120 replies to this topic

[soundguy]

I heard last night on WBBM TV,  WLS TV and this morning on WBEZ Public Radio that the City has not decided how to proceed. Quoting a WBEZ story from this morning:

Quote

Top Chicago officials said Wednesday that they're still figuring out how to respond to a court decision knocking down part of the city's firearm ordinance.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the city's refusal to issue a gun permit to anyone "convicted...of...unlawful use" of a firearm is "unconstitutionally void for vagueness."

Emanuel noted that "overall" the court left the ordinance "intact." The mayor said he's asked the city's top lawyer to look at the ruling before he decides whether to appeal.

"We will do whatever we need to do to continue to pursue in getting guns off our streets and out of the hands of gang-bangers and drug dealers," Emanuel said
.
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.

[Jason4567]

hmmm... they are going to be waiting a while to see how "the whole picture of gun law" turns out. I mean, this law doesn't even seem that enforceable at all. That one guy got off pursuant to Ezell, and he just plain didn't get his CFP. Nothing has made that law any more constitutional since then.

[Skorpius]

The judge should have thrown out out the whole CFP once and for all! One final battle. Quit this nickle and dime ***t.

Edited by Skorpius, 21 June 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[burningspear]

You "dun" good, Mr. Gowder.

[C0untZer0]

Rahm sounds defiant:

The article sounds a little confused to me.  It's almost like he is unsure if the entire law has to be scrapped or just a part of it and he's saying he's going to retain the parts the judge didn't rule unconstitutional:

http://www.suntimes....ges-ruling.html




.

Edited by C0untZer0, 21 June 2012 - 02:25 PM.

[mauserme]

I think the City sounds confused.  Its as if some are anticipating the possibility of a strong ruling and/or a pre-emptive carry law, and prefer not to throw effort after foolishness if their ordinance won't survive.

[Ritte]

mauserme, on 21 June 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

I think the City sounds confused.  Its as if some are anticipating the possibility of a strong ruling and/or a pre-emptive carry law, and prefer not to throw effort after foolishness if their ordinance won't survive.

Foolishness and Stupidity is Chicago's business!

[Danielm60660]

So if this judge threw out the portion of the city ordinance that deals with those convicted under UUW, isn't UUW a state law, NOT a city ordinance?
Is this going to have bearing on other UUW cases (simple possession, not involved in a crime)?Does anyone else see my question? Basically, was he ruling against the IL state UUW statute by proxy?

Edited by Danielm60660, 21 June 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[colt-45]

Danielm60660, on 21 June 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

So if this judge threw out the portion of the city ordinance that deals with those convicted under UUW, isn't UUW a state law, NOT a city ordinance?
Is this going to have bearing on other UUW cases (simple possession, not involved in a crime)?Does anyone else see my question? Basically, was he ruling against the IL state UUW statute by proxy?

thats my understanding. so now you guys can walk out in your yard and the garage and not get a uuw. like we do down here

[GarandFan]

colt-45, on 21 June 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Danielm60660, on 21 June 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

So if this judge threw out the portion of the city ordinance that deals with those convicted under UUW, isn't UUW a state law, NOT a city ordinance?
Is this going to have bearing on other UUW cases (simple possession, not involved in a crime)?Does anyone else see my question? Basically, was he ruling against the IL state UUW statute by proxy?

thats my understanding. so now you guys can walk out in your yard and the garage and not get a uuw. like we do down here

Colt ... I think your assertion is premature.  While carrying a gun on one's private Chicago yard, porch, or garage is not unlawful per the state, it is still in violation of a still-valid Chicago ordinance (well, valid according to the city).  An ordinance for which a court challenge is still pending (and should be ruled on very soon).

[Molly B.]

colt-45, on 21 June 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Danielm60660, on 21 June 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

So if this judge threw out the portion of the city ordinance that deals with those convicted under UUW, isn't UUW a state law, NOT a city ordinance?
Is this going to have bearing on other UUW cases (simple possession, not involved in a crime)?Does anyone else see my question? Basically, was he ruling against the IL state UUW statute by proxy?

thats my understanding. so now you guys can walk out in your yard and the garage and not get a uuw. like we do down here

I don't believe this to be the case.  The ruling means an individual cannot be denied a Chicago permit because of a misdemeanor non-violent conviction.  It does not change where they can carry it.  Until we get another ruling in another case, the ordinance only recognizes having a handgun inside the home.

[Beezil]

Mol, is that "other case" Benson?

[Molly B.]

Beezil, on 22 June 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Mol, is that "other case" Benson?

Benson, Aguilar (sp?), Shepard/Moore. I think any of these could do away with the part of the ordinance that says only in the home.

[colt-45]

Molly B., on 22 June 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

Beezil, on 22 June 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Mol, is that "other case" Benson?

Benson, Aguilar (sp?), Shepard/Moore. I think any of these could do away with the part of the ordinance that says only in the home.

yea now that i reread all post, i was wrong on my post i see it know molly and thanks.

[ishmo]

Can't wait to see the revision they make.  Knowing the way Emmanuel thinks my guess is it will be challenged sometime in the future.

Quote

The city of Chicago is taking another shot at a drafting a gun ordinance it hopes will pass muster with the courts.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is expected to introduce a revised ordinance Wednesday barring anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for a violent crime within five years from obtaining a city gun permit.

The proposal is a reaction to a federal judge’s ruling Tuesday striking down part of the city’s 2010 firearm ordinance.
A section of the ordinance that barred anyone convicted “in any jurisdiction” of “unlawful use of a weapon that is a firearm” was unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiyan found.
Der-Yeghiyan ruled in favor of a Chicago man who sued the city after he was denied a permit because of a misdemeanor unlawful use of a weapon conviction.

Unlawful use of a weapon involves possession of a gun—not firing a weapon.

City to revamp gun-control ordinance after loss in court

[Mr. Fife]

The judge didn't say 5 years.

[GarandFan]

To be sure ... the city's revision will be exceedingly narrow.  The least possible change they can get away with.  That is simply the nature of what we deal with vis a vis Chicago government and gun rights.

[Mr. Fife]

It would be nice if one of these judges would stand up to these violators of our Constitutional Rights and slap their butts right into a jail cell for contempt.

Edit for my typo.

Edited by Mr. Fife, 24 June 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[ishmo]

Mr. Fife, on 24 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I went be nice if one of these judges would stand up to these violators of our Constitutional Rights and slap their butts right into a jail cell for contempt.

That's something I'd get a great deal of satisfaction from.  Just imagine the morale boost the CPD would get seeing Emmanuel or either of the Madigans do a perp walk

[C0untZer0]

If Chicago is drafting a law that say no violent misdemeanors for 5 years - that doesn't sound that bad to me.  It doesn't sound like their usual gun grab.

And I think disturbing the peace / disorderly conduct aren't violent offenses right?

Since I don't think they've had a change of heart about gun grabbing, I can only assume getting slapped down has made them more cautious.

I have an opinion, and that is this:

When they lose cases in court, it has a net psycological effect on the general public.  The general public begins to think that the gun laws really are unconstitutional.  Politicians like Rahm fear that the public perception will shift, and that there will be less support for gun control laws.

So limited their losses is important., drafting yet another gun law that will get overturned hurts their cause because it's a loss in the battle of public opinion.

That's my theory anyway

[Tvandermyde]

Got word frm the lawyers today that the City will not appeal. So Shawn is going to be getting his permit soon.

We also know that the City is going to be changing their ordinance, so we will have to wait and see what they propose. Chances are it will be a legislative fix  needed to deep six the City all together on this issue.

While we won't have the benefit of an Court of Appeals ruling to cover all of the 7th and set up a real precedent, this case is already proving value in another case in Maryland. And out east in the devils triangle, where people are denied ownership permits for as little as jaywalking, this case is an important building block.

[Davey]

I will be very happy if this case is used for wins in other parts of the country.

[Danielm60660]

Todd, please explain what you mean by deep six the city. Is this legislative fix from the state or from the city council? Thanks,
DM

[mauserme]

C0untZer0, on 24 June 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

If Chicago is drafting a law that say no violent misdemeanors for 5 years - that doesn't sound that bad to me.  It doesn't sound like their usual gun grab.

Still vague, though.  Is "violent misdemeanor" defined and, if defined, will the ordinance specify what the definition is?

And 5 years from when - commission of the misdemeaner, the conviction date, end of sentence?

[GarandFan]

I wonder why they just didn't defer to federal law, which of course bars gun possession by felons and domestic violence misdemeanants?  I wonder how many more people would be barred by the "violent misdemeanors" within the last 5 years?

On the FL Dept. of Ag website regarding carry licenses, the following is stated:

Misdemeanor Crime Of Violence, Not Including Domestic Violence

A misdemeanor crime of violence includes any misdemeanor conviction involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.  Crimes of violence constituting a misdemeanor may include but are not limited to, assault, battery, stalking, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.  If you have been convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor crime of violence, you are not eligible for a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License unless a period of three years has elapsed since probation or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled, or the record has been sealed or expunged.  A copy of the document issued by the court or probation office evidencing completion of probation or other conditions must be submitted with your application.

[Tvandermyde]

by deep six I mean to kill off the Chicago ordinance, which would take a legislative act of the general assembly

[mauserme]

GarandFan, on 26 June 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

I wonder why they just didn't defer to federal law, which of course bars gun possession by felons and domestic violence misdemeanants?  I wonder how many more people would be barred by the "violent misdemeanors" within the last 5 years?

On the FL Dept. of Ag website regarding carry licenses, the following is stated:

Misdemeanor Crime Of Violence, Not Including Domestic Violence

A misdemeanor crime of violence includes any misdemeanor conviction involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.  Crimes of violence constituting a misdemeanor may include but are not limited to, assault, battery, stalking, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.  If you have been convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor crime of violence, you are not eligible for a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License unless a period of three years has elapsed since probation or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled, or the record has been sealed or expunged.  A copy of the document issued by the court or probation office evidencing completion of probation or other conditions must be submitted with your application.

Wisdom would dictate that, since Chicago politicians seem only to see the Second Amendment through a filter of hatred toward guns and gun owners, they would look to law witten by people with a more neutral point of view if they hope to live within the spirit of recent rulings against them.

Wisdom and Chicago politics are almost always mutually exclusive, of course.

[Jeffrey]

Tvandermyde, on 26 June 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

by deep six I mean to kill off the Chicago ordinance, which would take a legislative act of the general assembly

Maybe something along the lines of 148?

[USAG]

Mr. Gowder would like tho thank all of the good fighter in the good fight for 2A. This is one of more WINS to come.

[Beezil]

USAG, on 26 June 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Mr. Gowder would like tho thank all of the good fighter in the good fight for 2A. This is one of more WINS to come.

would i be wrong in saying that the "thanks" go to folks like him?