Easterday v. Vill. of Deerfield
| Decision Date | 07 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-19-0879,2-19-0879 |
| Citation | 448 Ill.Dec. 285,2020 IL App (2d) 190879,176 N.E.3d 187 |
| Parties | Daniel D. EASTERDAY, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. Guns Save Life, Inc., and John William Wombacher III, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The Village of Deerfield and Harriet Rosenthal, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the Village of Deerfield, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2020 IL App (2d) 190879
176 N.E.3d 187
448 Ill.Dec. 285
Daniel D. EASTERDAY, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Guns Save Life, Inc., and John William Wombacher III, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The Village of Deerfield and Harriet Rosenthal, in Her Official Capacity as Mayor of the Village of Deerfield, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 2-19-0879
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
Opinion filed December 7, 2020
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., for appellants.
David G. Sigale, of Law Firm of David G. Sigale, P.C., of Wheaton, for appellees Daniel D. Easterday, Illinois State Rifle Ass'n, and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.
Christian D. Ambler, of Stone & Johnson, Chtrd., of Chicago, and Brian W. Barnes, of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for other appellees.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 The plaintiffs in these consolidated actions challenge the Village of Deerfield's bans of "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines." One set of plaintiffs—Daniel D. Easterday, the Illinois State Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (collectively, Easterday)—sued the Village of Deerfield. The other set of plaintiffs—Guns Save Life, Inc. and John William Wombacher III (collectively, Guns Save Life)—sued both the Village of Deerfield and its mayor, Harriet Rosenthal. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to both defendants collectively as Deerfield. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and permanently enjoined Deerfield from enforcing its bans of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Deerfield appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. We vacate the permanent injunctions in part and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 Deerfield is a home rule unit. Before 2013, it did not have an ordinance in place regulating assault weapons or large capacity magazines.
¶ 4 Effective July 9, 2013, the Illinois legislature enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act (Concealed Carry Act) ( 430 ILCS 66/1 et seq. (West 2018)) and amended section 13.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) ( 430 ILCS 65/13.1 (West 2018) ). Deerfield interpreted this legislation as providing a brief window for home rule units to regulate assault weapons. Deerfield understood that if it failed to regulate such weapons by July 20, 2013, it would forever lose its power to do so. Although Deerfield was not ready to impose a total ban on assault weapons, it did not want to lose its regulatory authority on this matter. Deerfield believed that if it timely regulated assault weapons, it could amend those regulations at any time and in any manner it wished.
¶ 5 Consistent with its interpretation of the relevant legislation, on July 1, 2013, Deerfield enacted ordinance No. O-13-24 (the 2013 ordinance), which regulated the storage and transportation of assault weapons within the village. Deerfield defined "assault weapon" by reference to a list of both physical characteristics of firearms and specified models. See Deerfield Municipal Code § 15-86 (added July 1, 2013). Deerfield defined "large capacity magazine" as
"any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten (10) rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:
(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten (10) rounds.
(2) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm." Deerfield Municipal Code § 15-86 (added July 1, 2013).
Deerfield specified certain requirements for the safe storage and transportation of assault weapons. See Deerfield Municipal Code §§ 15-87, 15-88 (added July 1, 2013).
Failure to comply with those requirements would result in a fine between $250 and $1000. Deerfield Municipal Code § 15-89 (added July 1, 2013).
¶ 6 In 2018, following numerous highly publicized mass shootings across the country, Deerfield decided to enact what amounted to a total civilian ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. This was accomplished through two ordinances: Deerfield Ordinance No. O- 18-06 (eff. Apr. 2, 2018) and Deerfield Ordinance No. O-18-19 (eff. June 18, 2018)(collectively, the 2018 ordinances).1 The 2018 ordinances amended the sections of the municipal code that were added by the 2013 ordinance. Changes to the text of the municipal code were reflected by striking out language that was to be removed and underlining language to be added. Specifically, Deerfield made it unlawful for persons other than military or law enforcement personnel to "possess, bear, manufacture, sell, transfer, transport, store or keep any assault weapon or large capacity magazine in the Village." Deerfield Municipal Code § 15-87(a) (amended June 18, 2018). Deerfield provided a 60-day grace period for persons in possession of assault weapons or large capacity magazines to either (1) remove, sell, or transfer those items from the limits of the village, (2) render the items permanently inoperable or otherwise modify them so that they no longer fell within the definitions of prohibited items, or (3) surrender the items to the chief of police for disposal and destruction. Deerfield Municipal Code §§ 15-90, 15-91 (added Apr. 2, 2018).
¶ 7 Easterday and Guns Save Life filed separate lawsuits challenging the validity of the 2018 ordinances.2 The Easterday action was designated in the trial court as case No. 18-CH-427 and the Guns Save Life action was designated as No. 18-CH-498. The trial court entered temporary restraining orders in both cases prohibiting Deerfield from enforcing the bans. On July 27, 2018, the court consolidated the two actions "for all future proceedings."
¶ 8 In their respective amended complaints, Easterday and Guns Save Life alleged that the bans imposed by the 2018 ordinances were preempted by section 13.1 of the FOID Card Act ( 430 ILCS 65/13.1 (West 2018) ) and section 90 of the Concealed Carry Act ( 430 ILCS 66/90 (West 2018) ). Easterday advanced this theory in a single count, whereas Guns Save Life advanced this theory in two counts (counts I and III of its amended complaint). Guns Save Life further alleged that the ordinances (1) were preempted by section 2.1 of the Wildlife Code ( 520 ILCS 5/2.1 (West 2018) ) (counts II and IV of Guns Save Life's amended complaint) and (2) amounted to improper "takings" in violation of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 15 ) (count V) and the Eminent Domain Act (735 ILCS 30/90-5-20 (West 2018)) (count VI).
¶ 9 On March 22, 2019, in response to Easterday's and Guns Save Life's motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered permanent injunctions in both cases enjoining Deerfield from "enforcing any provision of [the 2018 ordinances] making
it unlawful to keep, possess, bear, manufacture, sell, transfer or transport assault weapons or large capacity magazines as defined in these ordinances." The court determined that the bans imposed by the 2018 ordinances were preempted by section 13.1 of the FOID Card Act and section 90 of the Concealed Carry Act. The court found, however, that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on Guns Save Life's claims that the bans amounted to improper "takings." The court also rejected Guns Save Life's argument that the bans were preempted by the Wildlife Code. The effect of these orders was to (1) grant summary judgment to Easterday as to the only claim that was at issue in its amended complaint, (2) grant summary judgment to Guns Save Life as to counts I and III of its amended complaint, and (3) deny Guns Save Life's motion for summary judgment as to counts II, IV, V, and VI of its amended complaint. Neither of the court's orders entered on March 22, 2019, included language rendering the matters immediately appealable pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).
¶ 10 Deerfield attempted to appeal the permanent injunctions pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). On June 12, 2019, we dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because (1) Rule 307(a)(1) does not apply to permanent injunctions, (2) no final judgment was entered with respect to Guns Save Life's amended complaint, as the trial court did not resolve all claims, and (3) due to the lack of a complete record, we could not determine whether a final and independently appealable judgment had been entered with respect to Easterday's amended complaint. See Easterday v. Village of Deerfield , 2019 IL App (2d) 190320-U, ¶ 43, 2019...
To continue reading
Request your trial