HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Vague portion of Chicago ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:55 AM

 

Vague portion of Chicago anti-gun ordinance struck down by Federal judge

U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan recently ruled that Chicago's 2010 anti-gun ordinance (passed just days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's 28-year ban on handguns) is unconstitutionally vague to the extent that it prohibits a person previously convicted of any "unlawful use of a weapon" from being issued a firearm permit.

The judge based his ruling on the fact that Chicago's ordinance does not adequately define "unlawful use of a weapon," and the phrase "unlawful use of a weapon" can mean different things to different people in different jurisdictions.

"There is something incongruent about a nonviolent person, who is not a felon but who is convicted of a misdemeanor offense of simple possession of a firearm, being forever barred from exercising his constitutional right to defend himself in his own home in Chicago against felons or violent criminals," Der-Yeghiayan wrote.

"The same Constitution that protects people's right to bear arms prohibits this type of indiscriminate and arbitrary governmental regulation," he continued. "It is the opinion of this court that any attempt to dilute or restrict a core constitutional right with justifications that do not have a basis in history and tradition is inherently suspect."
...

"The only thing Mr. Gowder did was to own a firearm. As a result, he was treated like a criminal by the city of Chicago when all he did was exercise his fundamental Second Amendment right," said Stephen Kolodziej, a Chicago attorney representing the plaintiff. "We think the city of Chicago's actions in denying Mr. Gowder a firearm permit were punitive and draconian as well as violative of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-gun-law-20120620,0,3472302.story

At least four additional pending lawsuits are challenging other portions of Chicago's ordinance. Earlier, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the city's ban of gun ownership by citizens was unconstitutional.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

37 replies, 3311 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Vague portion of Chicago anti-gun ordinance struck down by Federal judge (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 OP
Meiko Jun 2012 #1
Kolesar Jun 2012 #2
Meiko Jun 2012 #3
Kolesar Jun 2012 #4
Meiko Jun 2012 #7
Kolesar Jun 2012 #14
hack89 Jun 2012 #17
Meiko Jun 2012 #21
gejohnston Jun 2012 #22
PavePusher Jun 2012 #24
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #29
backwoodsbob Jun 2012 #30
DonP Jun 2012 #5
Kolesar Jun 2012 #12
DonP Jun 2012 #20
hack89 Jun 2012 #6
Kolesar Jun 2012 #13
hack89 Jun 2012 #16
MicaelS Jun 2012 #18
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #35
Clames Jun 2012 #8
Kolesar Jun 2012 #10
armueller2001 Jun 2012 #9
Kolesar Jun 2012 #11
MicaelS Jun 2012 #19
PavePusher Jun 2012 #25
armueller2001 Jun 2012 #34
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #36
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #37
slackmaster Jun 2012 #15
aikoaiko Jun 2012 #28
PavePusher Jun 2012 #23
pipoman Jun 2012 #31
crayfish Jun 2012 #33
rl6214 Jun 2012 #26
Spoonman Jun 2012 #27
beevul Jun 2012 #32

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:21 AM

1. Keep chipping away

 

at the unjust laws. The anti-gun bias in some of the larger cities is staggering. It's good to see them called on the carpet for some of these laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 05:19 AM

2. It's called "democracy"

The anti-gun bias in some of the larger cities is staggering.
Home rule is more appropriate than rule by some pasty faced downstate microencephaloids .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:14 AM

3. No doubt

 

whoever is in charge makes the rules right? But the choices made are not always the correct ones and need to be challenged once in awhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:11 AM

4. ^Thin

...to the point of being worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:49 AM

7. I am sorry you are unhappy with my response

 

but that's the way it goes sometimes. I had a tooth pulled today and I have a snoot full of painkillers, I am not at the top of my game. The fact is that regardless of who put the law in place it is a bad one and was looked at by proper authority. As a life time gun owner I think that many of the current gun laws we have are just plain bad and serve no useful purpose other than to make someone feel good. There are some that are good and serve well. To require a qualified citizen to obtain a registration card so they can keep a gun in their house for self defense is totally ludicrous and needs to be repealed. Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:12 AM

14. Sure you are not on hallucinogens?

Police and prosecutors wanted these local restrictions.
Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:23 AM

17. And since the police and prosecutors have historically had our civil rights in mind at all times ...

oh wait.

Police states are called police states for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:02 PM

21. No,no hallucinogens

 

Sounds about right. Police and prosecutors are always stepping up to take your guns or restrict their use in some way....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:33 PM

22. police and prosecuters are not fond of

Miranda or the exclusionary rule either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:57 PM

24. Police and prosecutors don't get to be the final arbiters of Constitutional Rights.

 

Quite the opposite really, we tell them what our Rights are, then empower them to enforce those laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:33 PM

29. Forgive me an overused figure of speech.

But when I say it now, I mean it in the most literal and sincere way.

I could not care less what police and prosecutors want.

I care about what citizens want, and what has been proven to work. That usually varies greatly from what police and prosecutors want. In many cases, the two are polar opposites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 02:14 AM

30. IF police and prosecutors in locals want..

to restrict abortion is that ok?to restrict free speech is that ok?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:20 AM

5. Thats what Lester Maddox thought too

Home rule was one of his favorite excuses too. Nice company you keep philisophically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:10 AM

12. Calling me Lester Maddox?

You need some air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:57 AM

20. Not at all, the fact that you actually share some of his core beliefs is totally coincidental.

You believe, based on your own post, that cities should have the ability to write and enforce their own versions of constitutional rights, without the state or Federal government getting involved. So did Lester, George and their little friends.

Thankfully, wiser heads prevailed then and now.

And your concern for my health is appreciated, but I get plenty of fresh air at the range every other weekend shooting High Power matches with my 1943 M1 Garand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:35 AM

6. So cities could ban abortion and marrage equality and call it "democracy"?

All civil liberties are universal or they are not - you can't pick and choose who makes the rules depending on your desired outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:10 AM

13. Bullshit analogy eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:21 AM

16. Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights

I know you would like an a la carte Constitution, but then, so would the the RW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

18. No bullshit at all, a perfect analogy..

You're stating that Home Rule is superior to some distant politician in the Statehouse because the local residents get their voice heard in a manner consistent with their values.

The logical intention of that position is that Statehouse rule is superior to that of the Federal Government because the state residents get their voice heard in a manner consistent with their values.

You're just arguing FOR State's Rights, and a weak Central Government.

You're only taking this position because your support Gun Prohibition. If the State passed very strong Gun Prohibition laws, and people at the local level claimed "Home Rule" to weaken those laws, you would be completely against Home Rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 03:08 PM

35. I'm curious to see the dividing line to prevent the abuses described.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:37 AM

8. Really?

 

Pasty faced big city microencephaloids make these laws democratic? Did the citizens vote on these laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:09 AM

10. City council eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:42 AM

9. just because something is popular, doesn't make it right

Rights are there to prevent "tyranny by majority"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to armueller2001 (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:09 AM

11. the police thought it was right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:43 AM

19. Who gives a shit what the police think...

The police's job is to enforce the law, not make them.

I don't always listen to what prosecutors and police chiefs often want, because they can't always be trusted. They is plenty of evidence of prosecutorial, and police misconduct out there in this country. And ESPECIALLY in the City of Chicago, with the Chicago PD.

Police chiefs are often political appointees that exist only at the whim of local officials. Plenty of police chiefs have come out in favor of gun bans, even if the rank and file officers support the RKBA.

After Texas passed the CCW law, some county prosecutors (Harris County D.A. for one) still refused to follow the spirit of the law, and told their local law enforcement to keep arresting people who had a gun in their car. The Texas Legislature had to make sure these prosecutors understood their jobs was to enforce the law as the legislature wanted, not as they, the prosecutors, themselves wanted.

Or did you just happen to forget about the police across the country acting like stormtroopers when they were dealing with Occupy protestors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:59 PM

25. So. What. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:51 PM

34. The police in Germany

thought rounding up Jews and putting them in camps was "right" too. I don't give a shit what police think, only what laws say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 03:08 PM

36. We own the police, not vice versa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 11:24 AM

37. All the more reason to oppose it.

What is with your slavering deference to the police?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:17 AM

15. It's kind of pathetic when someone who thinks it's OK to ban guns inside of a person's home...

 

...claims to support "home rule."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:15 PM

28. nicely played, Slack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:55 PM

23. Are you prepared to apply that principle to the Thirteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments?

 

And yes, your regional bigotry (and apparent rural-vs-urban bigotry) is noted.

Or was that sarcasm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 07:51 AM

31. LOL

Really? Bet you don't hold that line on other rights? Some of the silliness hereabouts is truly amazing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 09:57 AM

33. By all means, let's decide policy by popular vote.

 

I presume your status is neither minority, gay nor female,...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:57 PM

26. Dayum, more backlash

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:55 PM

27. I guess Hoyt took a vacation

 

I'll step in for him.

This a travesty, mkay.
People are gonna die because of this, mkay.
This judge appointed by President Clint and the first Armenian immigrant federal judge in the United States is a RW NRA controlled extremist, mkay.

In conclusion children, guns are bad, mkay!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spoonman (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 08:12 AM

32. You left out...

"Venturing out with a gun tucked in your pants"... and "stopping and holding gun carriers for police to check out", and "field stripping a 45 underwater"...and "defending yourself from an assailant with the front wheel of your bicycle"..

Amongst other gems I'm sure I've forgotten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread