Jump to content

Benson v. City of Chicago - NRA suit against Chicago


Recommended Posts

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13996

 

NRA Supporting Chicago Residents New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago

 

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

 

 

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago's newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court's June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

 

“The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it.”

 

Just four days after the Court struck down the nearly 30 year-long handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago enacted the most restrictive anti-gun ordinance in the United States. In the words of Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, the top attorney for the City: “We've gone farther than anyone else ever has.” The so-called “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance” provisions include: a prohibition on all gun sales inside the City; a prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defense outside the “home” -- even on a patio or in an attached garage; a prohibition on more than one assembled and operable firearm in the home; and a training requirement to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit. However, range training would be impossible since it will now be unlawful to operate a shooting range inside city limits.

 

“The Supreme Court told Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago that it has to respect the Second Amendment. By enacting this ordinance, their response is 'Make Us',” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The NRA will not rest until Chicago's law-abiding residents can exercise the same freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended all Americans to have.”

 

Recent statements from some of Chicago's city officials reflect their complete lack of respect for the Supreme Court decision. Alderman Daniel Solis stated, “the decision made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interests of our citizens.” Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon denounced what she called the Court’s “blatant… misreading of the law.” And another city council member even went so far as to say, “[w]e’re here today because of their poor judgment."

 

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

 

-- NRA - ILA --

 

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the question is - what kind of relief can we expect for the citizens of Chicago this time? Or putting it another way - will the court finally say "Here's the line. Don't cross it."??

 

If they don't - Daley's game of changing the ordinance will go on indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/07/06/chicago-and-mayor-daley-sued-again/

 

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Benson_v_Chicago_Complaint.pdf

 

Looks like NRA is supporting a federal lawsuit today to overturn Chicago’s ban on gun shops and shooting ranges, and a whole slew of other violations under Chicago’s new ordinance. The federal civil complaint can be found here. It’s civil rights based, obviously:

 

Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), in that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.

 

Seeing that in print related to a subject matter like this is music to my ears (eyes?). The only sad thing is that Daley is being sued in his official rather than personal capacity, but the goal here is to get an injunction, so that doesn’t need to be on the table. So what are they going after exactly? It’s an eight count complaint.

 

1.Count one goes after the definition of home that’s defined so narrowly.

2.Count two goes after the requirement that they be 21 years of old, arguing it violates the constitutional rights of those adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 to keep and bear arms.

3.Count three goes after the ban on gun shops.

4.Count four goes after the ban on shooting ranges.

5.Count five goes after the ban on having more than one operable gun in the home.

6.Count six goes after the unsafe handgun roster that the Police are supposed to maintain under the new ordinance. The complaint argues that the “unbridled discretion” violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

7.Count seven challenges the ban on laser sights.

8.Count eight actually goes after the prohibition on carry outside the home or fixed place of business.

The case is seeking a declaratory judgement, injunctive relief and attorneys fees. Yes King Daley, the Constitutional applies to you too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am used to the more artfully crafted lawsuit such as Heller and McDonald were.

 

I find the choice of plaintiffs in some of the complaints to be odd:

Brett Benson, lives in Chicago and owns a farm 2 hours out of the city. Wants to carry his handgun between his home and his farm. Wants to buy a gun and train in Chicago. Huh? Seems like he gets out of town enough why can't he shop outside the city (pay less taxes) and train there too.

 

I'd think you'd want a Chicagoan without out-of-city residence and even better without a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers (“ILAFR”) is a non-profit entity

organized under the law of Illinois and Section 501©(6) of the Internal Revenue Code to

promote the interests of the firearms retail industry and the protection of Second Amendment

Its principal place of business is in Carbondale, Illinois

 

This is interesting, is Carbondale just being used as a mailing address for the group or is there really a presence in Carbondale. This is news to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers (“ILAFR”) is a non-profit entity

organized under the law of Illinois and Section 501©(6) of the Internal Revenue Code to

promote the interests of the firearms retail industry and the protection of Second Amendment

Its principal place of business is in Carbondale, Illinois

 

This is interesting, is Carbondale just being used as a mailing address for the group or is there really a presence in Carbondale. This is news to me.

 

I-LAF-R...joke perhaps? lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers (“ILAFR”) is a non-profit entity

organized under the law of Illinois and Section 501©(6) of the Internal Revenue Code to

promote the interests of the firearms retail industry and the protection of Second Amendment

Its principal place of business is in Carbondale, Illinois

 

This is interesting, is Carbondale just being used as a mailing address for the group or is there really a presence in Carbondale. This is news to me.

 

I-LAF-R...joke perhaps? lol.

 

CORPORATION FILE DETAIL REPORT

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entity Name ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS RETAILERS, INC. File Number 66263592

Status ACTIVE

Entity Type CORPORATION Type of Corp NOT-FOR-PROFIT

Incorporation Date (Domestic) 09/24/2008 State ILLINOIS

Agent Name WHITNEY O'DANIEL Agent Change Date 09/24/2008

Agent Street Address 292 SAN DIEGO RD President Name & Address

Agent City CARBONDALE Secretary Name & Address

Agent Zip 62901 Duration Date PERPETUAL

Annual Report Filing Date 09/02/2009 For Year 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this suit be decided locally or the SCOTUS? If so, how soon?

 

One would hope it wouldn't have to go all the way to SCOTUS...but, we'll see. Hopefully they pull another judge than Shadur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this suit be decided locally or the SCOTUS? If so, how soon?

 

It starts at the district court, then might go to appellate court, then might go to scotus.

 

Could take years.

 

Let's say it does take years. And Chicago loses.

 

Then Mayor Daley changes the ordinance again.

 

And the NRA files a lawsuit and it starts all over.

 

It takes years to settle. And Chicago loses again.

 

And Mayor Daley or Mayor Emmanuel changes the ordinance again.

 

At what point do Chicago citizens get some relief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off it may not take years.

 

If we win injunctive relief, the ordinance is injoined from taking effect.

 

While Daley is fighting a defensive move in the Courts, we will be playing offense in the legislature. With a pro-gun Governor, and votes on the floor, we can nueter him and the city council.

 

But some of this will have to be fought out in the courts to stop others from doing the same thing. What happens now also effects New York, California, Mass.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this suit be decided locally or the SCOTUS? If so, how soon?

 

Google "how federal courts work" or something simple like that.

 

I know how the federal courts work and flow. In light of the McDonald ruling, will they use the ruling to determine the suit without deffering to the SCOTUS like they did in McDonald....

 

That is very hard to judge (pun intended). Seems like the District Court is full of Daley friends. Assuming the assigned judge doesn't interpret Heller correctly, it would go to the Appellate Court where it could do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off it may not take years.

 

If we win injunctive relief, the ordinance is injoined from taking effect.

 

While Daley is fighting a defensive move in the Courts, we will be playing offense in the legislature. With a pro-gun Governor, and votes on the floor, we can nueter him and the city council.

 

But some of this will have to be fought out in the courts to stop others from doing the same thing. What happens now also effects New York, California, Mass.........

 

I realize that the injunction may stop the ordinance from taking effect. I was hoping someone would include that in their action against the ordinance. Though my suspicion is that the district court will rule against the injunction due to the fact that it's "full of Daley friends", as Fed Farmer points out.

 

I also realize that, in the bigger picture, this is for all the people, in all the cities. I just wish I was able to get more involved with the coming election. We really do need to get Brady in the governors' office! In a related note, I'll be attending a dinner for Sen. Tim Bivens and will plug concealed carry when I speak to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its short, but it is out there in the media

 

 

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/lawsuit-filed-against-chicagos-new-gun-ordinance.html

 

 

 

Lawsuit filed against Chicago's new gun ordinance

July 7, 2010 9:19 AM | No Comments

A trader on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange who owns a farm is among a handful of people suing the city of Chicago and Mayor Richard Daley, claiming the new gun control ordinance infringes on their constitutional rights.

 

Chicago aldermen passed the ordinance last week, just four days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's longtime handgun ban on June 28.

 

The suit, filed Tuesday, asks the U.S. District Court to declare the ordinance "null and void" and prohibit the city from enforcing it.

The ordinance requires anyone who wants to keep a handgun at home to obtain a Chicago firearm permit, take firearms training and have no convictions for a violent crime, unlawful use of a firearm or two or more charges of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

 

Each weapon must be registered, and owners can only register one weapon each month, according to the ordinance.

 

The National Rifle Association immediately threw its support behind the lawsuit. And the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers is among those named as a plaintiff in the suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears the Tribune finally published a blurb on this suit. But it's essentially without detail.

 

You can bet your arse that Daley, Georges, Weis, etc. know the details ... or will.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-chicagogunlaws,0,4560081.story

 

Fox Chicago give a little more detail.

 

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/lawsuit-chicago-gun-ordinance-supreme-court-ban-20100707

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...