New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
peetzakilla said:
Gotta disagree on that one.... the FOID is an onerous requirement on it's own, any further requirement just takes it to another degree.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify for you Peet. Each response of mine in red was only addressing each point. What I meant was, that having to posses a valid FOID and present it to get the new permit, was not an unreasonable requirement.

As an aside, if you read the law in regards to obtaining a FOID, and its purpose. It doesn't really seem that bad a system. As long as they don't use it to register fireams. Or somehow invalidate FOID cards and issue no new ones.

Listen, I'm not going to disagree with anyone who thinks that IL gun laws in general and Chicago's new ordinance in particular are excessive. However, it is what it is. Hoping for some judicial miracle that will instantly grant full gun rights to Chicagoans is unrealistic. They had a complete handgun ban in Chicago, now they don't, thats progress.
 
I hope that some super-sharp civil rights lawyer can find a way to pierce the veil of personal immunity that these elected officials in Chicago believe they are protected by, and use the opening to go after them personally.

Perhaps these new laws will open that door.
 
I'm hoping it won't be too long before some lawyer rapes the heck out of this new ordinance. Seriously - an attached garage isn't part of your home? How can they even claim that with a straight face? Not to mention the $100 CFP fee that effectively raises the cost of purchasing a firearm by 10-40% in most cases. (I realize that the $100 fee is only every three years, not per-gun, but $100 every three years is still a significant amount.)
 
Personally, I think the ordinance is great for gunowners. The further Daley tries to go, the better it will be for us ultimately. Like the Imperial Japanese Army on Guadalcanal, Daley is making a banzai charge. Much more convenient for us than a subtler approach.
 
It seems to me quite obvious that Daley et al. are engaged in political rope-a-dope. They will enact and for as long as possible enforce blatantly unconstitutional statutes, and when those are struck down, will enact and enforce ever-so-slightly different (and entirely unconstitutional) statutes for as long as the SCOTUS has the current makeup. Since there is absolutely no personal penalty any of them must endure for their anti-constitutional shenanigans, what's to stop them?
 
DG45 said:
I hope that some super-sharp civil rights lawyer can find a way to pierce the veil of personal immunity that these elected officials in Chicago believe they are protected by, and use the opening to go after them personally.
Click to expand...

It's getting close!

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
The latter section is the one with potential to pierce the veil of limited immunity for public officials.

Even now it would be hard, for Daley or the City to claim they were not intending to violate the people's rights the Supreme Court said they have. Not when aldermen say "It's a bad decision." or "We don't agree with the court's decision" and one woman alderman who thanked participants for "making this the most restrictive law possbile."

Obviously permit and licensing schemes cannot be implemented against a constitutional right. Could they require you to obtain a permit to worship your religion more than once a month? Or to read more than 10 pages of scriptures per day? Or make carrying a Bible/Torah/Koran/etc outside your home a crime? Could the city require you to buy a permit in order to obtain a public defender? All of these would be and are offensive to the constitution.

Other requirements of the law just stink. For instance, what about the 18-20 year old who is a hard worker, on his own and an orphan with no parents or guardians? The city will deny him his right because there is no one to sign his permission slip. The most obnoxious part of that is if the young person does have a single living parent, but that parent is disqualified because of a 23 year old conviction, the city punishes the man's heirs for crimes the father committed (even if the child lives on his own). Absurd.

The eyesight requirement slipped past me. I wonder how they'll react to a combined ADA and Civil Rights suit from someone who has a glass eye? Some of these folks cannot drive due to a lack of depth perception. Yet, their remaining eye can be 20/20. Depth perception isn't required in shooting (how many of you shoot with one eye closed at times?). Thus Chicago discriminates against those with disabilities.

Should Chicagoans start a tax revolt on their property taxes? If their property tax includes taxes on a detached 2-car garage or includes the front/rear porches and yards then they're entitled to a partial rebate on those taxes. After all, the city has said these areas are not part of the home. If the city can exclude these as part of the "home" definition, then why should people pay a full tax amount on them as developed land?

Or should it be a 5th Amendment civil rights suit for the city depriving the owners of the full use and enjoyment of their property? As one pointed out, it'd be illegal to clean your gun in the garage or on the back porch (to spare your spouse the smell of solvents). This is about like the city declaring that yards must be maintained, but not used for sporting activities, games, parties, lounging, weddings, picnics or gatherings of more than 3 people. Not only does that deprive owners of property rights, but it devalues those homes with larger yards suitable for just those activities.

Were it not for our Constitution and the Illinois state constitution, it's my belief that Mayor Daely would be exactly the kind of pompous, bullying tyrant that so angered our forefathers. I think he's dangerously close to that now.
 
BillCA, thanks for the information. This looks promising. I'm not a lawyer and I could be wrong, but those statutes sure seem to my laymans eye to prohibit and make a Federal crime of exactly whats happening in Chicago.

I hasten to add that my interpretations of plain English have often been contradicted by the contrary interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court.

How would someone go about pursuing officials who commit illegal acts such as those prohibited by these statutes? Can the statutes be used offensively against the perpetrators, and if so, by whom and how? Or can these statutes only be used defensively by people arrested under the illegal laws?

i.e., do we have to sit around for years and wait for a "test case" to come along, or can a citizen or group (NRA?) sue violators as soon as their rights are infringed?
 
I'd say an area where the law has one, big, serious, fault is the part about not having any guns outside of the home itself, not even the one gun the people of Chicago have all been waiting for. :D

The 2nd A protects the right to Keep AND Bear arms. The government should not be able to tell you that you cannot both Keep AND Bear arms on your own property, even if it's outside of the house. The right protected is a single right. That single right is composed of two components, that of keeping AND bearing arms. The government may be able to control the bearing of arms in public, sensitive areas. That will remain to be seen. However, I don't think they have any power to regulate the bearing of arms on one's own private property, without running afoul of the protection laid down in the 2nd A.
 
I think we need to be aware of the differences between Heller and McDonald.

In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).

This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
 
Antipitas:
In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).

This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the McDonald Case be more applicable to Chicago then? In Mcdonald, if it was held that the "right to KEEP AND BEAR arms" is FUNDAMENTAL, and thus incorporated against the states (and by assumption local governments), then doesn't that mean that the Chicago law against having a handgun in your possession outside of your home, while still on your own property, would run afoul of the McDonald ruling? Wouldn't the McDonald ruling be VERY applicable to Chicago and any lower court which deals with Chicago and the 2nd A.? The protected right is the right to "KEEP AND BEAR" arms. There is only one right protected, however, there are two components which construct that right. I would say the word AND is very key in that regard. But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one at any time or in any place. I'm just trying to figure out how far Chicago will be allowed to go in violating the Supreme Court findings in McDonald, if not in Heller.
 
And couldn't the Title 18 statutes hyperlinked by BillCA be used against the perpetrators? And how is that a personal rant?
 
I've always hated that man... he spent tens of thousands (not hundreds, which the FAA imposed after his outburst) of dollars of Cook Country tax payers money on closing Meigs Field to build a park, then he told a reporter to put a gun up his butt and now he's doing this! God... this man. He thinks Chicago isn't a part of the Federal government! Man! I've always hated him.

Daley feels that any type of government outside of his absurd mob-style rule is just "stupid" and he'll do all he can to adhere to it. I hate to get so "political" on this forum, but... man...

I gotta listen to some Zac Brown band to calm down, now.
 
In the eyes of the law....

but what happens if one of us who are nicely stocked with several of our favorite pistols are forced to move there due to work or whatever?
Click to expand...

No one in this country is forced to move anywhere due to "work or whatever."

It is a voluntary choice. Always. You may intensely dislike the alternative choices, but you can legally make the decision on your own. You are never forced, in the eyes of the law.

No one is forced to live in Chicago, DC, LA, or any other town, city, or state. No one forces you to live in the USA. We do it from choice.

It may be a tremendous personal hardship to leave where you are, or to go somewhere else, it may be economic suicide not to, but you (and I) are never "forced" to do it. The law doesn't care about our comfort levels, or even the basic ability to make ends meet. As long as no one physically relocates you at gunpoint, you are not "forced" to go anywhere.

Going to California, or Chicago, NY, NJ, or any other place with restrictive gun laws? Your choice, leave your guns, don't go, or put up with their rules as best you can. No other options. But you get to pick which one you will do. No physical force making that decision for you.
 
I still say i take pity for those souls who feel they are forced by the "golden handcuffs" of employment... That is just a little paycheck above forced servitude...

When you live 100% debt free, it is much harder to feel this pressure to leave your own chosen paradise.

Brent
 
I think we need to be aware of the differences between Heller and McDonald.

In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).

This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
Click to expand...
Yes ... and no.

In Heller, the question raised by the lawsuit was whether or not the right discussed in and (supposedly) guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment was an individual right or a collective (and militia-related/dependent) right. The part about "keeping" and "in the home for personal defense" was only the specific background for qualifying the plaintiffs.

There is only ONE right in the 2nd Amendment, and this was discussed in Scalia's Heller ruling as well as in Alito's McDonald ruling. It is a single right to both keep AND BEAR arms. They are, by the language of the Amendment itself, inseparable. Once the SCOTUS affirmed that the "keep" part is an individual right and that it applies to the states, they automatically affirmed the "bear" part. Alito's decision is perhaps more detailed on this point, but Scali's decision understood and recognized this, as well.

Thus, in Heller, the holding was NOT that "the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home)." The holding in Heller was that the core right in the 2nd Amendment is an individual right not dependent on membership in a militia.
 
USAFNoDAK said:
Wouldn't the McDonald Case be more applicable to Chicago then? In Mcdonald, if it was held that the "right to KEEP AND BEAR arms" is FUNDAMENTAL, and thus incorporated against the states (and by assumption local governments), then doesn't that mean that the Chicago law against having a handgun in your possession outside of your home, while still on your own property, would run afoul of the McDonald ruling? Wouldn't the McDonald ruling be VERY applicable to Chicago and any lower court which deals with Chicago and the 2nd A.?
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that Chicago's new laws will fail in court, but I think the challenge will be based on both Heller and McDonald. It will cite Heller to say, "Hey, my right under the 2nd Amendment has been ruled to be an individual right, so don't tell me it doesn't apply to me since I'm not in a militia," and it will cite McDonald to say, "And, by the way, this individual right of mine is binding on the states, so don't tell me the the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you."

From there, I think the more straightforward, repeated references to THE right to keep AND BEAR arms in Alito's McDonald decision will be used extensively.
 
hogdogs said:
When you live 100% debt free, it is much harder to feel this pressure to leave your own chosen paradise.
Click to expand...
That's easy to say if you have a decent job and don't live in one of the high cost-of-living areas in the country. And sure, it's easy to say "So just move where it's cheaper," but ... in case you don't watch or read the news ... there aren't a lot of jobs out there right now, anywhere in the country. I've been through several economic downturns in my life, and I have NEVER seen so many people out of work and so few jobs of ANY kind.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
In Heller, the question raised by the lawsuit was whether or not the right discussed in and (supposedly) guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment was an individual right or a collective (and militia-related/dependent) right. The part about "keeping" and "in the home for personal defense" was only the specific background for qualifying the plaintiffs.

There is only ONE right in the 2nd Amendment, and this was discussed in Scalia's Heller ruling as well as in Alito's McDonald ruling. It is a single right to both keep AND BEAR arms.
Click to expand...

There was a lot of discussion in both Heller and McDonald. The courts will sort out what parts of the opinions in those cases are dicta or ratio decidendi. At the very least, we know this from McDonald:

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.
Click to expand...
 
In Benson v. Chicago we've had a bit of movement. The post-discovery hearing was held yesterday and the results are:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang:Status hearing held. Discussion held on how the motion for summary judgment will be briefed. The Court will allow the City to file it's motion for summary first. Defendants' motion for summary judgment due 02/01/12. Response due 03/02/12. Reply due 04/03/12. Counsel request for leave to file the briefs in excess of 15 pages is granted. Each brief not to exceed 14,000 words. Status hearing set for 01/19/12 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice(slb, )
Click to expand...

We've had lots of stall in this case, and the court has just indicated that more is on the way (at least 6 months more).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top