Jump to content

Gowder vs. Chicago


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

  • 1 year later...

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

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

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

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

2. Strict Scrutiny Test

This court has found that the text, history, and tradition approach is the proper

approach in analyzing the constitutionality of Section ((3)(iii) of the Chicago

Firearm Ordinance. However, if a text, history, and tradition analysis was found not

to be the appropriate approach, then based upon the discussions regarding Second

Amendment rights by Justice Scalia in Heller I and McDonald and by Judge

Kavanaugh in Heller II, this court finds that the strict scrutiny balancing test would

be the most appropriate test to apply in the instant case, since “the right to possess

guns is a core enumerated constitutional right” and Section ((3)(iii) of the Chicago

Firearm 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 imposing

severe burdens get strict scrutiny”). Both Heller I and McDonald confirm that the

right 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 the

strict scrutiny test is generally “applied when government action impinges upon a

fundamental right protected by the Constitution.” Perry Educ. a**’n v. Perry Local

Educators’ 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 fundamental

constitutional right is at stake, courts are to employ the exacting strict scrutiny test”).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

 

:laugh: :laugh: :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

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

.....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

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

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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