June 19, 2012, 11:07 PM | #1 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Gowder v. Chicago
The case is Gowder v. City of Chicago, et al. The case was filed a little over a year ago and has been speedily concluded... At this stage. I fully expect that Chicago will appeal and motion for a stay at the same time.
The amended complaint may be read here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....52864.13.0.pdf The opinion of the court is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....52864.66.0.pdf A look at the docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov....64.docket.html) will show you what has happened. What is interesting about this case, other than it was completely under the radar, is what the Judge has done. In finding for the plaintiff, the judge made 4 separate findings. 1) The ordinance in question was unconstitutionally void for vagueness. 2) The ordinance was unconstitutional as it violated Gowder's 2A rights when analyzed under text, history and tradition. 3) Using Strict Scrutiny, the ordinance unconstitutionally violated Gowder's 2A rights. 4)Using Intermediate Scrutiny, the ordinance unconstitutionally violated Gowder's 2A rights. Pick one. The Judge covered all his bases. It goes even further, as like Judge Legg in Woolard, Judge Der-Yeghiayan cited just about every 7th circuit precedent that went to his points. In order to overturn this decision, the circuit would have to overturn both Skoien and Ezell. That's just not going to happen. Unlike Ezell, Chicago is not going to be able to get a quick fix in the wording, as the Judge made it very plain that the City cannot void the rights of non-violent misdemeanants. |
June 20, 2012, 01:18 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Now that is a ruling!
Granted, the scope of this particular case is relatively narrow (possession for non-violent misdemeanants). I'll take a convincing win anytime! Now, to broader questions... 1) How strong would the RTKBA be under the chosen method of review, compared to strict or intermediate scrutiny? 2) How likely is it that higher courts will use the method chosen here? 3) How will this case affect the precedents and interpretations used by other courts, especially given the relatively narrow scope and "under-the-radar-ness?" |
June 21, 2012, 04:10 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
June 21, 2012, 09:49 PM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As you know, I am not an attorney, but here are my views, as a layperson.
1) How strong would the RTKBA be under the chosen method of review, compared to strict or intermediate scrutiny? The Court in Heller used the Text of the amendment, its History and the associated Traditions (TH&T) to find that the right enumerated was a personal right. That right, at its core, was the right to self preservation (self defense). The Court observed that the laws in question, did not meet any means-end scrutiny (another name for "interest balancing) that the Court had used in evaluating core enumerated rights and struct them down as unconstitutionally infringing the core right to keep and bear arms.2) How likely is it that higher courts will use the method chosen here? As explained in the above detailed answer, it is already being used.3) How will this case affect the precedents and interpretations used by other courts, especially given the relatively narrow scope and "under-the-radar-ness?" Lower court decisions are not precedent. They are not binding upon any other court, even those in the same district.4) How will this affect those barred from owning firearms for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions/restraining orders? It is going to have a place. How much of a place remains to be seen. |
June 22, 2012, 06:24 AM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,432
|
Quote:
Plus, a conviction for domestic violence by definition isn't a conviction for a non-violent misdemeanor. |
|
June 22, 2012, 08:02 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Gowder wasn't convicted of domestic battery or an assault or anything like that. He didn't have misdemeanor domestic violence convictions/restraining orders.
In almost anyplace in the country if a person strikes someone - whether it be your spouse at home or a stranger in a bar, it's recognized as a crime. What Gowder did is not a crime in many places in the country, he simply had a firearm in his possession. If this hadn't been overturned, it would have allowed previous infractions of an unconstitutional law to ban purchase or possession of firearms in the future. |
June 22, 2012, 10:22 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
One slightly dissapointing thing...
Quote:
|
|
June 22, 2012, 01:41 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Can't hardly fault the Judge for using that term, when the case was all about Mr. Gowder getting his Chicago handgun permit so he could have his gun, in his home.
|
June 22, 2012, 06:35 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I was doing some research on Shawn Gowder and he has a pretty interesting story.
He lived in a crime ridden neighborhood and 16 years ago, he stopped for cigarettes at a gas station near his home one night, when he went in to get his cigarettes gun fire erupted outside and his minivan was shot full of holes. As far as anyone can tell he wasn't targeted or anything it was just a random act of violence. He drove around in that van for years, refusing to have it repaired, so that others would know the extent of the dangers he and his neighbors faced daily. Can you imagine that as a conversation starter? What a great segway to talk about RTKBA ! I believe he started carrying after that - although I don't know the details of the story. He also became involved with the Illinois Rifle Association and gun rights. |
June 27, 2012, 07:23 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Ginny Simone interviews Shawn Gowder on NRA News
I can't link directly to it, you have to go to the NRA news page:
http://nranews.com/#/nranews/guide/ipg The story is titled "Shawn Gowder" I found out from the interview that Chicago offered to give Gowder his permit if he'd drop the case, and he refused. This guy is a champ. Also a follow-on interview with Todd Vandermyde their NRA lobbyist in IL. That story is called "Todd Vandermyde". |
July 2, 2012, 11:21 AM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
|
The significant part of the ruling is that it states that an individual right is superior to government's authority. Simply approaching the law based on interesting balancing tilts the balance in favor of socialism. The government will always rule in favor of the government, just ask Justice Roberts. I was stunned by the judge's rejection of interest balancing as struck down in Heller. It is long overdue.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|