Jump to content

Challenge to Chicago's interpretation of its own AWB


Recommended Posts

On Dec. 27th I filed a lawsuit in the Cook County circuit against Chicago for denying registration for my SKS rifles.

 

Chicago's ban on "Assault Weapons" is fairly simply worded, yet they chose to expand it in a manner that I feel cannot be allowed.

 

With respect to rifles, Chicago's AWB is:

 

“Assault weapon” means:

 

(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

 

(i) a folding or telescoping stock

 

(ii) a handgun grip which protrudes conspicuously beneath the action

 

(iii) a bayonet mount

 

(iv) a flash suppressor or a barrel having a threaded muzzle

 

(v) a grenade launcher;

 

In the Adminstrative Hearing, the "judge" determined that my fixed magazine SKS rifles are assault weapons despite not having a detachable magazine because they have bayonet lugs.

 

The City was supposed to respond to the suit by filing the record (transcript/details of the Administrative Hearing) by Jan. 31st but as of yet they are late. Apparently they get a free extension without even so much as filing for it.

 

Once the record is filed, briefing will follow. Our challenge is not Constitutionally-based, but a simple challenge that they are not interpreting the ordinance correctly.

 

I filed this suit with the assistance of the NRA. It is low-profile, so I don't expect to see any NRA press releases concerning it.

 

My primary concern is that the City not be allowed to so broadly expand their definition of an "assault weapon" because the reasoning they used to deny my SKS rifles is that they can be modified to become "assault weapons." The "judge" was not moved by my assertion that any rifle, including those they have registered, can be modified to become an "assault weapon." I have a registered 10/22 that I could easily add a bayonet to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pistol grip feature automatically disqualifies it. Same reason my sweet little Hi Pont 995 carbine must live out its days at my relative's house in Indiana.

 

According to the letter of the ordinance, a pistol grip would not disqualify a rifle*. Also the AWB disqualification should only apply to detachable mag rifles. I think the AR-15 he is referring to is the type made for California, which are fixed magazine.

 

ETA: * if the rifle is fixed magazine or bolt action

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is pretty cut-and-dry: those enumerated traits apply to rifles that are semi-autmoatic and accept a detachable magazine.

If a rifle is not semi-automatic, or if a rifle does not accept a detachable magazine, that definition does not apply.

 

What the city is essentially trying to do is redefine "and has" to mean the same thing as "or has". That's what this suit is really about.

Only in Chicago would they think they can "interpret" the law with that kind of flexibility.

 

Thank you for filing this suit, and God help us all if they don't quickly realize their idiocy and register your rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck FF! It sounds like if the robed ones say "and" means "or", your .22LR 10/22 will have to be moved out of Chicago as well. What good is a collection if you can't keep it at home? (just kidding of course). I'm still getting a chuckle and smile over your effort to add a Boy Scout 10/22 to your collection --- great way to put a big STUPID on Chicago if they get some court to say semi-auto rifles are banned. Having Chicago fight the Boy Scouts of America would be a total win for our side, LOL!

 

But it is interesting how Chicago/Cook streeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch the meaning of the actual words of the law, so much that "and" is said to mean "or".

 

My prediction for Chicago on your new suit: Fail for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today my lawyer filed a motion for default, which means we move to rule in our favor given that Chicago has failed to respond in a timely fashion. It could prevail, but Chicago is likely to be granted an extension.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck, FF. I found it absurd that they ruled a "fixed magazine" SKS qualifies as a "detatched magazine" rifle because it "could be modified to accept a detachable magazine." Absurd. Any semiauto firearm could be so modified ...

 

Even easier would be to add a bayonet to my 10/22!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial court date was today and my Lawyer filed a Default Motion due to Chicago's lack of response to the summons. The judge (Patrick T. Rogers) denied the motion and granted the City 60 days.

 

Current timeline:

 

04/28/2011 Chicago answer or plead

05/31/2011 Lawson to file Specification of Errors

06/24/2011 New court date

 

Order 2-28-2011.PDF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

My initial court date was today and my Lawyer filed a Default Motion due to Chicago's lack of response to the summons. The judge (Patrick T. Rogers) denied the motion and granted the City 60 days.

 

Current timeline:

 

04/28/2011 Chicago answer or plead

05/31/2011 Lawson to file Specification of Errors

06/24/2011 New court date

 

Just curious (if it's public information): Did the city ever respond?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the ordinance actual say the superintendent of police can declare any firearm an assault weapon at his sole discretion, even absent the characteristics enumerated in the ordinance?

i dont think so, this is what i found

 

8-20-190 Denials and revocations.

 

(a) An application for a CFP or a registration certificate shall be denied for any of the following reasons:

 

(1) any of the eligibility criteria of this chapter are not currently met;

 

(2) the firearm is an unregisterable firearm;

 

(3) the information furnished on or in connection with the application for a CFP or a registration certificate is false or misleading; or

 

(4) the person fails to respond to any additional information, or investigation inquiries, requested by the superintendent regarding any application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the ordinance actual say the superintendent of police can declare any firearm an assault weapon at his sole discretion, even absent the characteristics enumerated in the ordinance?

i dont think so, this is what i found

 

8-20-190 Denials and revocations.

 

(a) An application for a CFP or a registration certificate shall be denied for any of the following reasons:

 

(1) any of the eligibility criteria of this chapter are not currently met;

 

(2) the firearm is an unregisterable firearm;

 

(3) the information furnished on or in connection with the application for a CFP or a registration certificate is false or misleading; or

 

(4) the person fails to respond to any additional information, or investigation inquiries, requested by the superintendent regarding any application.

 

I looked and could not find it either. Maybe I recalled it wrong. Maybe it was the uhsafe handgun roster he could add any gun he wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah arent Hi-point pistols on the "unsfe list" when in reality they think the cheap price caters to criminals.

yep. in real reality they think the cheap price caters to people living in areas where they may need a gun for defense

 

 

the fact that it's on the unsafe list is just rediculious, I own a hi-point and it's just as safe as any other gun. If I didn't have small children in the house, I wouldn't have qualms with keeping one in the pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update:

 

Our first hearing is this Friday, at 10am.

 

My lawyer filed a motion to allow me to bring the rifles in to demonstrate their function, but this was pended. The judge will decide Friday whether he needs to see the rifles themselves.

 

If we do, I need to scare up some dummy rounds. All I've seen so far are 2-packs for $10-12. I'd prefer to have at least 10 to fill a stripper clip.

 

For my own use, I'd just reload sans powder and primer and drill holes through the cases to make it plain. But I'm not sure that'd be wise for demonstration in a Cook County courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...