New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
One-gun-a-month laws violate the Constitution, IMHO.

Since when can the gov't dictate how often you can write an opinion piece to your newspaper? Or worship in church?

Or how many times a year you can obtain a lawyer to represent you in court?

Can they also limit how many times you can invoke your 5th amendment rights per day? Per month?

Declaring it illegal to exercise your rights more than once a month because "you already own a gun so your right is intact" doesn't cut it. Yeah, buying a .22 LR pocket pistol satisfies all my needs for at least 30 days, except when I decide I want a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun or a .45 handgun for home defense a week later.
 
Declaring it illegal to exercise your rights more than once a month because "you already own a gun so your right is intact" doesn't cut it. Yeah, buying a .22 LR pocket pistol satisfies all my needs for at least 30 days, except when I decide I want a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun or a .45 handgun for home defense a week later.
Click to expand...

I don't think we even need to justify what we want each gun for. It doesn't matter.

I agree completely with "one a month" (or what ever restriction they pick) doesn't cut it.

The way I see it is the same as ,

"yes, Mr BillCA, we see you are registered, but you cannot vote in this election. Our records clearly show you voted in 1987, so your rights are not being violated. Next!"....
 
Why buying from a Chicago gun shop is a bad idea

If someone ever opens a shop in Chicago, he is going to pay higher rent & insurance than a suburban shop. You don't have to be a fortune teller to guess that there will be a higher local sales tax on guns & ammo (20% ?).

What this means is a $500 handgun in the burbs is going to run you $700 in Chicago. A Chicago shop is likely to be a fun place to visit and see if you you like the feel of various guns, but a terrible business idea.
 
The lack of shooting ranges is a big problem. Of course the left will insist that you're responsible for any shot you fire and if you indicate you've never fired your gun before, will brand you "irresponsible" even though they are the ones who made it nearly impossible to practice at a range.

A shop in the city will almost always have higher rent & insurance rates that one in the 'burbs. Theft and other crimes are almost always higher in cities. But it will be the cost of business licenses & regulations that really drive costs up. Cities can add to the cost of your "build-out" of a store front by insisting on certain "security and safety measures". Alarms, barred doors & windows, safes or vaults to store guns nightly, fire suppression systems and more. One city I know of required there to be a locking mechanism at any point that accessed "behind the counter" plus a secure, locking door to the "back room" where the safes/vaults stored guns.

Chicago's $25 tax is likely unconstitutional. So might many other required "fees" or taxes such as California's so-called Handgun Safety Certificate.
See: Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
 
The gun stores aren't fighting the $25 Cook County tax on Constitutional grounds, but under state law that gives the state sole right to regulate firearms. Cook County's lawyer already admitted in court the tax was a regulation, so we'll see hoe this goes.
 
Another story on the cost of litigating bad gun laws

This time the City of Chicago.

I guess this is haggling over fees in Ezell?

Chicago taxpayers have been socked with a $940,000 legal bill for the city's failed attempt to uphold its gun store ban
Click to expand...

http://politics.suntimes.com/articl...axpayers-nearly-1-million/thu-07032014-1110pm

It seems that the ISRA is indicating that there will be a legal challenge to the new set of laws / regulations that Chicago enacted concerning gun stores, in the wake of overturning Chicago's ban:

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said he anticipates a legal challenge to the city’s new rules, which would keep gun stores out of 99.5 percent of the city.

“The ordinance is prohibitive,” he said.

[spokesman for the city’s Law Department], John Holden said the city has received one “general inquiry” about opening a new gun shop, but no formal applications.
Click to expand...
 
See also Gura's droll article describing his recent filings - http://alangura.com/2014/07/lisa-madigan-doesnt-want-you-to-tip/
Lisa Madigan Doesn’t Want You to Tip
Posted on July 2, 2014 by alangura

“[D]efendants should not be required to pay the tips provided by Gura for the cab fare and his meals.”

Waiters, cabbies, and anyone else whose Illinois livelihood depends at least in part on gratuities, listen up: your attorney general is against tipping. Or at least, she doesn’t want me to tip you when I travel to Illinois on business. Or, at least on the business of stopping her from violating your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
 
I wasn't aware that Chicago was appealing the Ezell decision, but here we are. David Hardy has audio of the oral arguments. The judges are clearly not convinced by the city's arguments. In fact, they seem annoyed to have their time wasted.

The city alleges that shooting ranges will create fire hazards, noise pollution, light pollution (?), and that they'll attract theft. The judges are buying none of that. The city's attorney is repeatedly criticized for presenting "highly anecdotal evidence," and is told that a narrowly tailored regulation "requires more than speculation."

The best quote comes at 4:41:
The problem is, it's your obligation to supply the courts with evidence, and the record doesn't demonstrate that that burden was carried.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, that went about as badly as it could for Chicago. The question is will they get rid of the ridiculous zoning requirements or just make minor tweaks and force this all over again?
 
The question is will they get rid of the ridiculous zoning requirements or just make minor tweaks and force this all over again?
Click to expand...
Given the city's post-McDonald policy of cooperating as little as humanly possible, I'd wager the latter.
 
When do the big lawsuits come for all the foot dragging, when do these (censored) have to face real consequences? If the answer is never, then this will continue until my grandson is dust.
 
Ezell II was just decided today in our favor! Chicago's zoning laws that effectively banned firing ranges in the city have been ruled unconstitutional by a 7th Circuit appeals court: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...18/C:14-3312:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1897637:S:0

The requirement that ranges be in a manufacturing district was thrown out, the laws requiring they be certain distances from residential areas, schools, daycares, etc was thrown out, and the law placing age restrictions on those using the ranges was thrown out.
 
When do the big lawsuits come for all the foot dragging, when do these (censored) have to face real consequences? If the answer is never, then this will continue until my grandson is dust.
Click to expand...

Probably never, as a citizen, if I violate someones constitutional rights, I have likely committed a crime. But the people in government regularly use their powers to stomp on constitutional rights with impunity. The law may struck from the books, but those who willfully violate the rights of others through the application of government powers will pay no price.
 
It's things like this and rampant gun violence regardless of the laws that prevent me on many levels, emotional and moral especially, from ever visiting Illinois or Chicago on principle and for my sake as someone rather young to die to gang-related violence now, or ever, really. But mostly now, if I had any prospects of going near the Midwest for work opportunities or school (Job Corps in my State, for my diploma, if Monday goes well for me.) now or prior to reading about this and most anti-RKBA legislative rules in that particular State.
 
But the people in government regularly use their powers to stomp on constitutional rights with impunity. The law may struck from the books, but those who willfully violate the rights of others through the application of government powers will pay no price.
Click to expand...

until the REVOLUTION!!!!!!!
:eek: :rolleyes: :D

Those in power, stomping on the natural rights of others has been going on as long as there have been those in power. I don't see that changing.

Do, however make sure you understand, and make the distinction between those who do it willfully and gleefully, and those who are just doing their job, the best way they know how, and the way they were taught.

I agree, it is a pleasing thought to think that these people should be held personally responsible for their official acts, but this is America, and as a principle, we don't do that, unless they actually break existing law. (and, sadly, not often enough, even then...)

It's another moral point to be proud of, something Americans do that happens too seldom in the rest of the world. The standard was set by our Founders, who, after the Revolution, when they had the power, did NOT round up all the Crown agents and hang them. Who did NOT behead the nobility in job lots.

Yes, some were tarred and feathered, beaten, run out of town on a rail. True people suffered, and I'm certain there were some fatalities, but by and large these were isolated individual instances. Our former rulers and their servants were not executed, imprisoned for life, sent to a gulag, or anything of the sort, generally. We simply told them to find a new life, preferably somewhere else...

What other nation has fought a war for freedom, and then treated its former masters with the degree of fairness and forgiveness that we did????

Yes, while I personally would be happy to see Congressperson Feinschumenbaumbergstein spend the rest of their natural life UNDER the jail, (or worse) that's because I'm small, petty, vicious, venal and vindictive.

Satisfying as that might be, they don't actually deserve it, and we don't do it, which shows both ourselves and the world that we actually ARE better people than many make us out to be.
 
Well said, 44 AMP, but let's draw some distinctions here too.

When state or local legislators legitimately debate an issue, ask relevant questions, let both (or all) sides provide input and transparently make a decision that may be unconstitutional, there's room to doubt evil intent --as opposed to evil or prejudiced intent.

But when these same officials emerge from their legislative committees and say things like "We're satisfied that we've made it as difficult as possible to [exercise a civil right] in light of the court's decision" they have removed any doubt of their contempt for the civil right(s) in question. They should therefore be held to account under Title 18, Part I, §241 and §242 (conspiracy, denial of civil rights).

While most city, county and state officials operate under some form of limited immunity for official acts, when it's evident they went to great lengths to limit as many people as possible from exercising their rights they allow that veil of immunity to be pierced. And, IMO, the consequences of such actions should land on them like an anvil.
 
The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right.
Civil rights are those granted by the government where my God given, natural, and birth rights are beyond any government or societal management.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top