Moore v Madigan challenged Illinois AUUW /UUW law, and Chicago has a similar city ordinance. Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez made a statement that CA7's decision in
Moore had no bearing on Chicago ordinances since Chicago wasn't a party to the
Shepard v Madigan or
Moore v Madigan cases (this is the same office that employs Paul Castigliano who said
Quote:
|
“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional...I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”
|
The case is
Michael Hall and Kathryn Tyler v. The City of Chicago. It was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - Eastern Division, after the
Moore decision (and I believe after Cook County SA's statement concerning
Moore v Madigan) Docket number is 1:13-cv-00441.
Complaint:
http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/ite...279068.1.0.pdf
Chicago's motion to dismiss:
http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/ite...79068.19.0.pdf
The city's argument seems to be that the court cannot redress harm because even if the city ordinance were over turned - Illinois State law prohibits carrying (the law that CA7 declared unconstitutional and Justice Kagan just granted an extension on...)
But one aspect of Chicago law that is more restrictive than Illinois law is that Chicago ordinance prohibits having a firearm outside of your home - (if you remember the orals from Moore, Judge Posner and Asst AG Karl Triebel had an exchange about "the four corners" of one's home).
The city's argument to dismiss that aspect of the case is that the matter is pending before another judge.