120 replies to this topic

[BigJim]

USAG, on 28 March 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

This Case has been moved to The U.S Northern District Court (11CV1304)

Is that a 2a friendly court?

[Federal Farmer]

BigJim, on 29 March 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

USAG, on 28 March 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

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.

[GarandFan]

BigJim, on 29 March 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

USAG, on 28 March 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

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.

[Roger Z]

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."

[Tvandermyde]

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.

[Bimmer]

Awesome Shawn Gowder, Congrats!!!

Edited by Bimmer, 19 June 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[Jason4567]

Awesome! I love hearing "[NAME] vs Chicago" wins!

[Druid]

In the news: http://www.wlsam.com...d=2478667&spid=

[Jason4567]

Druid, on 19 June 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

In the news: http://www.wlsam.com...d=2478667&spid=

Another

[Mr. Fife]

The city's not going to appeal?

[Skorpius]

Yep. Only a section. So now, all this does (besides getting him his gun) is validate the unconstitutional permit, registration, and fee.

[sfdoc5]

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?

[GarandFan]

Congratulations to Shawn, and to Chicago gun owners in general!!

Thanks also to the litigators, and the supporters of these cases.

[GarandFan]

SFdoc ... not really.  Both Heller and McDonald (Supreme Court) affirmed the core and fundamental nature of the 2A.

[Sigma]

sfdoc5, on 19 June 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

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

[GarandFan]

Link to the new thread on the District decision ...

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=30432

[sirflyguy]

sfdoc5, on 19 June 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

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.

[ike]

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.

[Molly B.]

And we have the entire ruling:



http://cbschicago.fi...-law-ruling.pdf

[Lou]

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.

[TFC]

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.

Edited by TFC, 19 June 2012 - 04:59 PM.

[Molly B.]

Quote

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. Ass’n v. Perry Local
Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 54 (1983); see also Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 519
(7th Cir. 2003)(stating that “[i]t is well established that when a fundamental
constitutional right is at stake, courts are to employ the exacting strict scrutiny test”).

[Bud]

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 pissed 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

[Molly B.]

Bud, on 19 June 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

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 pissed 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

  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.

[202s]

Molly, sorry for being off topic but I could not pass it up.

BUD I'll take ITWTC #2.

[GarandFan]

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!

[Tvandermyde]

.....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

[Skorpius]

Could the judge have ruled that the permit was unconstitutional as well, or would he have had to stick to the specific issue?

[mauserme]

Can Gowder be cited as supplemental authority in Moore/Shepard?

[Sigma]

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.