The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 7, 2010, 02:34 PM   #26
DogoDon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
I'm afraid that if the court determines the new Chicago ordinances run afoul of the Constitution, the city will just come up with new ones that will have to be challenged, and on and on it will go. Daly is nothing if not stubborn and determined. And I think many people in Chicago have been so brainwashed that they think he's actually doing the right thing by thumbing his nose at the SCOTUS.

DD
DogoDon is offline  
Old July 7, 2010, 02:36 PM   #27
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
(just as D.C. paid for Gura's fees in Heller I)
Not quite... As of the last filing (06-18-2010), the total amount due was, $3,126,397.25.

You can see what is going on here.

A proposed settlement order was submitted here

What this all means is that 2 years after the Judgment was entered, D.C. is (still) balking at paying. The longer D.C. delays, the more they will end up paying.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 7, 2010, 04:28 PM   #28
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
You can see what is going on here.
A better view of "what is going on" is in Gura's request for fees and DC's attempt to cut Gura's fees.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 8, 2010, 08:42 AM   #29
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
WildlikeoldtammanyhallAlaska

If we only had a young Theodore Roosevelt to do battle with the New Tammany Hall of Chicago...
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old July 8, 2010, 10:06 AM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildalaska
Some of those laws will pass muster, some wont.
Ken, I'd be interested in which of these new Chicago laws, in your opinion, will be found constitutional.

The lawsuit, Benson v. Chicago (an easily read double spaced 20 page complaint), is pretty specific as to which parts of the new laws place an undue burden upon the exercise of the core right, which parts are so contradictory as to be arbitrary and capricious, and which parts deny due process.

The only thing they didn't touch upon were the fees. McDonald, going forth will be mooted for the most part, except the those portions dealing with the fee and licensing structure.

Given that the suits are dealing with the core right, the court(s) will have to apply strict judicial scrutiny. I think this is actually a good two-pronged attack, which will likely succeed.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 8, 2010, 10:54 AM   #31
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,835
RMA, I am from the opposite spectrum, having grown up in AZ with few, (and now even fewer), firearms restrictions, the Chicago law is appalling...but it IS the step that could never be taken before.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old July 8, 2010, 11:27 PM   #32
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Ken, I'd be interested in which of these new Chicago laws, in your opinion, will be found constitutional.

* No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago...this one would pass muster

* Even so, anyone who wants to register a firearm will be required to pass a 4-hour class and a 1-hour range exam...iffy in light of the one above

* Only one handgun per month may be registered. Move to Chicago with three handguns, and you'll need to decide which one you're keeping.......unconstitutional

* $100 every three years for the right to register, $15 per gun annually to register, $10 for Chicago's knockoff of the Illinois FOID card......nope, gone

* Only one firearm may be stored in the home in a functional state. All others must be locked up AND broken down into a non-functioning state (field stripping will suffice.)....nope, gone

* If the registered owner has reason to believe there's at least one minor "present," he must carry the one functional gun on his person at all times to keep it away from the minor.....nope, gone

* Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards. While you're carrying that gun to keep it away from your kids, don't step out to the mailbox or try to mow the yard, you filthy gun nut.....this one has to go

* Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first
responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.......constituional


WildwithoutreadingthestatutesAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 12:02 AM   #33
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildalaska
* Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first
responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.......constitutional
Possibly, but probably overturned when someone is injured at a registrant's former address.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 05:50 AM   #34
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Quote:
* No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago...this one would pass muster
Not a chance. if they follow the precedence on XXX movie theaters. Chicago can regulate where the shops are via zoning but can not ban them.
wally626 is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 06:47 AM   #35
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
Yes Wildalaska, I don't know about your "no gun shop or gun range" conclusion?

Seems to be denying people their fundamental right to obtain a firearm.

If that is constitutional, then any domicile could do the same and, if enough areas do this, the 2A is moot.

Last edited by RDak; July 9, 2010 at 06:54 AM.
RDak is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 07:28 AM   #36
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,717
Quote:
Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first
responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.......constituional
Of course this is not part of the ordinance itself. Daley asked for both federal and state immunity. He's got no chance at the federal level in suits for deprivation of civil rights.

State immunity is, of course, a matter of state law and not federal constitutional law. I don't know about his chances for full immunity but I can certainly see some qualified immunity against negligent acts of police.

Quote:
* No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago...this one would pass muster
The no ranges might pass muster because of "safety" concerns of shooting firearms in a city (I realize the police probably have a range but ...). I do not think the no gun shop ban will stay. They are selling a legal product subject to constitutional protection. They may be subject to other regulation, perhaps keeping a separate registry of purchasers open to police inspection.

Quote:
* Even so, anyone who wants to register a firearm will be required to pass a 4-hour class and a 1-hour range exam...iffy in light of the one above
I think this is a close question, though it shouldn't be. A lot might depend on the contents of the class and how strict the range exam is, and the cost of course. For example, some abortion regulation statutes have been struck down when the cost of complying has impermissibly burdened the woman's right to abortion. The devil is in the details.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 08:47 AM   #37
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Those suing Chicago are Brett Benson, Raymond Sledge, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler and the Illinios Association of Firearms Retailers (ILAFR).

To keep it within what is actually being challenged, here is the list of challenges from the suit (since some do not want to read the file). Also, keep in mind that several of the quotes from the council members were made a part of this suit to document that these laws were, in fact, enacted to hinder, as much as possible, the decision in McDonald:
Quote:
Count I
The Ordinance outlaws some uses of firearms for self-defense within one’s home. See MCC §§ 8-20-020, -030 The statutory definition of “home” expressly excludes “(i) any garage, including an attached garage, on the lot; (ii) any space outside the dwelling unit, including any stairs, porches, back, side or front yard space, or common areas.” MCC §8-20-010.

Thus the Ordinance outlaws the exercise of the right to bear arms in self-defense even when one is in one’s own garage, on one’s own back porch, or on the steps leading up to one’s front door.

These provisions infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendment.

Count II
Section 8-20-110 of the Ordinance provides that no person may “carry or possess a firearm without a CFP” and that no person may obtain such a permit unless he or she is “21 years of age or older.” A person 18 to 20 years of age may obtain a CFP only if (1) “the person has the written consent of his parent or legal guardian” and (2) the parent or guardian is not prohibited from having a CFP or an Illinois Firearm Owner’ Identification Card (“FOID”).

This provision directly restricts the ability of members of Plaintiff ILAFR to sell firearms to law-abiding adult residents of Chicago or to sell them time on shooting ranges if they are under the age of 21.

This provision infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible burden upon, the rights of law-abiding adults under the age of 21 to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

This provision further violates the Constitution by denying adult citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 the equal protection of the laws.

Count III
Section 4-144-010 states that it shall be unlawful for any person “to engage in the business of selling, or to sell, give away or otherwise transfer, any firearm.” Section 8-20-100 states that “no firearm may be sold, acquired or otherwise transferred within the city, except through inheritance of a firearm.”

These provisions thus impose a total ban on the sale or transfer of firearms within Chicago, and thereby infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

These provisions prohibit members of Plaintiff ILAFR from selling firearms within Chicago and infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the rights all adult law-abiding residents of Chicago.

Count IV
Section 8-20-110 prohibits possession of a firearm without a CFP and Section 8-20-120 states that no person can obtain a CFP without “an affidavit signed by a firearm instructor certified by the State of Illinois … attesting that the applicant has completed a firearm and safety training course, which, at a minimum, provides one hour of range training.”

Yet Section 8-20-280 states that “[s]hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged are prohibited.” The Ordinance thus dictates that there can be no place in Chicago where one can obtain the firearms training that the Ordinance itself mandates for legal possession of a firearm.

Section 8-24-010 further provides that “no person shall fire or discharge any firearm within the city, except in lawful self-defense or defense of another” or for very limited hunting purposes. By proscribing the discharge of a gun for training or practice purposes, the Ordinance in fact precludes citizens from engaging in the training that the Ordinance itself mandates as a prerequisite to legal gun ownership.

These provisions infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

These provisions prohibit members of Plaintiff ILAFR from operating shooting ranges within Chicago and infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the rights of all adult, law-abiding residents of Chicago.

Count V
Section 8-20-040 prohibits the possession of more than one “assembled and operable” firearm within the home by someone who is fully licensed under the Ordinance to possess a firearm. Any other firearms owned by that person must be disassembled or otherwise rendered “inoperable.” If there is more than one person in the home with a CFP and a registration certificate, each such person is allowed only one gun in an operable condition.

The Ordinance thus bars a licensed gun owner from keeping more than one operable firearm in the home for self-defense, either to have a firearm available in more than one room of the dwelling in case of emergency, or to have a firearm available to more than one adult member of the family. In the event of a home invasion, all family members would be dependent upon the ability of a single person in a single location to obtain immediate access to a single operable weapon.

These provisions infringe upon, and impose an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Count VI
Section 8-20-140 prohibits possession of a firearm without a “firearm registration certificate,” and Section 8-20-170(b) declares that no such certificate may be issued for “an unsafe handgun.” An “unsafe handgun” is defined in the Ordinance as “any handgun that is listed on the superintendent [of department of police’s] roster of unsafe handguns because, in the determination of the superintendent, the handgun is unsafe due to its size, ability to be concealed, detectability, quality of manufacturing, quality of materials, ballistic accuracy, weight, reliability, caliber, or other factors which makes the design or operation of the handgun otherwise inappropriate for lawful use.” MCC § 8-20-010.

The unbridled discretion that the Ordinance confers upon Chicago’s law enforcement authorities thus violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Due Process of Law.

Count VII
Section 8-20-060(a) outlaws the possession of—and legally defines as contraband—any “laser sight accessory.”

This provision undermines, rather than promotes, the Ordinance’s supposed goal of promoting firearms safety, and in any event it infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible burden upon, the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Count VIII
Section 8-20-020 makes it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a handgun, except when in the person’s home.” Section 8-20-030 makes it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a long gun, except when in the person’s home or fixed place of business.” Section 8-20-140(a) renders it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a firearm without a firearm registration certificate,” and Section 8-20-180(c) states that “[a] registration certificate shall only be valid for the address on the registration certificate,” and “[e]xcept in the lawful transportation of a firearm, a person shall not carry or possess any firearm at any location other than that authorized by the registration certificate.”

Thus the Ordinance imposes a complete and total ban in Chicago on possessing or carrying a firearm outside one’s home for personal protection—except in one’s fixed place of business, where long guns, but not handguns, are permitted—and thereby infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible burden upon, the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
I think a good case has been made to nullify the new laws in Chicago.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 08:50 AM   #38
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
I believe the "no gun outside the home itself" part will be struck down. The 2nd. A. states:"....., the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms, shall not be infringed." It's one right. The word AND makes them inseparable, or at least it should. Thus, if you have the protection of the 2nd A. as a fundamental, individual right to keep arms, and the states and localities are bound, then you can also BEAR arms as that is part of the fundamental, individual, right as well.

The 2nd doesn't protect just the right to keep arms. It protects one right, which is composed of the actions of keeping AND bearing arms. It will be very hard for any government entity to wriggle out of that constraint. Not impossible, but it should be very hard if our courts hold true to the Bill of Rights. That has certainly been a problem in the past. I'm under no illusions that it will be a slam dunk with our modern courts.
__________________
"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 9, 2010, 09:28 AM   #39
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Well I hope I will be able to send another thank you note to Mayor Daley for enacting such a comprehensive draconian gun control law - that it will require that the courts defne much of the parameters of the RKBA. It could have taken years and many seperate suits to address and define so many of these issues - but here Daley and the city council have kindly wrapped them all up in a single law allowing a single lawsuit. I don't know whether to or :barf:
mack59 is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 10:35 AM   #40
divil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 402
Can anyone post a link to the text of the ordinance itself?
divil is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 11:47 AM   #41
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
here is a website address for chicago ordinances - haven't had time to ascertain if it contains the current law yet.


http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il

Last edited by mack59; July 9, 2010 at 11:57 AM.
mack59 is offline  
Old July 9, 2010, 12:29 PM   #42
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Ah, here is the ordinance in pdf:


http://www.chicagoreader.com/images/..._ordinance.pdf
mack59 is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 12:33 AM   #43
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Sue the Mayor and Aldermen

The Mayor and city Alderman have their behinds hanging out in the breeze and don't seem to realize it. The media has several juicy quotes from aldermen who disagree with the court decision. Including this one...

Quote:
When the new laws were announced in Chicago, Alderman Mary Ann Smith thanked "everyone who has worked to try and create as restrictive a tool as possible.”
IANAL, however it seems to me that a good civil rights lawyer could just about retire if he wins a lawsuit against the city for violating....

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs


For the city to declare that some portion of the Bill of Rights is excluded or limited on one's own property is an unlawful invasion of privacy, a "taking" of property (some portions may not be enjoyed as fully as others), and offensive to the constitutional principles of the country. By limiting the definition of "house" or "home" to just the dwelling unit, Chicago could, in theory, force residents to accept the quartering of a soldier in their garage.¹

What other rights may Chicago limit to only the dwelling unit?
* No warrant to search your garage or yards?
...if your "home" is only the dwelling unit according to Chicago, how does this affect the reading of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Not a word about yards, porches or garages which Chicago now defines as "different".

* Might Chicago consider a resident's angry discussion of city politics, in his own back yard, as "public speech" since it is not part of his "home"? Could he be prosecuted for "attempting to incite a riot" or "hate speech" when denegrating a public official while talking to his wife and/or child?

The City's actions are an offense against the Constitution and the citizens of Chicago. They show a wanton disregard for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and contempt of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I hope for swift action by the Federal courts in Benson. If we prevail and Chicago repeats this kind of stupidity, the citizens of Chicago should notify the State of Illinois and the officials in the City in a letter that says...

The elected officials of the City of Chicago having ignored state and federal constitutional laws, having unanimously conspired to deprive the people of their rights, having threatened those who insisted on exercising their rights with unlawful imprisonment and having ignored the will of the vast majority of citizens in the exercise of their rights, has defined itself as an unconstitutional oligarchy. Governments exist to protect the right of the people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to leave them defenseless and at the mercy of criminals. As such, the Citizens of Chicago, exercising the inalienable Right of the People to alter and abolish any government that is destructive of those ends, gives notice to the elected officials of Chicago that they have 24 hours to tender their resignations to the Governor of Illinois or face forcible eviction from office.

Such a notice, signed by several hundred Chicago residents might shake up the politics in Illinois for decades.



¹ USC Amdend 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...nothing about garages or outbuildings, Chicago could argue.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 10:03 AM   #44
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,795
Warning - keep this at a higher level. We don't do pure invective, or pictures with such.

Glenn
__________________
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 11, 2010, 01:42 PM   #45
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by mack59
Well I hope I will be able to send another thank you note to Mayor Daley for enacting such a comprehensive draconian gun control law - that it will require that the courts define much of the parameters of the RKBA. It could have taken years and many separate suits to address and define so many of these issues - but here Daley and the city council have kindly wrapped them all up in a single law allowing a single lawsuit.
I think mack59 summed it up nicely; Daley has provided the most outrageous possible examples of a variety of gun control issues to challenge in the courts.

While the new lawsuit against the new Chicago laws will be interesting, I will focus more attention to Gura's new lawsuit in North Carolina (Bateman v Purdue). Bateman is important because it is based on carry outside the home ("The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry functional handguns in non-sensitive public places for purposes of self-defense") and covers ammunition ("prohibit the purchase, sale, and possession of firearms and ammunition, are unconstitutional in that they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights").
gc70 is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 02:44 PM   #46
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
I don't see how anyone has his/her "backside in the breeze" as far as this is concerned. Politicians are generally indemnified from personal civil and criminal liability for their official acts, and the idea that the voters will actually vote out Daley and the other entrenched machine politicos is as laughable an idea as any ever constructed.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 10:20 PM   #47
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,717
Quote:
I don't see how anyone has his/her "backside in the breeze" as far as this is concerned. Politicians are generally indemnified from personal civil and criminal liability for their official acts, and the idea that the voters will actually vote out Daley and the other entrenched machine politicos is as laughable an idea as any ever constructed.
When it starts costing millions of dollars in taxpayer money to pay judgments, legal fees, and higher insurance premiums, the city will eventually tire of it. If a court issues an injunction that is broken, violators can be jailed, including the mayor of Chicago and it's entire board of aldermen. This last scenario is extremely unlikely but it demonstrates what can happen.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 11:54 PM   #48
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss
I don't see how anyone has his/her "backside in the breeze" as far as this is concerned. Politicians are generally indemnified from personal civil and criminal liability for their official acts, and the idea that the voters will actually vote out Daley and the other entrenched machine politicos is as laughable an idea as any ever constructed.
Read Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law again.

I think it would be relatively easy to show in a court that the city's administration should know or reasonably know that most of their limitations would not pass constitutional muster. To wit;
● Limitations on only 1 functional gun in the home
● Unconstitutional limits on the exercise of a right (1 gun a month)
● Requirements that are impossible to meet without excessive burden (training)
● Excessive permit fees ($115) to register for Chicago
● Unconstitutional limit on the right to self defense (not in garages, porches, etc)

I'm surprised that the legal team advising Mayor Daley and the council hasn't publicly distanced themselves from this debacle. The easy comparsions are asking if the city could get away with ...
● allowing only 1 functional typewriter or word-processor in a home;
● limiting citizens to one "letter to the editor" per month;
● requiring them to pay $33.33 per year to go to church;
● prohibit citizens from posting political candidate signs on garages, porches, stairs, yards, etc.
● or requiring the accused to pay all travel expenses to confront witnesses.

Public statements and city council records can prove a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. Doing so under the guise of "public safety" knowing many of the "features" of the new law are likely to be struck down is a crime under section 242.

In most cases, when a public official violates your rights through common error "in good faith" (e.g. a new police officer on the scene starts asking you questions after you asked for a lawyer and quits when he is informed of that fact), they are personally immune from lawsuits. However, when a public official knowingly violates a person's rights (e.g. making drug and/or gun crime defendants pay for their own lawyers) that will "pierce" the veil of limited immunity and expose them to legal actions.

That's what I mean by having their rumps hanging out in the breeze.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 02:43 PM   #49
Uzi4u2
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2010
Posts: 113
mayor daley rewrites his gun ordinance..A right is now a privilege.

If you read this you will come to realize that the mayor of chicago has rewritten our constitution. Apparently the Second Amendment is now a privilege. You are required to get a so called permit to own a firearm. How many criminals do you think this will stop from obtaining a firearm? None. Do you think they will go through all this ?

For Immediate Release Contact: Office of News Affairs
July 12, 2010 312-745-6110
City of Chicago Outlines New Firearms Ordinance Procedures
The City of Chicago's new handgun ordinance goes into effect today and the Chicago Police
Department is prepared to implement the permit and registration requirements.
The process involves two steps, beginning with the application for a Chicago Firearms Permit
(CFP), which is required in order to legally register a firearm.
While the CFP application can be downloaded from the Chicago Police Department's website
at www.chicagopolice.org, it must be submitted in person at Chicago Police Headquarters,
located at 3510 S. Michigan.
Residents must possess the following information in order to complete the CPF application:
• A valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card issued by the State of Illinois
• Two identical passport-size photos taken in the last 30 days showing the person's full
face, head and shoulders
• A valid Driver’s License, or if the resident doesn't possess one, a letter from a licensed
optometrist or ophthalmologist attesting that the applicant meets the minimum vision
requirements to obtain an Illinois driver’s license
• A signed affidavit from a firearms instructor approved in the State of Illinois stating that
the applicant has completed a firearms safety and training course.
• A $100 application fee
All applicants must be at least 21 years old, or 18-20 years old with an eligible parents'
permission. Applicants cannot be convicted of any violent crime, have two or more offenses for
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or under state law have been convicted of
domestic violence. Additionally, they must be fingerprinted and submit to a background check.
Add One / New Ordinance
After obtaining a Chicago Firearms Permit, residents can purchase a firearm. Residents must
then register their firearm within 5 days with the Chicago Police Department.
Only one handgun can be registered in any 30-day period. The cost is a one-time $15 fee per
firearm, and the person will be required to file an annual report.
To register a firearm the owner must provide information on the type of weapon, the
manufacturer, the serial number, where it was obtained or purchased and where the weapon
will be located.
Individuals who owned firearms prior to today, including firearms that were not registered and
multiple handguns, must apply for a CFP within 90 days.
The application for registration certificates can also be downloaded from the Chicago Police
Department's website at www.chicagopolice.org and can be submitted by mail or in person at
Chicago Police Headquarters.
Certain types of weapons cannot be registered because they are ineligible or unsafe, such as
sawed-off shotguns, .50 caliber weapons, assault weapons and certain handguns. A list of
ineligible firearms will be posted on the Chicago Police Department's website.
Residents were also reminded that it is still illegal to possess a firearm on the streets of
Chicago, which includes bringing it to Chicago Police Department headquarters to register.
Residents who currently have registered firearms with the City can wait until their current
registration expires before re-registering, but they should apply now for the CFP.
Once a firearm is registered, residents are responsible for contacting police immediately if their
firearm is lost, stolen, destroyed, sold or if there is a change in any of the information on the
registration certificate.
Anyone supplying false information on the application is subject to fines and/or arrest, with
penalties up to $5,000 and 90 days in jail for a first offense.
The entire ordinance can be reviewed on the Chicago Police Department's

Last edited by Uzi4u2; July 19, 2010 at 05:31 PM.
Uzi4u2 is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 03:12 PM   #50
FreakGasolineFight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Ohio.
Posts: 634


That's horrifying.
__________________
"The CZ75 is made of win and longcats."--anonymous youtube comment
FreakGasolineFight 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 03:25 PM.


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 0.16312 seconds with 8 queries