New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit

[BillCA]

I really like the wording Chang used...

...certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.

"outside the government's reach"... it doesn't get too much plainer than that.

[Luger_carbine]

Chicago Tribune article on outcome of Benson:


Chicago Loses on Guns Again

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...1919558.column



So many good quotes:

Since the death of communism in most of the places where it once prevailed, North Korea and Cuba function mainly as educational exhibits for an irrelevant and unsuccessful ideology. When it comes to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the city of Chicago fills a similar role.

I have read that a lot of Chicago's legal staff are political hires and generally speaking they're incompetent.

You would have thought that after Heller there wouldn't have had to be a McDonald case. What legal genius thought that Chicago could win that? Or maybe the mayor at the time didn't care?

They sure are on a losing streak, and an expensive one.

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

I thought the train-wreck Illinois legislature put in a clause that dictates that ONLY the legislature can enact changes to gun laws....or was that specifically for carrying weapons?

Now Chicago's ban on selling guns is gone, but the city can side-step that and come up with other infringements. It would be nice if all home-rule gun ordinances flew out the window.

[Luger_carbine]

I guess they're getting ready to write more laws that will generate more lawsuits.

[BillCA]

This just in....

Emanuel asks for time to regulate gun sales in Chicago

Mayor Rahm Emanuel all but acknowledged that people will be able to legally buy guns in Chicago later this year, announcing Thursday that he has chosen not to fight a federal court ruling that struck down the city's gun shop ban.

10:1 odds that they get their "toughest city rules" wrong and are forced to rewrite them at least once.

Emanuel said he had instructed the city Law Department “to work with public safety experts and community leaders to create a comprehensive set of restrictions on the sale of firearms to ensure that illegal guns don't find their way into the hands of criminals or straw purchasers.”

1. Illinois already requires you to have a FOID card to buy a gun. Criminals can't get a FOID Card but could still possess one after it was revoked or cancelled. Gun sales are subject to a background check, of course. But I can see no way to actually prevent a straw purchase if the straw-buyer is properly coached on which gun to buy and turns it over away from the shop.

2. Emanuel could try to implement a "gun tax" to discourage gun shops, but he'd once again run afoul of the courts. Rights cannot be licensed or taxed -- i.e. your right to vote or to free speech may not be subject to a tax, fee or surcharge nor dependent upon issuance of a license.

[Begin rant]
My question is ... how many more constitutional violations will it take before the politicians can be charged with conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of Chicago? It's one thing to make a law that goes just a tad too far (e.g requiring a permit to play a [flute/guitar/etc] in a public park) versus making a law that any law school graduate would believe violates civil rights (i.e. taxing gun shops, gun sales, gun ownership, etc).

Oh yes, I'm sure they'll claim they're not taxing your right to acquire a gun, just taxing "a" commercial enterprise to help pay for the extra policing and oversight. But the city's history is clear. Aldermen have been recorded as saying "We want to make it as difficult as possible to have a gun" in Chicago. Now the mayor is saying he wants it to be as expensive as we can get away with to open a gun shop in the city.

That's a direct statement they want to prevent the exercise of a civil right. It is also an abuse of the taxation authority.
[/end rant]

[scpapa]

"We want to make it as difficult as possible to have a gun" in Chicago. Now the mayor is saying he wants it to be as expensive as we can get away with to open a gun shop in the city.

He's just thinking ahead about how they are going to pay for the extra city workers to clean up all the blood in the streets if they have gun shops in the city. /sarcasm off

Rick

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

“We're going to think about it in a way that while we have to abide by the straitjacket the court put us under. In my view that's a straitjacket. Access, it's not like a shortage of guns. People get access to guns,” Emanuel said as police Superintendent Garry McCarthy looked on


Straitjacket---Bill of Rights. What's the difference Rham?

Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...,3010693.story

[44 AMP]

Clearly obvious they don't want legal ownership and sale of guns in their realm. Sad for them, the courts have finally said they cannot do that legally.

So they are going to look for a "legal" way to make it as onerous and expensive as possible. And apparently asking for a year in which to plan.

Truly intelligent people would have prepared a fall back position, in advance, but then, we aren't dealing with those people, are we?

That much, at least, is clear.

[NukemJim]

2 points;

1) "but could still possess one after it was revoked or cancelled."

A person could possess the FOID but when they ran the sale through the ISP the FOID # would come back as expired and the sale would not go through.

2) " Emanuel could try to implement a "gun tax" to discourage gun shops, but he'd once again run afoul of the courts. Rights cannot be licensed or taxed -- i.e. your right to vote or to free speech may not be subject to a tax, fee or surcharge nor dependent upon issuance of a license. "

You may not be aware but Cook County (where Chicago is located) already has a $25.00 tax on all firearms sales from gun stores. Since that is legal why can't the city add another tax?

NukemJim

[Luger_carbine]

Any gun control measure that ever succeeds - like Kwong, becomes the new avenue for gun control.

If NYC is able to get away with their fee structures, Chicago will put similar fees in place, on top of a firearm tax and ammo tax. Next year all those fees and taxes will go up.

If capacity restrictions are successful, places like New York and California will pass a new round of restrictions after the next shooting to reduce capacity to 5 rounds, then 4 rounds.

They'll keep it up until the Supreme Court stops them.

[BillCA]

You may not be aware but Cook County (where Chicago is located) already has a $25.00 tax on all firearms sales from gun stores. Since that is legal why can't the city add another tax?

Is it really legal though?
I will argue that it is not constitutional. The courts have long held that rights may not be licensed or taxed. They have even drawn the line at "tests" to determine if one is "qualified" -- i.e. "intelligence" tests to vote.

A tax specifically on firearms transactions would fall into the same unconstitutional regulatory scheme as found in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (501 U.S. 663,111 S. Ct. 2513,115 L. Ed. 2d 586,1991 U.S). Minnesota created a use tax specifically on newsprint and ink. The newspaper claimed it violated their 1st Amendment free press rights.

The danger of a specific use-tax separate from the general sales tax is that it is focused on one specific industry or area (here, it's the press). Such a tax may be changed to be punitively expensive without directly impacting other areas of society. It could also be used to run small or large operations out of business at the whim of the State.

HELD:

Differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of regulation is related to suppression of expression and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional. Differential taxation on the press places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution that the Supreme Court cannot countenance such treatment unless the state asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance, which it cannot achieve without differential taxation.

(emphasis added)

A State may claim their interest in "public safety" is compelling enough to enact a tax on firearm sales or transactions, including ammunition. If that tax is applied in lieu of sales tax it might work if the differences are small. The call-out to the state is for them to show that the use of the tax dollars will be applied to program(s) that foster measurable improvements in public safety as it relates to firearms.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

There's a group of gun stores sing over the Cook County tax in state court, the legal strategy is that it violates state law wrt regulating firearms. Per the new concealed carry law the state has sole power to regulate firearms (with the exception of long gun "assault weapons" regs passed no later than 10 days after the concealed carry law), and Cook County has already admitted in depositions the tax is a regulation. I'd bet it gets tossed on those grounds.

[Luger_carbine]

Plan for city gun shops would limit sites, require sales be taped

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...5272014-1201am

I personally think mandated video taping will pass constitutional muster - although I seem to remember an Honorable Judge Bork being torpedoed by political opponents over the issue of "privacy" in the constitution.

I wonder though, if limiting sites will survive a constitutional challenge - this is after the city's outright prohibition on gun shops was overturned in Ezell.

[44 AMP]

I wonder though, if limiting sites will survive a constitutional challenge -

On the face of it, I'd say sure. Cities limit and restrict where all kinds of businesses can operate, everywhere I know of.

Zoning, ordnances, etc. Done all the time. And as far as crying "gun business" singled out, they won't be any more singled out than other "unsavory" (in their view) but legal businesses.

If they have the legal right to tell you that you cannot have a (tattoo parlor or a bar, or a toxic waste storage facility within XXX feet of a school or whatever), they can say no gunshop there.

The can't say no gunshop anywhere (like they were), but they can say no to certain places.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

There are some parts of the law (like the one handgun per month per person limit) that may not survive a state court challenge since state law now preempts local handgun laws.

[BillCA]

One-gun-a-month laws violate the Constitution, IMHO.

Since when can the gov't dictate how often you can write an opinion piece to your newspaper? Or worship in church?

Or how many times a year you can obtain a lawyer to represent you in court?

Can they also limit how many times you can invoke your 5th amendment rights per day? Per month?

Declaring it illegal to exercise your rights more than once a month because "you already own a gun so your right is intact" doesn't cut it. Yeah, buying a .22 LR pocket pistol satisfies all my needs for at least 30 days, except when I decide I want a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun or a .45 handgun for home defense a week later.

[44 AMP]

Declaring it illegal to exercise your rights more than once a month because "you already own a gun so your right is intact" doesn't cut it. Yeah, buying a .22 LR pocket pistol satisfies all my needs for at least 30 days, except when I decide I want a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun or a .45 handgun for home defense a week later.

I don't think we even need to justify what we want each gun for. It doesn't matter.

I agree completely with "one a month" (or what ever restriction they pick) doesn't cut it.

The way I see it is the same as ,

"yes, Mr BillCA, we see you are registered, but you cannot vote in this election. Our records clearly show you voted in 1987, so your rights are not being violated. Next!"....

[godot]

If someone ever opens a shop in Chicago, he is going to pay higher rent & insurance than a suburban shop. You don't have to be a fortune teller to guess that there will be a higher local sales tax on guns & ammo (20% ?).

What this means is a $500 handgun in the burbs is going to run you $700 in Chicago. A Chicago shop is likely to be a fun place to visit and see if you you like the feel of various guns, but a terrible business idea.

[Luger_carbine]

Don't forget the $25.00 Cook County firearm tax.

http://www.cookcountygov.com/portal/...irearm_tax/742

Despite all that, the alternative for some people is taking buses out to the suburbs to visit gun stores, so some people will probably buy from Chicago gun stores. I think what is more important though are RANGES in Chicago where people can learn to shoot.

[BillCA]

The lack of shooting ranges is a big problem. Of course the left will insist that you're responsible for any shot you fire and if you indicate you've never fired your gun before, will brand you "irresponsible" even though they are the ones who made it nearly impossible to practice at a range.

A shop in the city will almost always have higher rent & insurance rates that one in the 'burbs. Theft and other crimes are almost always higher in cities. But it will be the cost of business licenses & regulations that really drive costs up. Cities can add to the cost of your "build-out" of a store front by insisting on certain "security and safety measures". Alarms, barred doors & windows, safes or vaults to store guns nightly, fire suppression systems and more. One city I know of required there to be a locking mechanism at any point that accessed "behind the counter" plus a secure, locking door to the "back room" where the safes/vaults stored guns.

Chicago's $25 tax is likely unconstitutional. So might many other required "fees" or taxes such as California's so-called Handgun Safety Certificate.
See: Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

[Armed_Chicagoan]

The gun stores aren't fighting the $25 Cook County tax on Constitutional grounds, but under state law that gives the state sole right to regulate firearms. Cook County's lawyer already admitted in court the tax was a regulation, so we'll see hoe this goes.

[Luger_carbine]

This time the City of Chicago.

I guess this is haggling over fees in Ezell?

Chicago taxpayers have been socked with a $940,000 legal bill for the city's failed attempt to uphold its gun store ban

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...7032014-1110pm

It seems that the ISRA is indicating that there will be a legal challenge to the new set of laws / regulations that Chicago enacted concerning gun stores, in the wake of overturning Chicago's ban:

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said he anticipates a legal challenge to the city’s new rules, which would keep gun stores out of 99.5 percent of the city.

“The ordinance is prohibitive,” he said.

[spokesman for the city’s Law Department], John Holden said the city has received one “general inquiry” about opening a new gun shop, but no formal applications.

[Librarian]

See also Gura's droll article describing his recent filings - http://alangura.com/2014/07/lisa-mad...nt-you-to-tip/

Lisa Madigan Doesn’t Want You to Tip
Posted on July 2, 2014 by alangura

“[D]efendants should not be required to pay the tips provided by Gura for the cab fare and his meals.”

Waiters, cabbies, and anyone else whose Illinois livelihood depends at least in part on gratuities, listen up: your attorney general is against tipping. Or at least, she doesn’t want me to tip you when I travel to Illinois on business. Or, at least on the business of stopping her from violating your constitutional rights.

[Tom Servo]

I wasn't aware that Chicago was appealing the Ezell decision, but here we are. David Hardy has audio of the oral arguments. The judges are clearly not convinced by the city's arguments. In fact, they seem annoyed to have their time wasted.

The city alleges that shooting ranges will create fire hazards, noise pollution, light pollution (?), and that they'll attract theft. The judges are buying none of that. The city's attorney is repeatedly criticized for presenting "highly anecdotal evidence," and is told that a narrowly tailored regulation "requires more than speculation."

The best quote comes at 4:41:

The problem is, it's your obligation to supply the courts with evidence, and the record doesn't demonstrate that that burden was carried.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Yeah, that went about as badly as it could for Chicago. The question is will they get rid of the ridiculous zoning requirements or just make minor tweaks and force this all over again?