1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

IL town seizes property to prevent gun sales!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Autolycus, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. Autolycus

    Autolycus Well-Known Member

  2. Autolycus

    Autolycus Well-Known Member

    I know the link is dead but I discovered this on another forum and wanted to share. I read about this in some local papers and never got around to posting the articles. Either way I am disgusted.

    I am confused about how a village can make laws affecting things outside its borders. If my shop was not in their borders but a mile outside what gives them the ability or right to pass laws that affect my business?
  3. tostada

    tostada Well-Known Member

    It's ridiculous ... but I have to wonder if it's any more ridiculous than them shutting down the "spa."

    There are already laws for this stuff. If the spa is actually a whorehouse, they need to shut it down and arrest the proprietor. Likewise, if the gun shop is selling saturday night specials to kids and/or felons, they need to shut it down and arrest the proprietor. Preempting something because it may or may not pan out into something unsavory is asinine.

    I'm actually a little more disturbed by stuff like this and recent eminent domain cases than any gun-related stuff.
  4. jad0110

    jad0110 Well-Known Member

    I like how a lot of politicians and political activists have a hissy fit over Bush's foreign policy of "preemption", but it is perfectly okay to use said policy against our own citizens.
  5. Browns Fan

    Browns Fan Well-Known Member

    “Those kind of uses are considered undesirable by our residents and don’t project a good image,” he said.

    I wonder how many adult book stores are in the fine town of Addison!:barf:
  6. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Well-Known Member

    Boy, I wonder how the SCOTUS would handle this one...
  7. JohnBT

    JohnBT Well-Known Member

    Annexation depends on how the state law is written. Here is a bit about Virginia's.

    "Although incorporated towns are located within counties, and independent cities are separate, both the towns and the cities long held a powerful tool for growth through Virginia's annexation laws, which basically provided for seizure of unincorporated territory from the counties. However, the annexation laws also have long been felt by many leaders to be a barrier to regional cooperation among localities, causing wounds which took many years to heal, and with some individuals negatively impacted, never did.

    A moratorium on major annexations by the larger cities and adjacent counties has been in place since the late 20th century by actions in the Virginia General Assembly. Other changes have allowed cities to revert to town status and rejoin a county. South Boston and Clifton Forge took such actions, and several other smaller cities have studied doing so."
  8. Johnny Guest

    Johnny Guest Moderator Emeritus

    Thread moved

    Thread originator posted elsewhere in error. It was moved at his request. :)

  9. 71Commander

    71Commander Well-Known Member


    I don't hear this term used much, except by anti's.
  10. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Well-Known Member

    Should it ever get that far, probably by remanding it back.
  11. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Well-Known Member

    SCOTUS will never hear the case because Kelo v. New London will have precedent.
  12. romma

    romma Well-Known Member

    No shortage of Blissininnies in that area! :barf:
  13. Geno

    Geno Well-Known Member

    This is the same sort of "law" that drove Ann Arbor Gun & Rod out of business (Ann Arbor, MI). The DNR then got "un"smart and tried the same tactic, asserting that one could not carry concealed while hunting or while in state parks. It's hard to imagine a more non-sensical law (or rule) than not carrying concealed while hunting?! Michigan finally passed a law prohibiting such local laws. That is where this case will go. It should be, and I expect will be, resolved at the state level.

  14. Langenator

    Langenator Well-Known Member

    Kelo has no bearing on a case of this type.
    dealt with eminent domain. No property is being taken here-it's an expansion of the town's administrative boundaries.

    Now, if the building's owner can't find a new tenant (since the prospective gunshop owner would be leasing, not owning), even for a short period of time, he could file a claim against the township for the lost rent.
  15. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Well-Known Member

    Anyone have any idea of the outcome since this article was published two months ago?
  16. Autolycus

    Autolycus Well-Known Member

    Thanks Johnny Guest.

    I really am tired of governments just trampling over peoples rights to prevent crimes that maybe comitted.
  17. Mumwaldee

    Mumwaldee member

    I just sent an email to the newspaper asking for an update. We'll see if they respond.

    Mistretta , Elisabeth
    (630) 955-3513
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2007
  18. Mumwaldee

    Mumwaldee member

    First reply...and snappy quick too.

    I'll post any more info I receive.
  19. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Well-Known Member

    It really boils down to:
    1-what laws IL lets municipalities pass
    2-how IL controls the boundaries of these local jurisdictions
    3-whether these laws offend the laws or constitution of IL
    4-whether these laws offend the laws or constitution of the US

    1-Since Chicago has most of the population of IL, muncipalities can do whatever they want
    2-see 1
    3-see 1
    4-There are two rights here that are being offended, neither of which is currently considered to be incorporated into our Due Process jurisprudence.
    a) The first is economic liberty. This hasn't been a fundamental right since the 1920s or so when that milk case overturned Lochner and said it was ok for local and state governments to meddle in the affairs of private businesses.
    b) The second is the right to keep and bear arms, which is indirectly affected by a law prohibiting their sale. This has been MIA since the 1870s when reconstruction fell through and SCOTUS gutted the privileges and immunities clause in the Slaughterhouse cases.

    This is what happens when you have a socialist president nominating justices for 4 terms. Probably going to take us another 20-30 years of hard work to really start restoring the constitution.
  20. Werewolf

    Werewolf Well-Known Member

    Huh? How in the world could they enforce that? Suppose that conflicted with county law or the town abuts another that not only doesn't prohibit firearms sales but encourages it.

    Who do these bufoons think they are and when did GOD appoint them the guardians of paradise?

Share This Page