BigJim Posted March 29, 2011 at 02:32 PM Share Posted March 29, 2011 at 02:32 PM This Case has been moved to The U.S Northern District Court (11CV1304)Is that a 2a friendly court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 29, 2011 at 03:18 PM Share Posted March 29, 2011 at 03:18 PM This Case has been moved to The U.S Northern District Court (11CV1304)Is that a 2a friendly court? Not especially. It is the same court McDonald went through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted March 31, 2011 at 11:28 PM Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 11:28 PM This Case has been moved to The U.S Northern District Court (11CV1304)Is that a 2a friendly court? Not really, but it's a federal court, where this suit belongs. The second amendment has been incorporated against the states, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Z Posted June 19, 2012 at 07:47 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 07:47 PM The Sun Times is reporting that U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan ruled in favor of Shawn Gowder. The judge indicated a section of the Chicago Firearm Ordinance was “unconstitutionally void for vagueness." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:22 PM Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:22 PM Today the court ruled the ban on issueing CFPs to people with UUW or weapons convictions was unconstitutional for vagueness and on violating Shawn's second amendment rights. Just got off the phone with the lawyers, looks like a rock solid ruling for our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:37 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:37 PM Awesome Shawn Gowder, Congrats!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason4567 Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:38 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:38 PM Awesome! I love hearing "[NAME] vs Chicago" wins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:00 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:00 PM In the news: http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2478667&spid= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason4567 Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:04 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:04 PM In the news: http://www.wlsam.com...d=2478667&spid=Another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:13 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:13 PM The city's not going to appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpius Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:22 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:22 PM Yep. Only a section. So now, all this does (besides getting him his gun) is validate the unconstitutional permit, registration, and fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfdoc5 Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:46 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:46 PM Is it just me or did this just open a bigger door "U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan ruled that the city's ordinance doesn't adequately define “unlawful use of a weapon,” noting that it can mean different things in different jurisdictions. “There is something incongruent about a nonviolent person, who is not a felon but who is convicted of a misdemeanor offense of simple possession of a firearm, being forever barred from exercising his constitutional right to defend himself in his own home in Chicago against felons or violent criminals,” Der-Yeghiayan said. “The same constitution that protects people’s right to bear arms prohibits this type of indiscriminate and arbitrary governmental regulation," he continued. "It is the opinion of this court that any attempt to dilute or restrict a core constitutional right with justifications that do not have a basis in history and tradition is inherently suspect.” " Ok did I just read that this Judge just said that the 2nd is a "CORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" ?Does this help or is it just a great statment and that is all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:46 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:46 PM Congratulations to Shawn, and to Chicago gun owners in general!! Thanks also to the litigators, and the supporters of these cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:48 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:48 PM SFdoc ... not really. Both Heller and McDonald (Supreme Court) affirmed the core and fundamental nature of the 2A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:48 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:48 PM Is it just me or did this just open a bigger door "U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan ruled that the city's ordinance doesn't adequately define “unlawful use of a weapon,” noting that it can mean different things in different jurisdictions. “There is something incongruent about a nonviolent person, who is not a felon but who is convicted of a misdemeanor offense of simple possession of a firearm, being forever barred from exercising his constitutional right to defend himself in his own home in Chicago against felons or violent criminals,” Der-Yeghiayan said. “The same constitution that protects people’s right to bear arms prohibits this type of indiscriminate and arbitrary governmental regulation," he continued. "It is the opinion of this court that any attempt to dilute or restrict a core constitutional right with justifications that do not have a basis in history and tradition is inherently suspect.” " Ok did I just read that this Judge just said that the 2nd is a "CORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" ?Does this help or is it just a great statment and that is all? he also used the word bear not keep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:52 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:52 PM Link to the new thread on the District decision ... http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30432 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:53 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:53 PM Is it just me or did this just open a bigger door "U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan ruled that the city's ordinance doesn't adequately define “unlawful use of a weapon,” noting that it can mean different things in different jurisdictions. “There is something incongruent about a nonviolent person, who is not a felon but who is convicted of a misdemeanor offense of simple possession of a firearm, being forever barred from exercising his constitutional right to defend himself in his own home in Chicago against felons or violent criminals,” Der-Yeghiayan said. “The same constitution that protects people’s right to bear arms prohibits this type of indiscriminate and arbitrary governmental regulation," he continued. "It is the opinion of this court that any attempt to dilute or restrict a core constitutional right with justifications that do not have a basis in history and tradition is inherently suspect.” " Ok did I just read that this Judge just said that the 2nd is a "CORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" ?Does this help or is it just a great statment and that is all?Notice he says "in the home." I don't think he did that accidentally, but I may be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ike Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:59 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:59 PM wish he had heard the Shepard case, think it would have been a different outcome.Good to win and hopefully someday a judge will tell Chicago to "just get over it". Don't know if ill live long enough to see the end,chipping away one lawsuit at a time. But GREAT JOB AND GOOD WIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:29 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:29 PM And we have the entire ruling: http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chicago-gun-law-ruling.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM WOW!! There is some good logic in there! I can only see this as one more step in the right direction - albeit a small one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:58 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:58 PM Excellent ruling. The "inside the home" part troubles me.Maybe it's the judge not wanting to steal the circuit's thunder, maybe it's the judge needing to grow a pair, but to me it still falls short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM 2. Strict Scrutiny TestThis court has found that the text, history, and tradition approach is the properapproach in analyzing the constitutionality of Section ((3)(iii) of the ChicagoFirearm Ordinance. However, if a text, history, and tradition analysis was found notto be the appropriate approach, then based upon the discussions regarding SecondAmendment rights by Justice Scalia in Heller I and McDonald and by JudgeKavanaugh in Heller II, this court finds that the strict scrutiny balancing test wouldbe the most appropriate test to apply in the instant case, since “the right to possessguns is a core enumerated constitutional right” and Section ((3)(iii) of the ChicagoFirearm Ordinance completely restricts that right. Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1284(Kavanaugh, dissenting); see also Ezell, 651 F.3d at 703 (stating that “laws imposingsevere burdens get strict scrutiny”). Both Heller I and McDonald confirm that theright to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Heller I,554 U.S. at 593-94; McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3036. It is also well-established that thestrict scrutiny test is generally “applied when government action impinges upon afundamental right protected by the Constitution.” Perry Educ. a**’n v. Perry LocalEducators’ a**’n, 460 U.S. 37, 54 (1983); see also Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 519(7th Cir. 2003)(stating that “t is well established that when a fundamentalconstitutional right is at stake, courts are to employ the exacting strict scrutiny test”). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:25 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:25 PM Everybody needs to step back, take a deep breath and pay attention to the following: "Concealed Carry will be the law of the land in Illinois this year".I am getting seriously p***** at the doubters and naysayers and may prevent their enrollment in the new Illinois Carry special members association all of whom believe that concealed carry will pass this year. As Charter member number One, I was going to name the club the "Bud is right" club but I think it would be more correct to name it the "In Todd We Trust Club" you may sign up here and are then authorized to use the "ITWTC Member" in your signature line, pick your own number but #1is mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:30 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:30 PM Everybody needs to step back, take a deep breath and pay attention to the following: "Concealed Carry will be the law of the land in Illinois this year".Iam getting seriously p***** at the doubters and naysayers and may prevent their enrollment in the new Illinois Carry special members association all of whom believe that concealed carry will pass this year. As Charter member number One, I was going to name the club the "Bud is right" club but I think it would be more correct to name it the "In Todd We Trust Club" you may sign up here and are then authorized to use the "ITWTC Member" in your signature line, pick your own number but #1is mine :laugh: LOL Bud, I admire your enthusiasm but this thread is about Shawn and winning his case. The "ITWTC" membership drive will need a thread of its own, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
202s Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:36 PM Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:36 PM Molly, sorry for being off topic but I could not pass it up. BUD I'll take ITWTC #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted June 20, 2012 at 12:48 AM Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 12:48 AM I too hope we can keep the discussion focused on the Gowder case and not get distracted by special fan club and sub-club tangents. I've skimmed through the decision, particularly the 2A part of the analysis (which is the most interesting to me). It's a very solid decision, and especially pleasing out of a District court. Don't worry about the "in the home" language. This was a pretty narrow case, and though solid, a pretty narrow ruling. I was also quite pleased to see analysis under both strict and immediate scrutiny. Very nice to see Supreme and Circuit court precedent being faithfully followed by this district court judge. Excellent. I am also glad to see Chicago get slapped down yet again. It will likely happen many more times, and they will likely remain both oblivious and defiant. Again, congrats to Mr. Gowder and Chicagoans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted June 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM .....all others pay cash..... From steve hallbrook This decision has it all: Unconstitutional vagueness based on undefined “unlawful use of weapon.” Ban on possession by non-violent misdemeanant infringes the Second Amendment under the categorical approach – text, history, tradition – citing Kavanaugh dissent in Heller 2. If not that, then strict scrutiny, and if not that, even intermediate scrutiny. The judge must have done some digging on his own – references to Jefferson’s Commonplace Book, Beccaria, or John Adams were not in the briefs, but they’re certainly in the academic literature. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpius Posted June 20, 2012 at 12:57 AM Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 12:57 AM Could the judge have ruled that the permit was unconstitutional as well, or would he have had to stick to the specific issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 20, 2012 at 01:10 AM Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 01:10 AM Can Gowder be cited as supplemental authority in Moore/Shepard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted June 20, 2012 at 01:40 AM Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 01:40 AM Thank you George Bush for nominated a Judge with good sense. Someone like lets say Meyerscough would have messed this all up. I love reading this and getting a refresher on all of the smack downs Chicago has gotten in the last few years. When will they just simply stop fighting the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.