Another Chicago gun law struck down today

Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,975
Likes
2,820
Feedback: 32 / 0 / 0
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-of-chicagos-gun-law-20120619,0,7474675.story

A federal judge has thrown out part of Chicago's gun law, ruling that a section banning permits for people convicted of unlawful use of a weapon is vague and unconstitutional.

This is a good win. A very strong district court win. You will note the references to the Heller II dissent by Kavanaugh and that is an indication that this judge not only gets it, this is the same analysis that took down DC's gun ban. It's called a textual/historical/traditional approach and it's the one we want SCOTUS to analyze RTC with.

Decision here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2012-06/312210140-19133634.pdf

BTW: This will be applied here in MA but we need to clear suitability first.
 
Good news.

No mention of the nature of the original possession charge in detail. Assuming the fellow wasn't a gangbanger, what's the backstory on the possession charge?
 
Last edited:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-of-chicagos-gun-law-20120619,0,7474675.story



This is a good win. A very strong district court win. You will note the references to the Heller II dissent by Kavanaugh and that is an indication that this judge not only gets it, this is the same analysis that took down DC's gun ban. It's called a textual/historical/traditional approach and it's the one we want SCOTUS to analyze RTC with.

Decision here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2012-06/312210140-19133634.pdf

BTW: This will be applied here in MA but we need to clear suitability first.

Thank You and Comm2A for the good fight!
 
This is key, and I hope to God you folks in Massachusetts are paying damned good attention:

Thus, this court concludes that the constitutionality of
Section (b)(3)(iii) of the Chicago Firearm Ordinance should be analyzed under a text,
history, and tradition approach. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, even
under a balancing test, and more specifically, under a strict scrutiny test, or even an
intermediate scrutiny test, Section (b)(3)(iii) of the Chicago Firearm Ordinance does
not pass constitutional muster.

and this:

This court has found that the text, history, and tradition approach is the proper
approach in analyzing the constitutionality of Section (b)(3)(iii) of the Chicago
Firearm Ordinance.

Which is even better than strict scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
This is HUGE and flew well under anyone's radar.

First, the judge all but dismissed strict and intermediate scrutiny as merely advanced forms of interest balancing. Rather he ruled that Gowdy's claim needed to be evaluated according to "text, history, and tradition". Apparently the court felt that SCOTUS's decision to sidestep scrutiny in Heller gave it the green light to employ a text, history, and tradition approach to reviewing Chicago's statute. This is good, very, very good.

Second, and of great importance in Massachusetts, is the bar the court set with respect to what can and cannot qualify someone as a 'prohibited person'. Alan Gura is currently working this issue in a federal appeals court in Schrader v. Holder. License denials for long-ago trivial offenses account for the largest number of inquiries received by Comm2A. The Gun Control Act of 1998 greatly expanded the number of people in Massachusetts who are considered prohibited to the point were large numbers of individuals were denied LTC renewal for long ago (and usually long forgotten) trivial offenses.
 
"The same Constitution that protects people's right to bear arms prohibits this type of indiscriminate and arbitrary governmental regulation"

Amen!
 
While other provisions of the Chicago Firearm
Ordinance may be subject to and may not survive constitutional challenge,
this court
addresses only the constitutionality of Section (b)(3)(iii) of the Chicago Firearm
Ordinance, which bars individuals convicted of even non-violent misdemeanor
offenses from possessing firearms in their homes for self-defense.

Is this just standard legal boilerplate? It almost sounds like the court is giving Chicago a "heads up" that some of their other laws may be facing a problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom