Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Showing Original Post only (View all)Vague portion of Chicago anti-gun ordinance struck down by Federal judge [View all]
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
"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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
37 replies, 6213 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vague portion of Chicago anti-gun ordinance struck down by Federal judge [View all]
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
OP
And since the police and prosecutors have historically had our civil rights in mind at all times ...
hack89
Jun 2012
#17
Police and prosecutors don't get to be the final arbiters of Constitutional Rights.
PavePusher
Jun 2012
#24
Not at all, the fact that you actually share some of his core beliefs is totally coincidental.
DonP
Jun 2012
#20
It's kind of pathetic when someone who thinks it's OK to ban guns inside of a person's home...
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#15
Are you prepared to apply that principle to the Thirteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments?
PavePusher
Jun 2012
#23