Assault Weapons Dominate City Council Meeting

The Lake Forest City Council decided not to vote on an ordinance to regulate assault weapons, leaving the potential ordinance off of its Monday night meeting.

After indicating that it would consider a "placeholder option" to retain the right to regulate assault weapons at its July 1 meeting, the city council decided that doing so was "simply not viable," according to a statement by Mayor Don Schoenheider.

Citing an inability to define what an assault weapon is, the fact that an ordinance passed by Lake Forest could be overridden by the state and that even the least restrictive ordinance could still leave the city open to lawsuits, the mayor explained at the start of Monday's meeting that the council had decided not to include any assault weapons ordinance on that night's agenda.

"It seems clear that this is an issue that cannot be effectively addressed at the local level," he said, "and should be addressed by the State."

Alderman Robert Palmer agreed with the mayor. In a statement presented after the mayor had spoken, he said he and the City Council "knocked ourselves out on this for you guys" and that this is the right move for Lake Forest.

"It was very clear we were talking only about a placeholder," Palmer said, referring to some of the ordinance options discussed at the July 1 meeting, which included forcing gun owners to put a red sticker on their assault weapons.

"If we were to pass that we would have looked so silly," Palmer said.

Alderman David Moore also agreed, expressing frustration with the limited timeframe provided by the state, which only allowed home rule communities 10 days after concealed carry became law to pass an assault weapons ordinance before losing the right forever.

"No matter which direction we went in we couldn't come up with the right answer," Moore said. "It's nothing but divisive and impractical to try to handle this on a local basis."

Alderman Michael Adelman echoed Moore's concerns about the time constraints and the desire to place the issue back with the state or federal government.

"Why do we need to preserve home rule on an issue best left to the federal or the state legislature?" he asked. "What are we going to do in 10 days that's not going to look asinine?"

Elliott Novit was the sole alderman to voice a preference for assault weapons regulation in Lake Forest. Not passing a placeholder ordinance was sacrificing an opportunity to lead other home rule communities, according to Novit.

"We're giving up our ability to lead as a community," Novit said. "We want to be better than the state and that's an opportunity that we're giving up right now… for that I failed you."

After the aldermen and mayor spoke, the mayor opened the floor to public comment. In a reversal of the July 1 meeting, where the majority of public comment spoke against any assault weapon regulations, most who spoke on Monday asked the city to pass some sort of placeholder ordinance. 

It was a difference that the mayor noticed.

"There was no question that two weeks ago the bias was most certainly slanted in the other direction," Schoenheider said. Tonight it's more the other way."

Lake Forest resident Bob Shaw said the conversation was larger than assault weapons, and was about violence in general. He's the father of a pediatrician who works in Newtown. He explained that his daughter set up a triage unit shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre, and went to 10 funerals in the following weeks.

"Let's not say tragedy won't happen here," Shaw said. "Let's continue this open discussion on violence, including assault weapons."

Lake Forest David Betts spoke against an ordinance that would regulate assault weapons, citing the potential for costly lawsuits.

"Taxpayers here will pay a steep price if the city council passes an enforceable law," he said.

League of Women Votes of Lake Forest/Lake Bluff Co-President Jane Partridge, however, said that "Lake Forest is not just about money."

"Too much of this discussion has centered around the cost," she said. "Surely there is some placeholder ordinance you can enact."

A portion of the discussion on Monday revolved around the way in which the city council decided to take the ordinance off of Monday's agenda. The ordinance was tabled on July 1, with the council indicating the city would discuss a placeholder ordinance at its next meeting. At some point after that meeting the city council decided not to put that ordinance on its agenda for Monday's meeting.

"You made a decision, but you didn't let the community know," said Lake Forest resident Stephanie Victor.

Alderman Novit also seemed to indicate he wished that the council had discussed a placeholder ordinance as a council rather than in between meetings.

"I'm not satisfied as a community," he said. "For transparency, perhaps we owe you an open vote," he said.

Alderman Palmer, however, argued the process had been open from the start.

"Don't say we're doing stuff behind closed doors because it's not true, in fact it's quite the opposite," Palmer said on Monday.

Because of the Open Meetings Act, the three or more members of the council cannot meet without the public being allowed to attend. As a result, the discussion over the past two weeks took place between two people at a time, according to Palmer.

"Because of the Open Meetings Act we can't get into a room and talk," he said. "We talk one-on-one. It's the most inefficient way possible."

However, Joy Guscott-Mueller, a Lake Forest resident who served on the District 67 board, was not thrilled with that approach to city governing.

"This phone tag and exchanging the calls… it may not violate the law of open meetings but it certainly violates the spirit," she said.

After Lake Forest resident David Mueller also brought up a concern about the Open Meetings Act, Alderman Adelman commented that it was unfair of the community to accuse the council of violating that law. He then asked the attending residents to raise their hands if they attended the July 1st meeting or watched the meeting on the Lake Forest YouTube page. 

"Don't talk to us about shunning our responsibility if you come here for the first time and couldn't even take an hour to watch the video replay," he said.

After about an hour and a half of comments from the mayor, aldermen and residents, Mayor Schoenheider concluded the discussion. He said the issue was an emotional one and that the city council's process had been extremely transparent.

"I am very proud of this council and how we handled this issue," he said. "When this is all said and done, someone's going to be unhappy and someone's going to be happy."