Jump to content


Photo

Benson v. City of Chicago - NRA suit against Chicago


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
42 replies to this topic

#1 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 04:24 PM

http://www.nraila.or...s.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.


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#2 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,866 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 04:54 PM

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.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes,
but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda,
they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

#3 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,465 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 06 July 2010 - 04:55 PM

Do we know what section of the new law is being challenged or the statute in general?
The only benson V. Chcago I found was from 2006 about some lady sleeping at O'Hare.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#4 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:01 PM

My guess is they are throwing the kitchen sink at them.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#5 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:38 PM

http://www.snowflake...ley-sued-again/

http://www.snowflake...o_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.


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#6 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,465 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:47 PM

Well done!! Hit 'em and hit 'em hard.

Mr. Daley will try whatever he can get away with and he needs to be slapped down until he realizes there are the Constitution is more powerful than he is.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#7 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:54 PM

here we go.

Attached Files


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#8 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,647 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:58 PM

Hot damn!

We knew this would happen ... and so did they.

Thank God for 42 U.S.C. § 1988!
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#9 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,647 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 07:16 PM

WLS picked it up ...

http://www.wlsam.com...d=1866271&spid=
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#10 Ol'Coach

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 06 July 2010 - 07:34 PM

1st of more than a few, I think!
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
...Chinese proverb

#11 RandyP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,977 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:14 PM

No issues will be raised against the exhorbitant fees and very pricey Chicago FOID card?

#12 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:26 PM

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.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#13 wazzle

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,718 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:27 PM

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.

#14 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:28 PM

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.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#15 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:30 PM


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

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#16 Kipp Jones

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:37 PM

Will this suit be decided locally or the SCOTUS? If so, how soon?
C&R FFL 03

#17 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:41 PM

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.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#18 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,647 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:43 PM

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.

Google "how federal courts work" or something simple like that.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#19 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,866 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:23 PM


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?
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes,
but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda,
they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

#20 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:55 PM

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.........
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#21 Skorpius

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,361 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:13 PM

Good to see "The List" and laser sights mentioned, but the registration, "CHOID", and reoccurring fees need to be called out, too.

Called out specifically, that is. The CHOID card is attached to the age limit as is the registration.
Posted Image
NRA / ISRA

#22 Kipp Jones

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:15 PM


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....
C&R FFL 03

#23 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,147 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:17 PM



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.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#24 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,647 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:02 AM

Not a peep on this from any major news outlets.

I guess what goes on in district court is not worthy of coverage ... ?

That's too bad ... because Chicago residents need to hear, early and often, that Daley's obstinance might cost them valuable tax dollars.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#25 burningspear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 782 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:20 AM

I first heard about the Benson law suit yesterday on WBBM 780 radio.

I like the choice of plaintiffs. Benson raises liberty issues and directly illuminates the ordinance's (and Illinois') onerous infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

#26 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,866 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:04 AM

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.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes,
but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda,
they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

#27 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,473 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:14 AM

If this stuff is still being fought in court when our RTC law comes into affect Jan 1 of 2012, how will Chicago residents be able to carry if they haven't even got the "keep" part settled yet?
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#28 wazzle

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,718 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 07

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:22 AM

Its short, but it is out there in the media


http://www.chicagobr...-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.

#29 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,647 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:16 AM

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.chicagotr...0,4560081.story

Fox Chicago give a little more detail.

http://www.myfoxchic...rt-ban-20100707
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#30 EnjoyLife

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 06

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:17 AM

If this stuff is still being fought in court when our RTC law comes into affect Jan 1 of 2012, how will Chicago residents be able to carry if they haven't even got the "keep" part settled yet?


Did I miss something? What RTC law is going into affect Jan 1, 2012?