SAF SUES CHICAGO OVER GUN RANGE PROHIBITION ON 1A, 2A GROUNDS

[05FLHT]

Wonder if Daley and his sidekicks carry concealed?

Mayors and Aldermen are 'justices of the peace' and given police powers (including concealed carry) after 40 hours of training.

From what I have heard, Daley collects 1911's and really loves his small, concealable .38 snubby.

The Alderman's name slips my mind, but she pulled out her concealed handgun and waived it around at the City Council meeting awhile back.

 

[jrosenberger]

Thanks God we have such nitwits on the other side.

Bloomberg has always scared me much more than Daley and the Chicago gang. Bloomberg saw what was coming and tried to reduce the NYC permit fees, but he couldn't get it through the city council. The Chicago machine has operated without regard for the law for so long that they don't know what to do when something doesn't go their way.

 

[MDFF2008]

Bloomberg has always scared me much more than Daley and the Chicago gang. Bloomberg saw what was coming and tried to reduce the NYC permit fees, but he couldn't get it through the city council. The Chicago machine has operated without regard for the law for so long that they don't know what to do when something doesn't go their way.

Yeah, me too. Bloomberg knows how to operate within the confines of the law.

Chicago believes they are above the law.

 

[Patrick]

Agree 100%.

Bloomberg is something that the Brady's and the Daley's are not: smart. So is Obama.

Bloomberg knows when to make a strategic retreat so you can hold more ground in the long run. He was right about this one. Thankfuly the NYC Council is reactionary and feels itself immune to outside review. When is the last time the council was accused of a civil rights violation? 50-60 years ago?

They just don't imagine this a civil right, and therefore everything is about social policy and "delivering the wrong message to the people about guns."

The constitutional message was delivered in 2007 and then again put on their doorstep in 2010. They just chose to ignore it. Chicago and NYC will learn, but first they will fight and lose.

Curious where DC is in all this...oh, yeah. They are fighting tooth and nail and begging federal courts to not be forced to pay the $3 Million price tag for Heller.

Next up: Chicago (twice, maybe three times). Then: NYC.

 

[SirMrManGuy]

The constitutional message was delivered in 2007 and then again put on their doorstep in 2010. They just chose to ignore it. Chicago and NYC will learn, but first they will fight and lose.

Curious where DC is in all this...oh, yeah. They are fighting tooth and nail and begging federal courts to not be forced to pay the $3 Million price tag for Heller.

Next up: Chicago (twice, maybe three times). Then: NYC.

Is anyone tracking that civil suit (it would be a lawsuit, right)? It would be entertaining to watch Chicago try squirm and weasel their way out and get ***** slapped for it.

 

[Al Norris]

In the Heller case, they are still duking-it-out in the district court.

In McDonald, I believe that the district court ruled that Gura did not win the case.

The court first claimed that since McDonald was consolidated in the NRA case, that if there was any win, it was the NRA. The reasoning here was that when the Supremes remanded, and the 7th remanded, the cases were never disjoined.

Then the court said that neither won, as Chicago changed its law (right after the McDonald decision) and essentially mooted the entire case.

Gura is currently appealing at the 7th Circuit.

So the Logic is that even though we now have a hugely precedential case, by the name of McDonald v. Chicago, in which Alan Gura was the attorney of record, from start to finish, Alan Gura can not claim any fees because he did not win that case. There was never a ruling that the gun laws of Chicago were unconstitutional, as Chicago changed its laws thereby mooting the entire case, both for the NRA and for the SAF.

This could be called, "Chicago's Revenge."

 

[Gray Peterson]

The Alderman's name slips my mind, but she pulled out her concealed handgun and waived it around at the City Council meeting awhile back.

It was Dorothy "The Hat" Tillman.

 

[05FLHT]

It was Dorothy "The Hat" Tillman.

Bingo. Thanks, Gray.

 

[05FLHT]

Rahm to give in?

Gun ranges to be allowed in Chicago under Rahm’s proposal
By Frank Main Staff Reporter/fmain@suntimes.com July 1, 2011 7:50PM

http://www.suntimes.com/6292004-417/gun-ranges-to-be-allowed-in-chicago-under-rahms-proposal.html

Unlike Daley, it looks like Rahm can see the handwriting on the wall. Although, it probably has more to do with paying out money the City of Chicago doesn't have. Either way, the dominos are beginning to fall.

Can Right to Carry be far behind...?

 

[krucam]

Just saw this as well. I hope the 7th Circuit ignores this obvious ploy and hurries up with their decision...

Regardless, things are moving forward, I guess...

 

[Patrick]

A win is a win, though I expect the next fight to include payments of fees for this case. Were it not for the lawsuit, they would not have changed the law.

Gura will win eventually, but they'll make him work double time for it.

Hate to sound so cynical, but history is a strong lesson here. Chicago is looking to escape the costs of the suit right before they lose at the circuit level. Technically, the circuit can still issue an injunction even after the law changes. Anything a legislative body does today can be undone tomorrow...

 

[junglebob]

Mayors and Aldermen are 'justices of the peace' and given police powers (including concealed carry) after 40 hours of training.

From what I have heard, Daley collects 1911's and really loves his small, concealable .38 snubby.

The Alderman's name slips my mind, but she pulled out her concealed handgun and waived it around at the City Council meeting awhile back.

Actually mayors, alderman, village presidents and village trustees are "conservators of the peace". There was a bill in the legislature a couple years ago to no longer allow them to carry but it did not pass.

Speaking of bills in the legislature that did not pass, there was a "one gun a month bill' that did not, it got 18 votes less than the license to carry bill that failed to bet the super majority needed to pass. The one gun a month bill only needed a simple majority. No bad gun legislation has passed this session in Illinois.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

The article I read said that Gura believes it wouldn't moot his lawsuit. I think it was over at saysuncle.

 

[jrosenberger]

The 7th Circuit just released the opinion http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9C0NWF4M.pdf

I haven't read it yet, but Gura's tweet about it says the ban was struck down.

 

[krucam]

We reverse. The (lower) court’s decision turned on several legal
errors. To be fair, the standards for evaluating Second
Amendment claims are just emerging, and this type
of litigation is quite new. Still, the judge’s decision
reflects misunderstandings about the nature of the
plaintiffs’ harm, the structure of this kind of constitutional
claim, and the proper decision method for evaluating
alleged infringements of Second Amendment rights.

On the
present record, the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary
injunction against the firing‐range ban. The harm to their
Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages,
their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the
merits, and the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is
based entirely on speculation.

 

[Inigoes]

The first decision to apply the First amendment context on pg 20

In the First Amendment context,
the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is
not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in
appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be
exercised in some other place.’ ” Schad v. Borough of
Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76‐77 (1981) (quoting Schneider
v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939)). The
same principle applies here.

 

[Inigoes]

Pg 41, emphasis mine

Both Heller
and McDonald suggest that First Amendment analogues are
more appropriate, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 595, 635;
McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3045, and on the strength of that
suggestion, we and other circuits have already begun to
adapt First Amendment doctrine to the Second Amendment
context, see Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641; id. at 649 (Sykes, J.,
dissenting); Chester, 628 F.3d at 682; Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at
89 n.4; see also Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms for Self‐Defense, 56 UCLA L. REV. at 1449, 1452,
1454‐55; Lund, The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist
Jurisprudence, 56 UCLA L. REV. at 1376; Winkler, Heller’s
Catch‐22, 56 UCLA L. REV. at 1572.

 

[krucam]

The first decision to apply the First amendment context on pg 20

Pg 41, emphasis mine

The future's so bright.....

 

[swinokur]

what a smackdown for the District Court judge. I can't think of a more powerful admonishment.

Will this affect other Circuit Court thinking? (Patrick or Krucam?)

I see Chester was refernced as well.

 

[Inigoes]

Pg 45

In the First
Amendment context, the government must supply actual,
reliable evidence to justify restricting protected expression
based on secondary public‐safety effects.

This will be a major hurdle for any .gov defending anti-2A laws.