So both Cook County and Chicago have their own AWBs and I'm trying to figure out how they interact with one another.  Cook County's Blair Holt AWB appears stricter than the Chicago AWB.  Does anyone know if Chicago's AWB trumps Cook County's AWB almost in the sense of home rule?  My understanding is that all the municipalities in Cook County are bound by the Cook County AWB unless they have activated homerule, like some cities have done (e.g., Des Plaines and others).  Because Chicago passed its own AWB as part of the post-McDonald v. Chicago gun law, I'm thinking maybe Chicago is now a homerule municipality and therefore the stricter Cook County AWB doesn't apply in Chicago.

I'm asking b/c I'm contemplating getting a Ruger Mini-14 that I believe I will be able to keep with me at my residence in Chicago (as opposed to an AR15, which will be banned under both laws).  This is how the Chicago AWB defines an "assault weapon":

(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
 
  (i) a folding or telescoping stock
  (ii) a handgun grip which protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
  (iii) a bayonet mount
  (iv) a flash suppressor or a barrel having a threaded muzzle
  (v) a grenade launcher; or

Chicago Municipal Code Section 8-20-010.

Under the Chicago AWB, I don't think a Ruger Mini 14 would be considered an "assault weapon" because it doesn't have any of the above listed items.  (By the way, is this correct?  I know a Mini 14 wouldn't have subparts (i), (ii), (iii), and (v), but what about a "barrel having a threaded muzzle"?  Not sure if it has that.)

On the other hand, under the Cook County AWB, a Ruger Mini 14 is absolutely an "assault weapon" because it is specifically named in the statute.  See Cook County Code Section 54-211 ("Shall include, but not be limited to, the assault weapons models identified as follows: . . . (xvii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14.").

Thus, it looks like the Chicago AWB and the Cook County AWB directly conflict as to whether a Ruger Mini 14 is an "assault weapon" or not.  I would think Chicago's AWB should trump Cook County's AWB under the homerule system, but I have never fully understood how homerule gets activated.

If anyone has any thoughts, could you let me know.  Thanks.


Edited to Add: 12/27/12 Update: See the post below in which I called the Gun Registration Desk and was told that I should have "no problem" registering a Mini-14.

My recollection is that there is preemption language in the Cook Co. AWB itself whereby if a municipality within Cook Co has an ordinance on the books that addresses gun restrictions, the local municipality ordinance trumps the Cook Co. AWB in that municipality.

And I don't think Mini-14's come with threaded barrels muzzles from the factory so the Mini-14 should probably pass muster, but I suspect your biggest hurdle will be when you go to register it with Chicago.

If you purchase a Mini or an AR in a different county like Will. The state only knows you bought a long gun. Authorities must contact the dealer to know make, model, serial#. Private sales are legit too, (instruction for private sale is on the back of the FOID card).

I know a few fellows that live in Cook and have a place to store them outside of Cook.

The guys at Midwest in Lyons may be able to help you find a compliant rifle to keep at home. Good luck to you.

You can own a Mini 14, but for me, the language is difficult to comprehend.

The fact that the Mini14 can except a detachable mag, makes it dangerous to bring within the county over night.  The "capable of excepting" detachable magazine is super dangerous wording.  It has the potential to outlaw nearly every rifle.  Include ruger 22's.  Stick to Mosins and Mausers.

The feature I like best about the bill, is that it limits your ability to defend yourself at home.  If my wife has to face down an intruder or two, she should be able to protect herself with a semiautomatic shotgun or a pistol with more then 12 rds.  If she needs 30rds then she should have 30 rds.  If she needs a laser pointer she should have a laser pointer.  Forget that fact that I should be able to have one...if I want one.  We should not confuse the issue with words like Freedom.

I understand we are most concerned about the health and well-being of the intruder, but limiting peoples rights to defend themselves sends the wrong message to law abiding citizens and emboldens criminals.

The girls in our office get robbed all the time in Chicago. We don't let them work late anymore.  People dont even show guns, they just tell you "give my your phone" or "give me your money".

I built three house on three lots in Chicago, they got broken into regularly.  The criminals understood the law.  They would break in on holiday weekends, destroy the alarm system, knowing that the alarm company would not be out for 3 or 4 day.  Leave, wait for the police to come and fill out a report.  We would secure the best we could, but they now had all weekend to rip us off.

The first house, I rented to this young guy, we was going to buy it, but...he was robbed twice in 3 months.  UNFRICKING BELIEVABLE.  He was on the phone with CPD when the last break in occurred.  The robbers tried for 5 mins to kick in the Pella Door before they broken thru a different door.  The robbers kick in the door, ran to the first floor and stole a big ass tv.  CPD should up 15 min later to make the report.  

My point with this story is, criminals are not afraid of most people in Chicago, they feel very little risk.  I think this AWB gives them a sense of comfort that they don't deserve.  COME ON, breaking into a house with lights on and an alarm, with the Shakespeare Police station 12 blocks away.  There is no traffic at 1am.  Criminals understand the game...as long as everyone plays their part...as victim, nothing will change.

Sorry I need to get off my soap box...be-careful, all it takes is one policeman to arrest you and one DA and one Judge to ruining you life.  You don't have to be wrong, for them to find you guilty.  They would love nothing better then to have your rifle on display for the media, talking about all the weapons they took off the streets.

I don't think you're going to be able to successfully register a Mini14 in Chicago.  I know that at least 1 person HAS been able to register an SKS in its original configuration (no detachable mag, semi-auto).

I would also not recommend a Mini-14 for a self-defense firearm unless you're looking to re-start THE A-TEAM from the 1980s.      
I wanna be Hannibal!!!!  

Good luck whichever route you decide to go though.

Ok, thanks.  I am going to take a closer look at the language of the statute, but upon a second reading (link here), I don't see anything in the statute about home rule.  (I think you're probably right, I just want to see with my own eyes how the rules for home rule are applied.)

And I agree, the biggest hurdle will be when I try to register the thing with Chicago.

Thanks.  I actually spoke with someone at Midwest Guns and they told me that theoretically the Ruger Mini 14 should comply with the Chicago AWB, but they weren't sure if I would actually be able to get it registered.

Ha.  But maybe I do want to recreate the A-team!  A couple of points in response.

Do you have any reason to support when you say "I don't think you're going to be able to successfully register a Mini14 in Chicago"?  If there's something in the statute you think I've missed, please let me know.  If you're just being cynical about how Chicago will view my application, well yeah, you are probably right.

Second, I agree from what I've read, that the Mini-14 isn't the best for self-defense.  But if my reading of the Chicago AWB is correct (a big if), then I would be able to keep it at my residence in Chicago, whereas any AR15 I buy (which I'm also trying to do) I would need to keep outside of Cook County.  I've read before about the Mini 14's accuracy problems after firing many rounds, but for some reason I just kind of like the way it looks.  This guy on YouTube gives it a decent review:  Ruger Mini-14

Here's what I was remembering (it was in the "Generally" section):

http://library.municode.com/HTML/13805/level4/PTIGEOR_CH54LIPEMIBURE_ARTIIIDEWEDE_DIV1GE.html

Chicago is a de jure home-rule unit. Illinois Constitution, Article VII, Section 6.

"If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall prevail within its jurisdiction." Id. Therefore, where the Municipal Code of Chicago and the Cook County Code conflict, the MCC governs.

The problem for you is that the Chicago and Cook County AWB's do not conflict with each other. The goal of each AWB is to restrict firearm ownership. With that understanding, the Cook county AWB supplements the Chicago AWB. If a firearm is seemingly permitted under the MCC, but is prohibited under Cook County Code, the firearm is nevertheless prohibited in Chicago. The firearm will be prohibited in Chicago because, again, the Cook county AWB supplements, and is not excluded by, the Chicago AWB.

Of course, you're free to argue that Chicago and Cook county's AWB's are mutually exclusive and that Chicago's AWB is the controlling, exclusive law in Chicago. If you find a lawyer willing to make that argument, I'd like to shake his hand.

Thank you for your response; very good stuff.  It looks like where my argument may falter is establishing that there is a conflict between the Chicago AWB and the Cook County AWB.  If I want to register a Mini-14, I think my argument is going to look like this (and let me know if you think I'm wrong):

1. Under the Cook County AWB, the Ruger Mini-14 is banned.  (Absolutely true and easy to prove.)

2. Under the Chicago AWB, the Ruger-Mini 14 is not banned because although it is a semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine, it does not have any of the listed qualities to make it an "assault weapon."  (I think I'm right here and this should theoretically be easy to prove so long as my Mini-14 doesn't have a flash suppressor, pistol grip, folding stock, etc.)

3. Chicago is a home rule unit under the Illinois Constitution.  (Absolutely true and easy to prove.  See Illinois Const., Arti. VII, Sec. 6.)

4. The Chicago AWB and Cook County AWB conflict as to whether the Ruger Mini 14 is an "assault weapon" and thus a prohibited firearm in each respective governmental unit.  (This may prove difficult to establish b/c, as you pointed out, there is the argument that they don't actually conflict, but rather, the Cook County AWB supplements the Chicago AWB.)

5.  Assuming there is a conflict between the Cook County AWB and the Chicago AWB, the Chicago AWB prevails (and the Cook County AWB is inapplicable) because of the Illinois Constitution, Article VII, Section 6(c) ("If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall revail within its jurisdiction.").

So point no. 4 is where I will probably run into trouble.  The City's argument will be as you described it (the Cook County AWB supplements the Chicago AWB).  You may be right, but I think I need to research two things.  

First, how does one establish that a municipality's ordinance conflicts with a county's ordinance for purposes of applying Section 6(c) of Section VII of the Illinois Constitution.  Hopefully there is some case law on this point that I can dig up.  

Second, what type of law does a municipality need to write to establish that the municipality wants its own rules under home rule for a certain topic.  We know other municipalities in Cook County have home rule on the issue of assault weapons (for example, I've heard that Lyons, Des Plaines, and Streamwood all have their own ordinances that somehow make the Cook County AWB inapplicable).  What type of law did these cities write to make the Cook County AWB inapplicable under home rule?  Do you need a specific law saying "Any county ordinance regarding the legality of assault weapons is hereby inapplicable."  Or is any type of firearm law good enough to signal that the municipality has its own rules for firearms, including "assault weapons"?

Now I'm really tempted to buy a Ruger Mini-14 and go all the way with this.

Good questions.

1) I think you're right about going to the case law. I'd start with Village of Mt. Prospect v. Malouf, 243 N.E.2d 434 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1968).

2) I'm very curious about Midwest in Lyons. Lyons is not a home-rule unit, but Midwest freely sells AR's. Here's Lyon's Village Code. No mention of "assault weapons."

Section 54-92(a) of the Cook County Code states the following: "This article shall control the licensing of all firearms dealers within Cook County except in home rule municipalities which have a separate municipal ordinance specifically regulating the licensing of firearms dealers." Lyons does not fall into the exception clause because it is not a home-rule unit. I mean, it's great for Cook county enthusiasts because Midwest gives us options. I'm just really interested in how they're doing it.

Of course, Cook county could just be choosing not to enforce the AWB against firearms dealers. This wouldn't be the first time Cook county selectively enforced its laws.

Thanks for the case cite.  I will check it out.  So if I'm reading you correctly, if a municipality in Cook County wants to be exempt from the Cook County AWB, it needs two things: (1) to be a home-rule unit, AND (2) to have some type of law on the books that makes the Cook County AWB inapplicable.  I'm very curious on the second requirement, because it would be nice to know what type of law indicates that a home rule unit wants to exempt itself from a county ordinance. Hopefully, the case law is helpful.

The situation at Midwest is confusing by the way.  How do you know that Lyons is not a home rule unit?  Also, there is a provision in the Lyons Village Code stating that "Any gun shop licensed in the village prior to the effective date hereof shall be permitted to remain in its currently licensed location, and shall be exempt from the provisions of any Cook County ordinance which would prohibit the operation of a gun shop within a proscribed radius from any park, school or forest preserve."  Section 7-7-5.  Pretending that Lyons is a home rule unit, I wonder if this provision is good enough to exempt the village from the Cook County AWB?

If you get the chance, go to IllinoisCarry.com - read this thread below - there are some folks that have successfully registered stuff and will be able to give you advice / caselaw, etc. to help make your case.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32247&hl=

It's not. The CC AWB is not being enforced right now due to some ruling, is what I heard. That's why they are stocked up on AR/AK stuff after years of not dealing with it.

Thanks.  I could not get the link you posted to work, but I went to Illinois Carry and did some searching and found some relevant threads on this issue.  One guy over there says the Cook County AWB doesn't apply in Chicago because of home rule, which is the way I'm thinking this will go.

1) Yes, that's my understanding. It's a two pronged requirement for a municipality to avoid the Cook County Code's AWB: (i) home-rule and (ii) a separate municipal ordinance specifically regulating the licensing of firearms dealers.

2) Lyons is not a home-rule unit. I don't think the section you cited from the Lyons Village Code (Sec. 7-7-5) is sufficient to exempt Lyons from the Cook County Code. The Lyons Code is specifically concerned with a Cook County provision "which would prohibit the operation of a gun shop within a proscribed radius from any park, school or forest preserve." That has nothing to do with "assault weapons."

I heard the exact same thing from one of their counter guys. I wasn't curious enough at the time to inquire further, but I'd sure like to know.

You are correct Cook County's AWB does not apply. Only Chicago's which while still sucks is easier to understand than the counties. As to the Ruger. The Ruger Ranch rifle(doesn't have a flash hider, or threaded barrel.) is register-able. If anyone wants to buy one you can call the Chicago gun desk and verify this before you buy, that way you know for sure.  

True - the provision from the Lyons Village Code doesn't address "assault weapons," but rather other firearms-related issues, like being near a school, handguns to minors, FOID cards, etc.  I think there is an argument (that I saw on the IllinoisCarry website) that these firearm provisions show the level of gun control that Lyons has chosen to enact, and that because the village has chosen not to regulate assault weapons, the Lyons Village Code and the Cook County AWB conflict.  I don't know if this argument holds any weight or is just one that Second Amdt supporters could eventually make to the IL appellate courts or Supreme Court.  (Of course, all of this is likely a moot point because, as you point out, Lyons is not a home rule unit.)  

Getting back to Chicago, I do think the Chicago AWB is sufficient on the "assault weapons" issue to exempt it from the Cook County AWB.  If I can find time to make it to Midwest Guns, I may just buy the Mini-14 and try to register it.

So I called the Gun Registration Program phone number (312-745-5164) and inquired with the lady who answered the phone about the Mini-14.  She referred me to p. 5 of the ordinance, which contains the definition of "assault weapons."  After some back and forth, she agreed that I should have "no problem" registering the rifle with the City of Chicago.  She wanted to know how many rounds it had and I told her a 5-round detachable magazine (which is the version I will buy).  She wanted to know if it would have a pistol grip, folding stock, etc., but I said no and she again thought I would be able to get it registered.  I mentioned that I wasn't sure if the Cook County AWB applies but she seemed not to be worried about that (although she didn't give me a definitive answer on the question - her focus was on the Chicago AWB).  

Long story short: it looks like only the Chicago AWB, and not the Cook County AWB, applies in Chicago, and I should be able to get a Ruger Mini-14 registered here so long as it doesn't have the five factors listed in Section 8-20-010.  If I can successfully register one, I will update this post.  Thanks for all the helpful replies and let me know if anyone has any questions or comments.