The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 20, 2010, 12:47 AM   #76
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
While the newly proposed gun laws in chicago are rather rediculous, they still allow for the average citizen to excercize their 2nd amendment rights should they choose to.
NO, they do not. Chicago residents who clean their firearms in their garage will instantly become criminals! That is CLEARLY in infringement on the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Look up what "keep and bear" means. They discussed this in Heller, even though the court did not see fit to actually enforce the clear meaning of the US Constitution.
raimius is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 08:09 AM   #77
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,708
I'm curious...
Obviously its difficult to legally buy and own a gun there, but what happens if one of us who are nicely stocked with several of our favorite pistols are forced to move there due to work or whatever?
We supposed to drop them in a river on the way in or what?

Does moving there, keeping all guns, and ignoring Chicago's silly laws violate any Federal laws?
Is it like a fine or a all expense paid trip to Leavenworth?
Dashunde is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 08:24 AM   #78
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Threads merged.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 08:28 AM   #79
sundog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Green Country, OK
Posts: 730
I remember my Dad being very peeved about having to pay a poll tax. Of course, the 24th Amd and many changes in states election laws and constitutions have fixed that now.

Which gets me to my point. Pay to exercise a right?

Not.
__________________
safety first
sundog is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 08:32 AM   #80
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate45
A valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card issued by the State of Illinois
Since all firearms owners in IL are required to posses a FOID card, I don't see what is so onerous about that provision.

Gotta disagree on that one.... the FOID is an onerous requirement on it's own, any further requirement just takes it to another degree.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 11:01 AM   #81
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla View Post
Gotta disagree on that one.... the FOID is an onerous requirement on it's own, any further requirement just takes it to another degree.
Let me clarify for you Peet. Each response of mine in red was only addressing each point. What I meant was, that having to posses a valid FOID and present it to get the new permit, was not an unreasonable requirement.

As an aside, if you read the law in regards to obtaining a FOID, and its purpose. It doesn't really seem that bad a system. As long as they don't use it to register fireams. Or somehow invalidate FOID cards and issue no new ones.

Listen, I'm not going to disagree with anyone who thinks that IL gun laws in general and Chicago's new ordinance in particular are excessive. However, it is what it is. Hoping for some judicial miracle that will instantly grant full gun rights to Chicagoans is unrealistic. They had a complete handgun ban in Chicago, now they don't, thats progress.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 11:14 AM   #82
DG45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
I hope that some super-sharp civil rights lawyer can find a way to pierce the veil of personal immunity that these elected officials in Chicago believe they are protected by, and use the opening to go after them personally.

Perhaps these new laws will open that door.
DG45 is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 12:14 PM   #83
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
I'm hoping it won't be too long before some lawyer rapes the heck out of this new ordinance. Seriously - an attached garage isn't part of your home? How can they even claim that with a straight face? Not to mention the $100 CFP fee that effectively raises the cost of purchasing a firearm by 10-40% in most cases. (I realize that the $100 fee is only every three years, not per-gun, but $100 every three years is still a significant amount.)
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 01:31 PM   #84
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Personally, I think the ordinance is great for gunowners. The further Daley tries to go, the better it will be for us ultimately. Like the Imperial Japanese Army on Guadalcanal, Daley is making a banzai charge. Much more convenient for us than a subtler approach.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 20, 2010, 06:59 PM   #85
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
It seems to me quite obvious that Daley et al. are engaged in political rope-a-dope. They will enact and for as long as possible enforce blatantly unconstitutional statutes, and when those are struck down, will enact and enforce ever-so-slightly different (and entirely unconstitutional) statutes for as long as the SCOTUS has the current makeup. Since there is absolutely no personal penalty any of them must endure for their anti-constitutional shenanigans, what's to stop them?
csmsss is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 02:32 AM   #86
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG45
I hope that some super-sharp civil rights lawyer can find a way to pierce the veil of personal immunity that these elected officials in Chicago believe they are protected by, and use the opening to go after them personally.
It's getting close!

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
The latter section is the one with potential to pierce the veil of limited immunity for public officials.

Even now it would be hard, for Daley or the City to claim they were not intending to violate the people's rights the Supreme Court said they have. Not when aldermen say "It's a bad decision." or "We don't agree with the court's decision" and one woman alderman who thanked participants for "making this the most restrictive law possbile."

Obviously permit and licensing schemes cannot be implemented against a constitutional right. Could they require you to obtain a permit to worship your religion more than once a month? Or to read more than 10 pages of scriptures per day? Or make carrying a Bible/Torah/Koran/etc outside your home a crime? Could the city require you to buy a permit in order to obtain a public defender? All of these would be and are offensive to the constitution.

Other requirements of the law just stink. For instance, what about the 18-20 year old who is a hard worker, on his own and an orphan with no parents or guardians? The city will deny him his right because there is no one to sign his permission slip. The most obnoxious part of that is if the young person does have a single living parent, but that parent is disqualified because of a 23 year old conviction, the city punishes the man's heirs for crimes the father committed (even if the child lives on his own). Absurd.

The eyesight requirement slipped past me. I wonder how they'll react to a combined ADA and Civil Rights suit from someone who has a glass eye? Some of these folks cannot drive due to a lack of depth perception. Yet, their remaining eye can be 20/20. Depth perception isn't required in shooting (how many of you shoot with one eye closed at times?). Thus Chicago discriminates against those with disabilities.

Should Chicagoans start a tax revolt on their property taxes? If their property tax includes taxes on a detached 2-car garage or includes the front/rear porches and yards then they're entitled to a partial rebate on those taxes. After all, the city has said these areas are not part of the home. If the city can exclude these as part of the "home" definition, then why should people pay a full tax amount on them as developed land?

Or should it be a 5th Amendment civil rights suit for the city depriving the owners of the full use and enjoyment of their property? As one pointed out, it'd be illegal to clean your gun in the garage or on the back porch (to spare your spouse the smell of solvents). This is about like the city declaring that yards must be maintained, but not used for sporting activities, games, parties, lounging, weddings, picnics or gatherings of more than 3 people. Not only does that deprive owners of property rights, but it devalues those homes with larger yards suitable for just those activities.

Were it not for our Constitution and the Illinois state constitution, it's my belief that Mayor Daely would be exactly the kind of pompous, bullying tyrant that so angered our forefathers. I think he's dangerously close to that now.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 12:04 PM   #87
DG45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
BillCA, thanks for the information. This looks promising. I'm not a lawyer and I could be wrong, but those statutes sure seem to my laymans eye to prohibit and make a Federal crime of exactly whats happening in Chicago.

I hasten to add that my interpretations of plain English have often been contradicted by the contrary interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court.

How would someone go about pursuing officials who commit illegal acts such as those prohibited by these statutes? Can the statutes be used offensively against the perpetrators, and if so, by whom and how? Or can these statutes only be used defensively by people arrested under the illegal laws?

i.e., do we have to sit around for years and wait for a "test case" to come along, or can a citizen or group (NRA?) sue violators as soon as their rights are infringed?
DG45 is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 12:47 PM   #88
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,799
Want to talk about the actual law and its implications. Too many rants appearing.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 02:31 PM   #89
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
I'd say an area where the law has one, big, serious, fault is the part about not having any guns outside of the home itself, not even the one gun the people of Chicago have all been waiting for.

The 2nd A protects the right to Keep AND Bear arms. The government should not be able to tell you that you cannot both Keep AND Bear arms on your own property, even if it's outside of the house. The right protected is a single right. That single right is composed of two components, that of keeping AND bearing arms. The government may be able to control the bearing of arms in public, sensitive areas. That will remain to be seen. However, I don't think they have any power to regulate the bearing of arms on one's own private property, without running afoul of the protection laid down in the 2nd A.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 02:50 PM   #90
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
I think we need to be aware of the differences between Heller and McDonald.

In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).

This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 03:35 PM   #91
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Antipitas:
Quote:
In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).

This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
Wouldn't the McDonald Case be more applicable to Chicago then? In Mcdonald, if it was held that the "right to KEEP AND BEAR arms" is FUNDAMENTAL, and thus incorporated against the states (and by assumption local governments), then doesn't that mean that the Chicago law against having a handgun in your possession outside of your home, while still on your own property, would run afoul of the McDonald ruling? Wouldn't the McDonald ruling be VERY applicable to Chicago and any lower court which deals with Chicago and the 2nd A.? The protected right is the right to "KEEP AND BEAR" arms. There is only one right protected, however, there are two components which construct that right. I would say the word AND is very key in that regard. But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one at any time or in any place. I'm just trying to figure out how far Chicago will be allowed to go in violating the Supreme Court findings in McDonald, if not in Heller.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 06:45 PM   #92
DG45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
And couldn't the Title 18 statutes hyperlinked by BillCA be used against the perpetrators? And how is that a personal rant?
DG45 is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 10:49 PM   #93
SigP6Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2009
Posts: 1,086
I've always hated that man... he spent tens of thousands (not hundreds, which the FAA imposed after his outburst) of dollars of Cook Country tax payers money on closing Meigs Field to build a park, then he told a reporter to put a gun up his butt and now he's doing this! God... this man. He thinks Chicago isn't a part of the Federal government! Man! I've always hated him.

Daley feels that any type of government outside of his absurd mob-style rule is just "stupid" and he'll do all he can to adhere to it. I hate to get so "political" on this forum, but... man...

I gotta listen to some Zac Brown band to calm down, now.
__________________
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-
SigP6Carry is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 11:34 PM   #94
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,741
In the eyes of the law....

Quote:
but what happens if one of us who are nicely stocked with several of our favorite pistols are forced to move there due to work or whatever?
No one in this country is forced to move anywhere due to "work or whatever."

It is a voluntary choice. Always. You may intensely dislike the alternative choices, but you can legally make the decision on your own. You are never forced, in the eyes of the law.

No one is forced to live in Chicago, DC, LA, or any other town, city, or state. No one forces you to live in the USA. We do it from choice.

It may be a tremendous personal hardship to leave where you are, or to go somewhere else, it may be economic suicide not to, but you (and I) are never "forced" to do it. The law doesn't care about our comfort levels, or even the basic ability to make ends meet. As long as no one physically relocates you at gunpoint, you are not "forced" to go anywhere.

Going to California, or Chicago, NY, NJ, or any other place with restrictive gun laws? Your choice, leave your guns, don't go, or put up with their rules as best you can. No other options. But you get to pick which one you will do. No physical force making that decision for you.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 21, 2010, 11:43 PM   #95
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
I still say i take pity for those souls who feel they are forced by the "golden handcuffs" of employment... That is just a little paycheck above forced servitude...

When you live 100% debt free, it is much harder to feel this pressure to leave your own chosen paradise.

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old July 22, 2010, 09:01 AM   #96
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,594
Quote:
I think we need to be aware of the differences between Heller and McDonald.

In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).

This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
Yes ... and no.

In Heller, the question raised by the lawsuit was whether or not the right discussed in and (supposedly) guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment was an individual right or a collective (and militia-related/dependent) right. The part about "keeping" and "in the home for personal defense" was only the specific background for qualifying the plaintiffs.

There is only ONE right in the 2nd Amendment, and this was discussed in Scalia's Heller ruling as well as in Alito's McDonald ruling. It is a single right to both keep AND BEAR arms. They are, by the language of the Amendment itself, inseparable. Once the SCOTUS affirmed that the "keep" part is an individual right and that it applies to the states, they automatically affirmed the "bear" part. Alito's decision is perhaps more detailed on this point, but Scali's decision understood and recognized this, as well.

Thus, in Heller, the holding was NOT that "the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home)." The holding in Heller was that the core right in the 2nd Amendment is an individual right not dependent on membership in a militia.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 22, 2010, 09:07 AM   #97
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDAK
Wouldn't the McDonald Case be more applicable to Chicago then? In Mcdonald, if it was held that the "right to KEEP AND BEAR arms" is FUNDAMENTAL, and thus incorporated against the states (and by assumption local governments), then doesn't that mean that the Chicago law against having a handgun in your possession outside of your home, while still on your own property, would run afoul of the McDonald ruling? Wouldn't the McDonald ruling be VERY applicable to Chicago and any lower court which deals with Chicago and the 2nd A.?
I have no doubt that Chicago's new laws will fail in court, but I think the challenge will be based on both Heller and McDonald. It will cite Heller to say, "Hey, my right under the 2nd Amendment has been ruled to be an individual right, so don't tell me it doesn't apply to me since I'm not in a militia," and it will cite McDonald to say, "And, by the way, this individual right of mine is binding on the states, so don't tell me the the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you."

From there, I think the more straightforward, repeated references to THE right to keep AND BEAR arms in Alito's McDonald decision will be used extensively.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 22, 2010, 09:12 AM   #98
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
When you live 100% debt free, it is much harder to feel this pressure to leave your own chosen paradise.
That's easy to say if you have a decent job and don't live in one of the high cost-of-living areas in the country. And sure, it's easy to say "So just move where it's cheaper," but ... in case you don't watch or read the news ... there aren't a lot of jobs out there right now, anywhere in the country. I've been through several economic downturns in my life, and I have NEVER seen so many people out of work and so few jobs of ANY kind.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 22, 2010, 06:20 PM   #99
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
In Heller, the question raised by the lawsuit was whether or not the right discussed in and (supposedly) guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment was an individual right or a collective (and militia-related/dependent) right. The part about "keeping" and "in the home for personal defense" was only the specific background for qualifying the plaintiffs.

There is only ONE right in the 2nd Amendment, and this was discussed in Scalia's Heller ruling as well as in Alito's McDonald ruling. It is a single right to both keep AND BEAR arms.
There was a lot of discussion in both Heller and McDonald. The courts will sort out what parts of the opinions in those cases are dicta or ratio decidendi. At the very least, we know this from McDonald:

Quote:
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 4, 2011, 09:15 PM   #100
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
In Benson v. Chicago we've had a bit of movement. The post-discovery hearing was held yesterday and the results are:

Quote:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang:Status hearing held. Discussion held on how the motion for summary judgment will be briefed. The Court will allow the City to file it's motion for summary first. Defendants' motion for summary judgment due 02/01/12. Response due 03/02/12. Reply due 04/03/12. Counsel request for leave to file the briefs in excess of 15 pages is granted. Each brief not to exceed 14,000 words. Status hearing set for 01/19/12 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice(slb, )
We've had lots of stall in this case, and the court has just indicated that more is on the way (at least 6 months more).
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16556 seconds with 10 queries