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)
 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:55 AM Jun 2012

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

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Keep chipping away Meiko Jun 2012 #1
It's called "democracy" Kolesar Jun 2012 #2
No doubt Meiko Jun 2012 #3
^Thin Kolesar Jun 2012 #4
I am sorry you are unhappy with my response Meiko Jun 2012 #7
Sure you are not on hallucinogens? Kolesar Jun 2012 #14
And since the police and prosecutors have historically had our civil rights in mind at all times ... hack89 Jun 2012 #17
No,no hallucinogens Meiko Jun 2012 #21
police and prosecuters are not fond of gejohnston Jun 2012 #22
Police and prosecutors don't get to be the final arbiters of Constitutional Rights. PavePusher Jun 2012 #24
Forgive me an overused figure of speech. NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #29
IF police and prosecutors in locals want.. backwoodsbob Jun 2012 #30
Thats what Lester Maddox thought too DonP Jun 2012 #5
Calling me Lester Maddox? Kolesar Jun 2012 #12
Not at all, the fact that you actually share some of his core beliefs is totally coincidental. DonP Jun 2012 #20
So cities could ban abortion and marrage equality and call it "democracy"? hack89 Jun 2012 #6
Bullshit analogy eom Kolesar Jun 2012 #13
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights hack89 Jun 2012 #16
No bullshit at all, a perfect analogy.. MicaelS Jun 2012 #18
I'm curious to see the dividing line to prevent the abuses described. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #35
Really? Clames Jun 2012 #8
City council eom Kolesar Jun 2012 #10
just because something is popular, doesn't make it right armueller2001 Jun 2012 #9
the police thought it was right Kolesar Jun 2012 #11
Who gives a shit what the police think... MicaelS Jun 2012 #19
So. What. n/t PavePusher Jun 2012 #25
The police in Germany armueller2001 Jun 2012 #34
We own the police, not vice versa Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #36
All the more reason to oppose it. NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #37
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
nicely played, Slack. aikoaiko Jun 2012 #28
Are you prepared to apply that principle to the Thirteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments? PavePusher Jun 2012 #23
LOL pipoman Jun 2012 #31
By all means, let's decide policy by popular vote. crayfish Jun 2012 #33
Dayum, more backlash rl6214 Jun 2012 #26
I guess Hoyt took a vacation Spoonman Jun 2012 #27
You left out... beevul Jun 2012 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Vague portion of Chicago ...»Reply #0