New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glad to see it. All of the talk by Daly and the Aldermen about evading 2A rights is already coming back to haunt them.
 
Good point on why to join the NRA.

Now that we have SCOTUS backing of the 2nd the NRA can now abuse them with lawsuits. In essence they can out spend them. How long can DC and Daly keep spending money and losing before that can't spend the cash or the political capitol. It is very much like Regan outspending the Russians.

I bet that other cities and states are watching this closely and may change their firearms laws just so they don't have to spend the money fighting the NRA. That is reason enough to join.


Dan...
 
In essence they can out spend them.
Click to expand...

It is even better than that. Since a strong case can be made that these are civil rights violations, the plaintiffs can make Chicago pay for their attorney's fees when they win (just as D.C. paid for Gura's fees in Heller I)
 
I'm afraid that if the court determines the new Chicago ordinances run afoul of the Constitution, the city will just come up with new ones that will have to be challenged, and on and on it will go. Daly is nothing if not stubborn and determined. And I think many people in Chicago have been so brainwashed that they think he's actually doing the right thing by thumbing his nose at the SCOTUS.

DD
 
(just as D.C. paid for Gura's fees in Heller I)
Click to expand...

Not quite... As of the last filing (06-18-2010), the total amount due was, $3,126,397.25.

You can see what is going on here.

A proposed settlement order was submitted here

What this all means is that 2 years after the Judgment was entered, D.C. is (still) balking at paying. The longer D.C. delays, the more they will end up paying.
 
WildlikeoldtammanyhallAlaska

If we only had a young Theodore Roosevelt to do battle with the New Tammany Hall of Chicago...
 
Wildalaska said:
Some of those laws will pass muster, some wont.
Click to expand...
Ken, I'd be interested in which of these new Chicago laws, in your opinion, will be found constitutional.

The lawsuit, Benson v. Chicago (an easily read double spaced 20 page complaint), is pretty specific as to which parts of the new laws place an undue burden upon the exercise of the core right, which parts are so contradictory as to be arbitrary and capricious, and which parts deny due process.

The only thing they didn't touch upon were the fees. McDonald, going forth will be mooted for the most part, except the those portions dealing with the fee and licensing structure.

Given that the suits are dealing with the core right, the court(s) will have to apply strict judicial scrutiny. I think this is actually a good two-pronged attack, which will likely succeed.
 
RMA, I am from the opposite spectrum, having grown up in AZ with few, (and now even fewer), firearms restrictions, the Chicago law is appalling...but it IS the step that could never be taken before.
 
Ken, I'd be interested in which of these new Chicago laws, in your opinion, will be found constitutional.
Click to expand...


* No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago...this one would pass muster

* Even so, anyone who wants to register a firearm will be required to pass a 4-hour class and a 1-hour range exam...iffy in light of the one above

* Only one handgun per month may be registered. Move to Chicago with three handguns, and you'll need to decide which one you're keeping.......unconstitutional

* $100 every three years for the right to register, $15 per gun annually to register, $10 for Chicago's knockoff of the Illinois FOID card......nope, gone

* Only one firearm may be stored in the home in a functional state. All others must be locked up AND broken down into a non-functioning state (field stripping will suffice.)....nope, gone

* If the registered owner has reason to believe there's at least one minor "present," he must carry the one functional gun on his person at all times to keep it away from the minor.....nope, gone

* Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards. While you're carrying that gun to keep it away from your kids, don't step out to the mailbox or try to mow the yard, you filthy gun nut.....this one has to go

* Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first
responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.......constituional


WildwithoutreadingthestatutesAlaska TM
 
Wildalaska said:
* Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first
responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.......constitutional
Click to expand...

Possibly, but probably overturned when someone is injured at a registrant's former address.
 
* No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago...this one would pass muster
Click to expand...

Not a chance. if they follow the precedence on XXX movie theaters. Chicago can regulate where the shops are via zoning but can not ban them.
 
Yes Wildalaska, I don't know about your "no gun shop or gun range" conclusion?

Seems to be denying people their fundamental right to obtain a firearm.

If that is constitutional, then any domicile could do the same and, if enough areas do this, the 2A is moot.
 
Last edited:
Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first
responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.......constituional
Click to expand...
Of course this is not part of the ordinance itself. Daley asked for both federal and state immunity. He's got no chance at the federal level in suits for deprivation of civil rights.

State immunity is, of course, a matter of state law and not federal constitutional law. I don't know about his chances for full immunity but I can certainly see some qualified immunity against negligent acts of police.

* No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago...this one would pass muster
Click to expand...
The no ranges might pass muster because of "safety" concerns of shooting firearms in a city (I realize the police probably have a range but ...). I do not think the no gun shop ban will stay. They are selling a legal product subject to constitutional protection. They may be subject to other regulation, perhaps keeping a separate registry of purchasers open to police inspection.

* Even so, anyone who wants to register a firearm will be required to pass a 4-hour class and a 1-hour range exam...iffy in light of the one above
Click to expand...
I think this is a close question, though it shouldn't be. A lot might depend on the contents of the class and how strict the range exam is, and the cost of course. For example, some abortion regulation statutes have been struck down when the cost of complying has impermissibly burdened the woman's right to abortion. The devil is in the details.
 
Those suing Chicago are Brett Benson, Raymond Sledge, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler and the Illinios Association of Firearms Retailers (ILAFR).

To keep it within what is actually being challenged, here is the list of challenges from the suit (since some do not want to read the file). Also, keep in mind that several of the quotes from the council members were made a part of this suit to document that these laws were, in fact, enacted to hinder, as much as possible, the decision in McDonald:
Count I​
The Ordinance outlaws some uses of firearms for self-defense within one’s home. See MCC §§ 8-20-020, -030 The statutory definition of “home” expressly excludes “(i) any garage, including an attached garage, on the lot; (ii) any space outside the dwelling unit, including any stairs, porches, back, side or front yard space, or common areas.” MCC §8-20-010.

Thus the Ordinance outlaws the exercise of the right to bear arms in self-defense even when one is in one’s own garage, on one’s own back porch, or on the steps leading up to one’s front door.

These provisions infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendment.

Count II​
Section 8-20-110 of the Ordinance provides that no person may “carry or possess a firearm without a CFP” and that no person may obtain such a permit unless he or she is “21 years of age or older.” A person 18 to 20 years of age may obtain a CFP only if (1) “the person has the written consent of his parent or legal guardian” and (2) the parent or guardian is not prohibited from having a CFP or an Illinois Firearm Owner’ Identification Card (“FOID”).

This provision directly restricts the ability of members of Plaintiff ILAFR to sell firearms to law-abiding adult residents of Chicago or to sell them time on shooting ranges if they are under the age of 21.

This provision infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible burden upon, the rights of law-abiding adults under the age of 21 to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

This provision further violates the Constitution by denying adult citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 the equal protection of the laws.

Count III​
Section 4-144-010 states that it shall be unlawful for any person “to engage in the business of selling, or to sell, give away or otherwise transfer, any firearm.” Section 8-20-100 states that “no firearm may be sold, acquired or otherwise transferred within the city, except through inheritance of a firearm.”

These provisions thus impose a total ban on the sale or transfer of firearms within Chicago, and thereby infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

These provisions prohibit members of Plaintiff ILAFR from selling firearms within Chicago and infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the rights all adult law-abiding residents of Chicago.

Count IV​
Section 8-20-110 prohibits possession of a firearm without a CFP and Section 8-20-120 states that no person can obtain a CFP without “an affidavit signed by a firearm instructor certified by the State of Illinois … attesting that the applicant has completed a firearm and safety training course, which, at a minimum, provides one hour of range training.”

Yet Section 8-20-280 states that “hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged are prohibited.” The Ordinance thus dictates that there can be no place in Chicago where one can obtain the firearms training that the Ordinance itself mandates for legal possession of a firearm.

Section 8-24-010 further provides that “no person shall fire or discharge any firearm within the city, except in lawful self-defense or defense of another” or for very limited hunting purposes. By proscribing the discharge of a gun for training or practice purposes, the Ordinance in fact precludes citizens from engaging in the training that the Ordinance itself mandates as a prerequisite to legal gun ownership.

These provisions infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

These provisions prohibit members of Plaintiff ILAFR from operating shooting ranges within Chicago and infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the rights of all adult, law-abiding residents of Chicago.

Count V​
Section 8-20-040 prohibits the possession of more than one “assembled and operable” firearm within the home by someone who is fully licensed under the Ordinance to possess a firearm. Any other firearms owned by that person must be disassembled or otherwise rendered “inoperable.” If there is more than one person in the home with a CFP and a registration certificate, each such person is allowed only one gun in an operable condition.

The Ordinance thus bars a licensed gun owner from keeping more than one operable firearm in the home for self-defense, either to have a firearm available in more than one room of the dwelling in case of emergency, or to have a firearm available to more than one adult member of the family. In the event of a home invasion, all family members would be dependent upon the ability of a single person in a single location to obtain immediate access to a single operable weapon.

These provisions infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Count VI​
Section 8-20-140 prohibits possession of a firearm without a “firearm registration certificate,” and Section 8-20-170(b) declares that no such certificate may be issued for “an unsafe handgun.” An “unsafe handgun” is defined in the Ordinance as “any handgun that is listed on the superintendent [of department of police’s] roster of unsafe handguns because, in the determination of the superintendent, the handgun is unsafe due to its size, ability to be concealed, detectability, quality of manufacturing, quality of materials, ballistic accuracy, weight, reliability, caliber, or other factors which makes the design or operation of the handgun otherwise inappropriate for lawful use.” MCC § 8-20-010.

The unbridled discretion that the Ordinance confers upon Chicago’s law enforcement authorities thus violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Due Process of Law.

Count VII​
Section 8-20-060(a) outlaws the possession of—and legally defines as contraband—any “laser sight accessory.”

This provision undermines, rather than promotes, the Ordinance’s supposed goal of promoting firearms safety, and in any event it infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible burden upon, the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Count VIII​
Section 8-20-020 makes it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a handgun, except when in the person’s home.” Section 8-20-030 makes it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a long gun, except when in the person’s home or fixed place of business.” Section 8-20-140(a) renders it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a firearm without a firearm registration certificate,” and Section 8-20-180(c) states that “[a] registration certificate shall only be valid for the address on the registration certificate,” and “[e]xcept in the lawful transportation of a firearm, a person shall not carry or possess any firearm at any location other than that authorized by the registration certificate.”

Thus the Ordinance imposes a complete and total ban in Chicago on possessing or carrying a firearm outside one’s home for personal protection—except in one’s fixed place of business, where long guns, but not handguns, are permitted—and thereby infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.​
Click to expand...


I think a good case has been made to nullify the new laws in Chicago.
 
I believe the "no gun outside the home itself" part will be struck down. The 2nd. A. states:"....., the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms, shall not be infringed." It's one right. The word AND makes them inseparable, or at least it should. Thus, if you have the protection of the 2nd A. as a fundamental, individual right to keep arms, and the states and localities are bound, then you can also BEAR arms as that is part of the fundamental, individual, right as well.

The 2nd doesn't protect just the right to keep arms. It protects one right, which is composed of the actions of keeping AND bearing arms. It will be very hard for any government entity to wriggle out of that constraint. Not impossible, but it should be very hard if our courts hold true to the Bill of Rights. That has certainly been a problem in the past. I'm under no illusions that it will be a slam dunk with our modern courts.
 
Well I hope I will be able to send another thank you note to Mayor Daley for enacting such a comprehensive draconian gun control law - that it will require that the courts defne much of the parameters of the RKBA. It could have taken years and many seperate suits to address and define so many of these issues - but here Daley and the city council have kindly wrapped them all up in a single law allowing a single lawsuit. I don't know whether to :) or :barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top