SPECIFICALLY why does restricting magazine capacity to this number increase the general safety of the citizens of Morton Grove? Specifically, is it the belief of this board that a criminal, intent upon doing grievous damage would look at his/her magazine and decide that it is not right to do the crime because their magazine has too much capacity? Again, going back to the Sandy Hook tragedy, Lanza used handguns with magazine capacities far less than 31 rounds. It takes a trained shooter less than 1/2 second to exchange magazines on a semi-automatic handgun, (it takes a bit longer to reload a revolver with what are called "speed-loaders"). There is no point in limiting the number of rounds in a magazine according to experts in firearms. If this board has other conflicting information I would ask; SPECIFICALLY, how would limiting the number of rounds allowed in a magazine improve public safety? SPECIFICALLY, how would limiting the number of rounds in a magazine reduce crime in Morton Grove? SPECIFICALLY, how would limiting the number of rounds in a magazine improve the quality of life of Morton Grovers?

3 Regarding section 6-2-3; possession of assault weapons, the following language occurs; " No person shall carry or possess an assault weapon as defined by this ordinance unless he or she has been issued valid and current licenses under the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act and the Firearm Owners Identification Act." My problem with this is that the village through this ordinance is enacting a restriction, (holder of a valid Illinois Concealed Carry Act license), that is NOT a requirement to legally possess these weapons under Illinois law. This portion of the ordinance is invalid on its' face.

CONCLUSION:

I've and digested the Ordinance as best I could over a number of hours, and like a fish left out on the counter for a few days, it stinks.

It is obviously designed to "preserve" the "home rule" ability of the village regarding weapons legislation and has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety, crime reduction or the improvement of life in Morton Grove. As such it is "splitting the baby in half.


The expressions "splitting the baby" or "cutting the baby in half" are sometimes used in the legal profession for a form of simple compromise: solutions which "split the difference" in terms of damage awards or other remedies (e.g. a judge dividing fault between the two parties in a comparative negligence case). This "compromise" will satisfy neither side, do nothing constructive and almost assure a challenge in the courts.

I urge you to exhibit common sense and do what is truly in the best interest of the residents of Morton Grove. Defeat this ordinance.

Respectfully,


We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?