Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Broadest (Possibly Inadvertent) Gun Ban in the Country?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_08-2009_03_14.shtml#1236877709
I ran across this while researching a different matter; it's �
54-211(a) of the Village Code of [1]New Lenox, Illinois, on the
outskirts of Chicago (emphasis added):
(1) It shall be unlawful for anyone to do any of the following acts
within the corporate limits of the village:
a. Hunt, with or without the aid of a weapon or other device, any
animal.
b. Trap, with or without the aid of a trap or other device, any
animal.
c. Possess or display any loaded weapon.
(2) For purposes of this section, the term "weapon" shall mean any
BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, stun
gun, taser, slingshot or bow and arrow.
720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/24-10 does expressly provide that "It is
an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that
prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms
if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm
in an act of self-defense or defense of another ... when on his or her
land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business." But mere home
possession for possible future self-defense purposes is not a defense.
Presumably one has to keep the gun constantly unloaded until one is
faced with a situation where "he reasonably believes that such conduct
is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's
imminent use of unlawful force." (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/7-1.)
There are exceptions for possession by various law enforcement
officials and security guards, but not for ordinary citizens. Nor is
the law limited to possession in a public place.
The provision is in a section titled "hunting and trapping," so it may
well be that the village didn't intend to ban all possession of loaded
weapons. But the Illinois rule appears to be that, though the title
may provide part of the context for interpreting a statute, �'If the
meaning of any particular phrase or section [,] standing alone[,] is
clear[,] no other section or part of the act [including the heading]
may be applied to create doubt.' Reading a provision in context does
not give one a license to disregard the clear language of the
provision itself.� Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce
Comm'n, 840 N.E.2d 704, 712 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005).
Fortunately, the penalty is a fine of $25 to $750, but the crime is a
misdemeanor, which might well have other indirect legal effects (e.g.,
to enhance future sentences for other crimes on the grounds that the
person has a criminal record). Washington, D.C. had a similar ban on
possession of a loaded firearm, which possibly did not have an
imminent self-defense exception, but it was repealed in the wake of
D.C. v. Heller.
References
1. http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=14158&sid=13
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
