Tribune - "Chicago gun law may not be bulletproof"

[GarandFan]

Good stuff. It's not just "gun people" who think that Chicago's new ords will fall. Including the ban on bearing arms outside the home.

 

 

 

My link

 

Chicago gun law may not be bulletproof

Some legal experts unsure parts of new firearms ordinance can survive

By Dahleen Glanton and Duaa Eldeib, Tribune reporters

July 9, 2010

 

As Chicago prepares to implement its new firearms ordinance Monday, gun advocates have begun a legal assault, filing two lawsuits that constitutional law experts said could be the next round of challenges to how cities can regulate personal gun ownership.

 

Less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for citizens to have handguns at home, Chicago was hit with the lawsuits that target, among other things, the city's ban on gun shops, a controversial and untested regulation that lawyers said could be the next frontier in the battle over firearm rights.

 

Though Chicago officials said the ordinance, adopted after the court gutted the city's 28-year-old handgun ban, was designed to withstand legal challenges, law experts said some aspects of it might not hold up. While it is impossible to know how far the two federal lawsuits will go in court, experts said banning gun sales, limiting permit holders to one ready-to-fire weapon in a home and prohibiting guns in garages, porches and yards could pose problems for the city in the long run.

 

"Chicago is in for a long legal challenge," said Eugene Kontorovich, an associate professor at Northwestern University Law School. "Clearly, parts of the ordinance will be struck down, but it is hard to predict how quickly that will happen."

 

But Chicago's top attorney, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, said the ordinance falls within the scope of Supreme Court rulings. Some regulations in the new law, she said, have been upheld by federal courts elsewhere.

 

"In my mind the Supreme Court has said there is a right to have handguns in the home for self-defense. That is not an unlimited right but is subject to reasonable restriction," said Georges. "We feel that we have imposed reasonable restriction. It is up to the courts to tell us if they are."

 

The Supreme Court, in overturning the Washington, D.C., gun ban in 2008, made it clear that citizens in the district have the right to keep firearms at home. That stance was confirmed and extended to the rest of the country in the court's ruling that made Chicago's ban unenforceable.

 

But both times, the court declined to establish clear standards for judges to determine whether laws enacted to regulate the purchase and sale of guns violate the Constitution. The lack of a judicial standard has left state and local governments dependent on trial and error, passing laws that often are legally challenged and decided in lower courts with no uniformity from city to city or state to state.

 

According to Kontorovich, major parts of Chicago's ordinance, particularly limiting guns to the house and restricting the number of operable handguns, seem to contradict the right to "keep and bear arms."

 

"The bill bans arms in public. So that is like reading the Second Amendment as saying you can 'keep' arms but leave the 'bear' out," he said. "The court made it clear that 'bear' means to carry, and not just around the house."

 

A lawsuit filed Tuesday involves four Chicago residents who want to carry their guns outside the home and the Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers, whose members want to sell guns and operate shooting ranges in the city. In a suit filed Friday, plaintiff Joe Franzese, who owns Second Amendment Arms in north suburban Lake Villa, wants to open a gun shop in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood.

 

"The intent (of the new ordinance) is to effectively enact a gun ban ordinance by over-regulating the rights of gun owners to keep and possess their firearms for self-defense in their homes and business," said Charles Cooper, a Washington, D.C., attorney who represents the plaintiffs in the first lawsuit filed.

 

But Georges said no Chicago alderman is willing to have a gun shop in his or her ward. So rather than implement zoning and other restrictions, the city chose to ban gun sales outright.

 

Chicago's ordinance, which the city acknowledges goes further than any other, mirrors many aspects of the one passed in Washington after its ban was struck down. Georges said the ordinance was approved after the City Council heard two days of expert testimony on reasonable limits the city could impose.

 

"We anticipated that we would get a challenge regardless of what the ordinance said, if we had any controls whatsoever," said Georges. "We felt that the D.C. ordinance had already withstood a legal challenge and it was wise to follow in their footsteps on some of these things."

 

The National Rifle Association and other gun advocates said they are prepared for more challenges. The NRA is not involved in the two recent lawsuits.

 

"The Supreme Court told Mayor (Richard) 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, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

 

According to Adam Samaha, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, the lower courts in Washington, D.C., have upheld some aspects of Chicago's ordinance, including training requirements, limiting the number of guns that can be registered, restricting transfer of firearms from one owner to another and enacting registration requirements such as background checks.

 

Though federal courts in Chicago are not bound to those rulings, Samaha said, they could work in Chicago's favor.

 

"It is an indication that judges are receptive to the idea, but it's not a slam-dunk," he said.

 

dglanton@tribune.com

 

deldeib@tribune.com

[Lou]

Ms. Georges is either entirely clueless or is just doing what Mr. Daley tells her to. I suspect the later.

 

But Georges said no Chicago alderman is willing to have a gun shop in his or her ward. So rather than implement zoning and other restrictions, the city chose to ban gun sales outright. Although they might think it, Just because an alderman wants or doesn't want something does not mean it's constitutional.

Chicago's ordinance, which the city acknowledges goes further than any other, mirrors many aspects of the one passed in Washington after its ban was struck down. Georges said the ordinance was approved after the City Council heard two days of expert testimony on reasonable limits the city could impose. With absolutely NO input from the opposing viewpoint.

[lockman]

Ms. Georges is either entirely clueless or is just doing what Mr. Daley tells her to. I suspect the later.

 

But Georges said no Chicago alderman is willing to have a gun shop in his or her ward. So rather than implement zoning and other restrictions, the city chose to ban gun sales outright. Although they might think it, Just because an alderman wants or doesn't want something does not mean it's constitutional.

Chicago's ordinance, which the city acknowledges goes further than any other, mirrors many aspects of the one passed in Washington after its ban was struck down. Georges said the ordinance was approved after the City Council heard two days of expert testimony on reasonable limits the city could impose. With absolutely NO input from the opposing viewpoint.

 

I believe many a the "restrictions" that have been upheld were pre-McDonald. Since there is a major shift in who must prove what, many of the challenges will be decided favorably (2A) in the trial courts as opposed to having to run the whole gambit. It will be the government asking for stays and explaining why they want to violate your rights.

[Don Gwinn]

You could actually read Georges' comment about no alderman wanting gun shops as a not-so-subtle AMF YO-YO message to the aldermen. "They won't work with us to zone the gun shops where we think they belong (the poorest, most violent possible neighborhoods, in direct contrast to everything we claim to believe) so rather than have a long fight about it, we're throwing up our hands and banning gun shops altogether. If the courts overturn that, it's their own fault and they can ALL have gun shops in their wards for all we care. On their own heads be it."

[Joeyl]

Lmao, "the aldermen" now there's a body of individuals with a long history of dishonesty and criminal activity. heck the major pusher of the original handgun ban was the late alderman Fred Roti, a high ranking member of the Chicago mob. When he died the council honored him, a mobster. Mara Georges and the aldermen live in a plastic bubble. They are used to doing what George Wallace jr. oommands and his lordship making everything he wants o.k. They are NOT used to being told to go against the mayor, or that what the mayor demands they can not legally do. I hope they all get voted out, Spinless cowards.

[GarandFan]

You could actually read Georges' comment about no alderman wanting gun shops ...

 

What's most amazing is that they LOST the argument whether Chicago could ban guns at the whim of the Mayor, Aldermen, or the City Council. That is a non-question.

 

That no aldermen want a gun shop in their ward doesn't mean jack **** anymore.

 

You'd think at least that much had sunk into these people!

 

[ilphil]

The alderman have gotten so used to acting like feudal lords, controlling their own little fiefdoms that they actually think they can overrule the SCOTUS and the Constitutional.

They need a really good smackdown and a reminder that city council ordinances can't preempt the constitution of the United States.

I know that will be really hard for them to accept.

[GarandFan]

They need a really good smackdown and a reminder that city council ordinances can't preempt the constitution of the United States.

 

I thought that the SCOTUS just gave them one!? What ... are we waiting for the 7th circuit to smack them, now?

[ilphil]

They need a really good smackdown and a reminder that city council ordinances can't preempt the constitution of the United States.

 

I thought that the SCOTUS just gave them one!? What ... are we waiting for the 7th circuit to smack them, now?

 

The passage of this newest ordinance shows that they obviously still haven't gotten the message. I'm betting there will have to be at least 2 more rounds of defeats and the retirement of King Richard before this madness finally comes to an end.

[PPK]

 

The passage of this newest ordinance shows that they obviously still haven't gotten the message. I'm betting there will have to be at least 2 more rounds of defeats and the retirement of King Richard before this madness finally comes to an end.

 

Once we win this case the anti's will be spinning, "OK, the court said you could defend yourself in your garage and on your front porch but that that doesn't mean you can carry in your front yard."

 

After the next case, "OK, the court said you could carry in your front yard but they didn't say anything about defending your life in your back yard. We think banning carry in your back yard is a common sense restriction and will be upheld in the courts."

 

Back to court ... over and over again.

[Federal Farmer]

 

The passage of this newest ordinance shows that they obviously still haven't gotten the message. I'm betting there will have to be at least 2 more rounds of defeats and the retirement of King Richard before this madness finally comes to an end.

 

Once we win this case the anti's will be spinning, "OK, the court said you could defend yourself in your garage and on your front porch but that that doesn't mean you can carry in your front yard."

 

After the next case, "OK, the court said you could carry in your front yard but they didn't say anything about defending your life in your back yard. We think banning carry in your back yard is a common sense restriction and will be upheld in the courts."

 

Back to court ... over and over again.

 

That's why we fight on two fronts! Judicial and Legislative. This is a pincer movement!