Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
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:
Count IThe 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 IISection 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 IIISection 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 IVSection 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 VSection 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 VISection 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 VIISection 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 VIIISection 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.