120 replies to this topic

[Mr. Fife]

If the court find the Chicago Firearm Ordinance unconstitutionally vague, then I guess there is no reason for me to renew my CFP or registrations.

Maybe it will be economical to apply for a refund in the future?

[Gray Peterson]

They just ruled the specific section vague, not everything.

[Howard Roark]

My silence in this thread is due to my busy reading of this great decision and another smack-down to the Chicago city council members and mayor.   They must be feeling the effects of Battered Gun-Banners Syndrome, after their repeated losses.  It must be very discouraging for those Chi politicians who think they are better than the law abiding tax paying citizen.

Oh, and thanks to Shawn and ISRA and our lawyers and whoever else deserves credit !

I'm laughing as I'm reading the comments on the Tribune article about this, ..., great entertainment !
-------
edit: speling [sic]

Edited by Howard Roark, 19 June 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[Sigma]

Discouraging? They dont care. In their mind we are evil, guns are yukky and they must atleast do something to prevent at least one person from possession a firearm because they think that everyone that owns a firearm are potential murderers. We need decisions like this to keep them in line.

Cant wait to see what the BRady bunch has to say about this. N"RA fights to let a dangerous person own a gun donate now"

[Davey]

Jason4567, on 19 June 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

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

In the news: http://www.wlsam.com...78667&spid=

Another

From the comments section.

caucazoid killer at 8:39 PM June 19, 2012
why do you people care about having guns so much?? are that worried about someone breaking into your home and/or robbing you? i understand that its your RIGHT, but you guys seem a little obsessed



At least this person recognizes it as a right.  But shame on us for being obsessed with our rights.

Oh oh, I found another tasty morsel.

ronald214 at 4:36 PM June 19, 2012
ChicagoTRS at 4:23 PM June 19, 2012
"See, you SINGLE narrowminded anti-gun nuts like to dream up all sort of far fetched what-if scenarios."

No It's called closing loopholes. You gun nuts want NO GUN LAWS. I say we need to protect citizens from the criminals. Many times Gun Possession is the ONLY charge the cops can get to stick.


If the cops can't get charges to stick then apparently the suspect didn't really do anything criminal, now did he?  All aboard, set sail for fail.

Edited by Davey, 20 June 2012 - 02:34 AM.

[bob]

Another brick in the 2A wall gets laid.

I wonder if Chicago will bother to appeal or not. I suspect not.

I must admit I am somewhat surprised (and pleased) the judge chose to even consider the 2A side of it given that the vagueness issue covered it quite well.

If the courts are going to truly interpret the 2A IAW history and tradition, how in the world does the ban on felons survive? That is a relatively recent thing. Or certain other firearms that were readily available at one time that were only relatively recently banned from common ownership.

Edited by bob, 20 June 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Drylok]

So who is going to or is sueing them over the cost and applications????

[colt-45]

Drylok, on 20 June 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

So who is going to or is sueing them over the cost and applications????

yea you guys shouldn't have to go threw what we don't down here. we only need our foid and that's it to have a gun. they have took that way to far.

[TyGuy]

So, does this just grant Gowder a CFP or does it say that the CFP should be done away with?  A friend thought the second thing, but I think it's just the first.

[Drylok]

It's just the first part Tyguy. The rest of it will have to be settled in another case.

[TyGuy]

Drylok, on 20 June 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

It's just the first part Tyguy. The rest of it will have to be settled in another case.

That was my understanding.  Thanks.

[mauserme]

I finally had a chance to read the entire ruling and think this part, beginning at the bottom of page 14, is amazing:

Quote

In addition, in Heller I, the Court did not indicate which of the “traditionally
expressed” levels of scrutiny, if any, should be applied to Second Amendment
restrictions, but explicitly rejected a “judge empowering ‘interest-balancing
inquiry.’” Heller I, 554 at 628-29, 634-35. In so doing, the Court observed that
“[c]onstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have
when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future
judges think that scope too broad.” Id. at 634-35. The Court also advised that there
would be “time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the
exceptions [to the right to keep and bear arms that the Court] . . . mentioned if and
when those exceptions c[a]me before [the Court].” Id. at 635.

After the Supreme Court’s analyses in Heller I and McDonald, Judge
Kavanaugh, in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(Heller
II) opined in extensive detail that, based upon Heller I and McDonald, there is “little
doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and
tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” Heller II,
670 F.3d at 1271 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting); see also United States v. Skoien, 614
F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2010)(recognizing “the Supreme Court’s entitlement to speak
through its opinions as well as through its technical holdings”)(citing United States v.
Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 1998)).

One of the criticisms of Heller 1 is that it never defined a level of scrutiny for future review.  In Gowder, Judge der-Yeghiayan doesn't simply rule based on a text, history, and tradition analysis.  He also observes that Heller allows for no level of scrutiny. ie no interest balancing of any sort, at the core of the right.

[Jason4567]

colt-45, on 20 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Drylok, on 20 June 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

So who is going to or is sueing them over the cost and applications????

yea you guys shouldn't have to go threw what we don't down here. we only need our foid and that's it to have a gun. they have took that way to far.

Thank you for your empathy colt-45!

[Tvandermyde]

There is an unwritten and published part of this story. Since I now have a good signal/servicein southern IL, i can expound.

Many of you will remember news stories about a korean war vet who was denied a CFP due to a reckless discharge charge against him for shooting ator to scare away some dogs in his yard in Chicago. They claimed the same vague weapons crime prohibition on issueing permits. The city settled and he got his permit.

And as Paul Harvey use to say, and now the rest of the story. . .

Shawn was offered the same deal. He could get a CFP, but it would not count as precident to bbe used by others. And Shawn asked what about other people like me?to which the City had no answer.

Shawn could have had this over with a while ago and gotten a CFP and a gun. But instead he reminded me of General McAuliffe from the battle of the  bulge when asked to surrender by the germans. It was reported as his response was "nuts" paratrooper legend has it was more akin to eff u.

Well Shawn's response was the same. With the additional comment of see you in court.

It has been some 18 months since we started down this road. Shawn now has a brick in that path that we all travel. It has been my pleasure and privledge tombenable to bring this case the NRA's attention and get them to support it, and take it on.

It has also been my privledge to be able to help an individual like Shawn, and to be able to call him a friend. He is truely a stand up individual. And now he has a court decision with his name on it in the annals of Second Amendment jurisprudense history. And a boot print onthe city's keister to go along with it.

[stm]

That was a good read! Thanks for posting the link to the ruling, Molly B.!  I like the use of history, text and tradition as a standard of review rather than any level of scrutiny involving a balancing of interests.

This also caught my eye:

Quote

The Court in Heller I also rejected the argument that "only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment" and held that the "Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."  Heller I, 554 U.S. at 582.

That looks like the judge pointed out a door that was left open in Heller. NFA?

Edited by stm, 20 June 2012 - 12:27 PM.

[stm]

Tvandermyde, on 20 June 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

There is an unwritten and published part of this story. Since I now have a good signal/servicein southern IL, i can expound.

Many of you will remember news stories about a korean war vet who was denied a CFP due to a reckless discharge charge against him for shooting ator to scare away some dogs in his yard in Chicago. They claimed the same vague weapons crime prohibition on issueing permits. The city settled and he got his permit.

And as Paul Harvey use to say, and now the rest of the story. . .

Shawn was offered the same deal. He could get a CFP, but it would not count as precident to bbe used by others. And Shawn asked what about other people like me?to which the City had no answer.

Shawn could have had this over with a while ago and gotten a CFP and a gun. But instead he reminded me of General McAuliffe from the battle of the  bulge when asked to surrender by the germans. It was reported as his response was "nuts" paratrooper legend has it was more akin to eff u.

Well Shawn's response was the same. With the additional comment of see you in court.

It has been some 18 months since we started down this road. Shawn now has a brick in that path that we all travel. It has been my pleasure and privledge tombenable to bring this case the NRA's attention and get them to support it, and take it on.

It has also been my privledge to be able to help an individual like Shawn, and to be able to call him a friend. He is truely a stand up individual. And now he has a court decision with his name on it in the annals of Second Amendment jurisprudense history. And a boot print onthe city's keister to go along with it.

Wow! Thank you very much, Shawn! (and Todd)

I don't live anywhere near Chicago, but I am very grateful for your hard work and sacrifice.

[billzfx4]

Shawn was offered the same deal. He could get a CFP, but it would not count as precident to bbe used by others. And Shawn asked what about other people like me?

Anybody still in favor of a deal leaving Chicago out of a LTC bill?
Way to go Shawn....no man left behind!

[Jason4567]

Tvandermyde, on 20 June 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

There is an unwritten and published part of this story. Since I now have a good signal/servicein southern IL, i can expound.

Many of you will remember news stories about a korean war vet who was denied a CFP due to a reckless discharge charge against him for shooting ator to scare away some dogs in his yard in Chicago. They claimed the same vague weapons crime prohibition on issueing permits. The city settled and he got his permit.

And as Paul Harvey use to say, and now the rest of the story. . .

Shawn was offered the same deal. He could get a CFP, but it would not count as precident to bbe used by others. And Shawn asked what about other people like me?to which the City had no answer.

Shawn could have had this over with a while ago and gotten a CFP and a gun. But instead he reminded me of General McAuliffe from the battle of the  bulge when asked to surrender by the germans. It was reported as his response was "nuts" paratrooper legend has it was more akin to eff u.

Well Shawn's response was the same. With the additional comment of see you in court.

It has been some 18 months since we started down this road. Shawn now has a brick in that path that we all travel. It has been my pleasure and privledge tombenable to bring this case the NRA's attention and get them to support it, and take it on.

It has also been my privledge to be able to help an individual like Shawn, and to be able to call him a friend. He is truely a stand up individual. And now he has a court decision with his name on it in the annals of Second Amendment jurisprudense history. And a boot print onthe city's keister to go along with it.

Awesome! Make sure Shawn knows that we appreciate it!

[Gray Peterson]

billzfx4, on 20 June 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Shawn was offered the same deal. He could get a CFP, but it would not count as precident to bbe used by others. And Shawn asked what about other people like me?

Anybody still in favor of a deal leaving Chicago out of a LTC bill?
Way to go Shawn....no man left behind!

Only a d--- would be OK with preventing Otis & Shawn from carry....

[sirflyguy]

Gray Peterson, on 20 June 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Only a d--- would be OK with preventing Otis & Shawn from carry....

Dove? Dean? Dome? Dike? Drip? What are you hiding cryptically?

[TFC]

sirflyguy, on 20 June 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Gray Peterson, on 20 June 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Only a d--- would be OK with preventing Otis & Shawn from carry....

Dove? Dean? Dome? Dike? Drip? What are you hiding cryptically?

I'll bet it's a drain!

[Mr. Fife]

Wow, all these Chicagoans stepping up and proud to fall on the sword for our 2A rights. Imagine if we saw this kind of dedication from the rest of the state.

Thanks Shawn, Otis, Dave, Colleen, and every other brave soul who chose to stand up to Chicago and Illinois!

[mikew]

Mr. Fife, on 20 June 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Thanks Shawn, Otis, Dave, Colleen, and every other brave soul who chose to stand up to Chicago and Illinois!

Let's not forget Rhonda, Radie, Paula, Lori, Adam, Cliff and Gerald.

[Sigma]

D means democrat

[Gray Peterson]

Sigma, on 20 June 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

D means democrat

Nope.  It's a piece of language that would get me banned from the forum.

[bob]

Mr. Fife, on 20 June 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Wow, all these Chicagoans stepping up and proud to fall on the sword for our 2A rights. Imagine if we saw this kind of dedication from the rest of the state.

Thanks Shawn, Otis, Dave, Colleen, and every other brave soul who chose to stand up to Chicago and Illinois!

There is no sword falling on here. They were not going to be any worse off after the cases than before. In this case, the guy lost a few months during which he might have had a CFP. Instead he gave that up and went thru the nusiance of the court case and we got another court case in our favor.

The little bricks in the legal wall being built to protect the 2A with cases like this are an important part of the legal strategy.

[Molly B.]

Posts about felons regaining their Second Amendment rights have been moved to http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=30455

[BigJim]

I heard on the news last night that Rahm plans to change the CFP rules to get around the judges ruling.

[Gray Peterson]

BigJim, on 21 June 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

I heard on the news last night that Rahm plans to change the CFP rules to get around the judges ruling.

Which news, what time?

[mauserme]

Its been reported on the internet Gray, but now a top aldeman adds this:

http://www.wbez.org/...xt-steps-100281

Quote

...
The city council could also move to amend the gun ordinance. Emanuel's floor leader, 40th Ward Ald. Pat O'Connor, said that is unlikely to happen for now. O'Connor said he wants to wait on a ruling in a separate case that challenges Illinois' ban on concealed weapons.

"I think it'd probably be a smarter idea to just kind of wait until we have the whole picture of gun law and where it's at before we try to figure out how to approach it again, if to approach it again," O'Connor said.

A federal appeals court heard arguments in the concealed carry case earlier this month.

Edited by mauserme, 21 June 2012 - 11:33 AM.