New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit
- Thread starter milky7272
- Start date
- Status
Benson v. Chicago
On January 19, in the case of Benson v. City of Chicago Judge Edmond Chang ruled that plaintiffs be allowed to move ahead with a challenge to that city’s laws that ban anyone from possessing or carrying a handgun except in his or her home, and that ban possession or carriage of a long gun anywhere outside his or her home or place of business.
Other issues contested in the case include the city’s ban on nearly all firearm transfers and on the operation of gun stores, as well as its law that allows each Chicago license holder to keep only one “assembled and operable” firearm within the home.
In the ruling, Judge Chang pointed out that Chicago’s ordinance actually was more strict than state law: Illinois does allow people to possess and carry guns in their places of business, or in another person’s home.
On January 19, in the case of Benson v. City of Chicago Judge Edmond Chang ruled that plaintiffs be allowed to move ahead with a challenge to that city’s laws that ban anyone from possessing or carrying a handgun except in his or her home, and that ban possession or carriage of a long gun anywhere outside his or her home or place of business.
Other issues contested in the case include the city’s ban on nearly all firearm transfers and on the operation of gun stores, as well as its law that allows each Chicago license holder to keep only one “assembled and operable” firearm within the home.
In the ruling, Judge Chang pointed out that Chicago’s ordinance actually was more strict than state law: Illinois does allow people to possess and carry guns in their places of business, or in another person’s home.
armoredman
New member
The wheels of justice grind so slowly.
A bit of an update.
Back on Mar. 2nd, the defendant, City of Chicago, motioned to submit their Statement of Facts and exhibits (doc #159). Then on Mar. 7th, the Clerk enters the following:
Did you get that? The city dumped an entire box of documents off to the court! the Judge said, No, you must file electronically, like everyone else. and sent it all back!!
Then on Mar. 12th, the city sent in the data: Doc #164, their Statement of Material Facts; doc #165, 7 attachments with 25 exhibits; doc #166, 9 attachments with exhibits 26 thru 38; doc #167, 1 attachment with exhibits 39 and 40; doc #168, thru doc #170 with a total of 90 exhibits.
If you can't beat the opposition on the merits, smother them (and the court) with paperwork!!
Back on Mar. 2nd, the defendant, City of Chicago, motioned to submit their Statement of Facts and exhibits (doc #159). Then on Mar. 7th, the Clerk enters the following:
Did you get that? The city dumped an entire box of documents off to the court! the Judge said, No, you must file electronically, like everyone else. and sent it all back!!
Then on Mar. 12th, the city sent in the data: Doc #164, their Statement of Material Facts; doc #165, 7 attachments with 25 exhibits; doc #166, 9 attachments with exhibits 26 thru 38; doc #167, 1 attachment with exhibits 39 and 40; doc #168, thru doc #170 with a total of 90 exhibits.
If you can't beat the opposition on the merits, smother them (and the court) with paperwork!!
bitttorrrent
New member
And with the City being broke, who paid for all those man hours of scanning and filing these documents?
I did see the copy of a check paid for legal fees. This should be shown to the greater public - not just gun rights advocates.
I did see the copy of a check paid for legal fees. This should be shown to the greater public - not just gun rights advocates.
If you remember, back on Mar. 2nd, the City of Chicago filed their MSj and supporting documents, by way of paper. This ticked off the court clerk and the Judge ordered everything filed by ECF on or before Mar. 14th.
So what's new? On Apr. 6th, the plaintiffs motioned for an extension to file their response, on or before Apr. 27th. That motion was granted. So Friday, the plaintiffs filed their response.
This is a MSJ and opposition to the defendants MSJ (deja vu? Yes, we've been here before). You can read that pleading here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065.175.0.pdf
Remembering that this case is a virtual plate of spaghetti on the wall, the arguments are done very well. They utilize most all of the pro-2A dicta and rulings, most especially Ezell and McDonald.
The case is fighting:
Giving the NRA credit, where credit is due, I give this briefing 2 Thumbs Up! It is very, very well done.
So what's new? On Apr. 6th, the plaintiffs motioned for an extension to file their response, on or before Apr. 27th. That motion was granted. So Friday, the plaintiffs filed their response.
This is a MSJ and opposition to the defendants MSJ (deja vu? Yes, we've been here before). You can read that pleading here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065.175.0.pdf
Remembering that this case is a virtual plate of spaghetti on the wall, the arguments are done very well. They utilize most all of the pro-2A dicta and rulings, most especially Ezell and McDonald.
The case is fighting:
- Firearm possession on one's property, but outside the "HOME", ie yard and front porch, etc...
- Restrictions on firearm transfers (sales).
- More than 1 functional firearm in the home.
- Possession of firearms in one's business.
Giving the NRA credit, where credit is due, I give this briefing 2 Thumbs Up! It is very, very well done.
On page 32 it talks about Chicago's restrictions on possession of firearms outside the home, but when CPD encounters anyone outside of their home with a firearm (such as in the passenger compartment of their vehicle), they charge them under Illinois UUW law - not some Chicago municipal code.
I beleive that if someone is on their front porch with a firearm, CPD still charges them under state law. Is there a case where someone was charged instead with an ordinance violation?
I guess I don't totally understand this part of it. It seems to me that what they're talking about on page 32 is what is at issue in Moore & Shepard v Madigan.
I beleive that if someone is on their front porch with a firearm, CPD still charges them under state law. Is there a case where someone was charged instead with an ordinance violation?
I guess I don't totally understand this part of it. It seems to me that what they're talking about on page 32 is what is at issue in Moore & Shepard v Madigan.
OMG
For someone to write this - they have to believe that the end justifies any means - because this is a flat out lie.Gang members carry guns because at any given time they're carrying $15,000 - $30,000 worth of stuff, not coutning their personal jewelry. They also are carrying because at any given time they may be the target for a revenge killing.
They are NOT carrying for fear that law abiding citizens are carrying. They certainly don't carry less because they think the average law abiding citizen is not carrying, and they're not going to carry MORE if Illinois were to pass some sort of carry legislation.
I know it's only one point of many many stupid arguments that the city made - but this one angers me.
What a bunch of fricken communist liars.
This case is still dragging on:
The 6 page motion (linked above) is to (1) stay the proceedings until after Moore and Shepard are decided, or in the alternative, (2) extend time to file from May 28th to June 29th.
Oh, and it's signed by:
Is this an Illinois thing? That's twice now that we've seen this.
The 6 page motion (linked above) is to (1) stay the proceedings until after Moore and Shepard are decided, or in the alternative, (2) extend time to file from May 28th to June 29th.
Oh, and it's signed by:
Is this an Illinois thing? That's twice now that we've seen this.
Luger_carbine
New member
Chicago post McDonald, Ezell and Gowder
Interesting article on Rahm Emanual's new legal tactics following the repeated defeats that Chicago has had in court:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-gun-laws-20120722,0,2492746.story
A compromise? It's not a compromise! The laws were ruled unconstitutional !!!
It's funny that the city thinks this will make SAF and NRA go away...
ETA: Moved to the proper thread.
Interesting article on Rahm Emanual's new legal tactics following the repeated defeats that Chicago has had in court:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-gun-laws-20120722,0,2492746.story
A compromise? It's not a compromise! The laws were ruled unconstitutional !!!
It's funny that the city thinks this will make SAF and NRA go away...
ETA: Moved to the proper thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Back on May 21st, the City of Chicago filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings in light of the Moore and Sheppard cases. The City also Motioned for an extension of time to file a reply to Benson.
On May 24th, the Court denied the stay but granted the extension.
The City then filed its response on June 29th. This response was essentially an MSJ.
After some more legal rope-skipping (by both parties), the Plaintiffs filed their reply to the City, which is also an MSJ, on Aug. 3rd.
So we once again have dueling MSJ's.
Krucam, at MDShooters has laid out the essential claims of the plaintiff:
Docket
On May 24th, the Court denied the stay but granted the extension.
The City then filed its response on June 29th. This response was essentially an MSJ.
After some more legal rope-skipping (by both parties), the Plaintiffs filed their reply to the City, which is also an MSJ, on Aug. 3rd.
So we once again have dueling MSJ's.
Krucam, at MDShooters has laid out the essential claims of the plaintiff:
Docket
Warrior1256
New member
Does it strike anyone as strange that the places that have the most strict gun laws have the highest rates of violent crime?
Spats McGee
Administrator
Not really.Warrior1256 said:
Welcome to The Firing Line!
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
New member
A ruling must be close
Today in Chicago both the Tribune and CBS ran stories with headlines similar to this:
Father Pfleger And Coalition Don’t Want Concealed Carry To Pass In Illinois
_________________________________________________________________
They reference the legislature instead of the judiciary as the branch that will usher in CCW.
Why would they do this unless they had advanced notice that CCW is near the cusp of being reality one way or another?
Today in Chicago both the Tribune and CBS ran stories with headlines similar to this:
Father Pfleger And Coalition Don’t Want Concealed Carry To Pass In Illinois
_________________________________________________________________
They reference the legislature instead of the judiciary as the branch that will usher in CCW.
Why would they do this unless they had advanced notice that CCW is near the cusp of being reality one way or another?
Spats McGee
Administrator
I haven't had time to dig up the particular ordinance, but some rummaging might be fruitful if done here: http://amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_ilpublius42 said:
- Status