51 replies to this topic

[Joeyl]

Hey everyone I'm looking for any advice on how I should proceed. I bought one of these Cool Rifle and tried registering it with Chicago. I received a denial letter today stating that it is an assault weapon. I thought that after F.F.'s win over the city with his SKS that this would be a no-brainer and not be an issue. I guess I miscalculated.   I plan on filing for an administrative hearing, (and in the meantime securing space outside the city to store it,) even though it looks like the Wilson case will eventually(hopefully) make this a moot issue. Any advice is appreciated.

[mstrat]

Joeyl, on 03 February 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Hey everyone I'm looking for any advice on how I should proceed. I bought one of these Cool Rifle and tried registering it with Chicago. I received a denial letter today stating that it is an assault weapon. I thought that after F.F.'s win over the city with his SKS that this would be a no-brainer and not be an issue. I guess I miscalculated.   I plan on filing for an administrative hearing, (and in the meantime securing space outside the city to store it,) even though it looks like the Wilson case will eventually(hopefully) make this a moot issue. Any advice is appreciated.

I'm not familiar with the city's ordinance, but I'm fairly certain the pistol grip would violate the Cook County ordinance.

[JackTripper]

Good luck. But for your general knowledge, there is no case law in this state to make bullet button type rifles legal in Cook/Chicago.

[Federal Farmer]

mstrat, on 03 February 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Joeyl, on 03 February 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Hey everyone I'm looking for any advice on how I should proceed. I bought one of these Cool Rifle and tried registering it with Chicago. I received a denial letter today stating that it is an assault weapon. I thought that after F.F.'s win over the city with his SKS that this would be a no-brainer and not be an issue. I guess I miscalculated.   I plan on filing for an administrative hearing, (and in the meantime securing space outside the city to store it,) even though it looks like the Wilson case will eventually(hopefully) make this a moot issue. Any advice is appreciated.

I'm not familiar with the city's ordinance, but I'm fairly certain the pistol grip would violate the Cook County ordinance.

Technically the rifle should be ok, because the pistol grip only matters if the magazine is detachable.  However, my case against Chicago only dealt with unmodified rifles (original condition).  It could be that the rifle you show can be successfully registered if the case is made that the rifle is not an "assault weapon" modified to be in compliance, but an original condition rifle (as issued, so to speak).  Given that it is manufactured by a "reputable" firearm manufacturer, I think the argument could prevail.

Or the case might be made that original condition does not matter.  The rifle meets the standard regardless of how it came to be.  That would be the next logical baby-step, in my opinion.

I highly recommend you have a lawyer at your Administrative hearing.  I lost both times that I tried to handle it myself.  My victory in the SKS rifle suit relied completely on having counsel.

You could give Joel Brodsky a call.

[drdoom]

Convert it into a straight-pull rifle

[Smittyp83]

Don't you realize that an adjustable stock makes any rifle much more dangerous???

[samy12386]

I don't have advice, good luck and if u get it registered check out one of these http://www.riflegear...tool-combo.aspx I had one in my AR while living in California. Great when your in America or if SHTF

[Tvandermyde]

Federal's win did not go quite this far, but when we win wilson look out

[Joeyl]

Federal Farmer, on 03 February 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

mstrat, on 03 February 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Joeyl, on 03 February 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Hey everyone I'm looking for any advice on how I should proceed. I bought one of these Cool Rifle and tried registering it with Chicago. I received a denial letter today stating that it is an assault weapon. I thought that after F.F.'s win over the city with his SKS that this would be a no-brainer and not be an issue. I guess I miscalculated.   I plan on filing for an administrative hearing, (and in the meantime securing space outside the city to store it,) even though it looks like the Wilson case will eventually(hopefully) make this a moot issue. Any advice is appreciated.

I'm not familiar with the city's ordinance, but I'm fairly certain the pistol grip would violate the Cook County ordinance.

Technically the rifle should be ok, because the pistol grip only matters if the magazine is detachable.  However, my case against Chicago only dealt with unmodified rifles (original condition).  It could be that the rifle you show can be successfully registered if the case is made that the rifle is not an "assault weapon" modified to be in compliance, but an original condition rifle (as issued, so to speak).  Given that it is manufactured by a "reputable" firearm manufacturer, I think the argument could prevail.

Or the case might be made that original condition does not matter.  The rifle meets the standard regardless of how it came to be.  That would be the next logical baby-step, in my opinion.

I highly recommend you have a lawyer at your Administrative hearing.  I lost both times that I tried to handle it myself.  My victory in the SKS rifle suit relied completely on having counsel.

You could give Joel Brodsky a call.

Thanks everyone for your replies, I'll give Mr. Brodsky's office a call Monday and find out exactly what this might entail resource wise. Worst case, I represent myself, lose and wait out the Wilson case.

[vactor]

what about a Springfield Socom 16?  no pistol grip or any other evilness ... seems like it can be registered ...

[Joeyl]

vactor, on 04 February 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

what about a Springfield Socom 16?  no pistol grip or any other evilness ... seems like it can be registered ...

Thats a sweet looking rifle, but way out of my price range. Shouldn't have a problem with the city, but you never know I guess. This sucks, I'm not trying to blaze a trail, just follow their stupid laws.

Edited by Joeyl, 06 February 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[RandyP]

Good luck, but if they bring up a picture of that model, the pistol grip is gonna get it in trouble. My High Point 995 ASSAULT RIFLE, lives in Indiana, though very few armed forces across the globe have it as their beach storming firearm of choice - LOL

[ChiShooter]

First - joeyl, good luck with the case and hope you win this. This will be very interesting to watch.

Second, in regards to this :

Tvandermyde, on 03 February 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Federal's win did not go quite this far, but when we win wilson look out

Isn't Wilson Cook-county specific ? Chicago has their own gun laws not related to Cook County - how would Wilson affect Chicago ? Would it be just as a leverage to other lawsuits or is there something in there that would also apply to Chicago ?

[mstrat]

ChiShooter, on 06 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Isn't Wilson Cook-county specific ? Chicago has their own gun laws not related to Cook County - how would Wilson affect Chicago ? Would it be just as a leverage to other lawsuits or is there something in there that would also apply to Chicago ?

My non-expert understanding is that it depends what kind of ruling they give on Wilson.  If, for example, they rule on 2nd Amendment grounds, or regarding preemption of the wildlife code... then it would also apply to the city.  On the other hand, they could also make a ruling that holds no significance for other cases, laws, or situations.

[Bud]

ChiShooter, on 06 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

First - joeyl, good luck with the case and hope you win this. This will be very interesting to watch.

Second, in regards to this :

Tvandermyde, on 03 February 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Federal's win did not go quite this far, but when we win wilson look out

Isn't Wilson Cook-county specific ? Chicago has their own gun laws not related to Cook County - how would Wilson affect Chicago ? Would it be just as a leverage to other lawsuits or is there something in there that would also apply to Chicago ?

The decision on Wilson will mostly likely involve preemption. If the Judge rules that the Cook County Ordinance violates State law then Cook County and everybody else (Oak Park, Chicago, Aurora) are all out of luck.

[vactor]

RandyP, on 05 February 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Good luck, but if they bring up a picture of that model, the pistol grip is gonna get it in trouble. My High Point 995 ASSAULT RIFLE, lives in Indiana, though very few armed forces across the globe have it as their beach storming firearm of choice - LOL

the SA Socom and M1 Scout do not have pistol grips ...

[Joeyl]

ChiShooter, on 06 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

First - joeyl, good luck with the case and hope you win this. This will be very interesting to watch.

I won. Although really a non-issue to the rest of the state, who are fighting much bigger and important battles. I now legally own my rifle. The city has a month to appeal if they choose.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

Joeyl, on 26 February 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

ChiShooter, on 06 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

First - joeyl, good luck with the case and hope you win this. This will be very interesting to watch.

I won. Although really a non-issue to the rest of the state, who are fighting much bigger and important battles. I now legally own my rifle. The city has a month to appeal if they choose.

Xongrats man, every victory against the anti's is a victory for us all and a step in the right direction.

[Davey]

Joeyl, on 26 February 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

ChiShooter, on 06 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

First - joeyl, good luck with the case and hope you win this. This will be very interesting to watch.

I won. Although really a non-issue to the rest of the state, who are fighting much bigger and important battles. I now legally own my rifle. The city has a month to appeal if they choose.

Can you give us any specifics?  I'm curious.

[Joeyl]

Davey, on 26 February 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

Can you give us any specifics?  I'm curious.

Yeah, the Chicago ordinace bans assault weapons which they define (for a semi-auto rifle) simply as one that has a detachable magazine and has one or more of five listed "features". So basically I just proved that there is a commonly accepted definition of a detachable magazine as being one that can be removed without the use of a tool and that definition exactly described how my rifle worked (so therefore it could have any number of the extra "features"). Seems common sense but still a big pain in the buttocks to deal with this.

Edited by Joeyl, 27 February 2012 - 06:36 AM.

[samy12386]

Nice. Congrats.

[Mr. Fife]

Joeyl, did you tackle this on your own, or did you have a lawyer argue your case? Was this in front of a judge?

[Joeyl]

Mr. Fife, on 27 February 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Joeyl, did you tackle this on your own, or did you have a lawyer argue your case? Was this in front of a judge?

I consulted the attorney that FF mentioned (nice guy by the way and a good contact to keep on the old Rolodex) but for a couple of reasons I wound up doing this myself. This was a Chicago administrative hearing, held by an "Administrative Law Judge". What that means in the judicial pecking order I really don't know.

[samy12386]

Well good work bro you may have created a precedence.

[Federal Farmer]

Joeyl, on 27 February 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Mr. Fife, on 27 February 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Joeyl, did you tackle this on your own, or did you have a lawyer argue your case? Was this in front of a judge?

I consulted the attorney that FF mentioned (nice guy by the way and a good contact to keep on the old Rolodex) but for a couple of reasons I wound up doing this myself. This was a Chicago administrative hearing, held by an "Administrative Law Judge". What that means in the judicial pecking order I really don't know.

Congratulations!

Those Administrative Law Judges are lawyers hired by the City.

[ChiShooter]

Joeyl, on 27 February 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

Davey, on 26 February 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

Can you give us any specifics?  I'm curious.

Yeah, the Chicago ordinace bans assault weapons which they define (for a semi-auto rifle) simply as one that has a detachable magazine and has one or more of five listed "features". So basically I just proved that there is a commonly accepted definition of a detachable magazine as being one that can be removed without the use of a tool and that definition exactly described how my rifle worked (so therefore it could have any number of the extra "features"). Seems common sense but still a big pain in the buttocks to deal with this.

Sweet - congrats. How did you make this rifle to have non-detachable magazine ? Did you use bullet-button ?

[Yas]

I'd say everybody crosses their fingers and keep a lid on this for 30 days to see if this slips thru the cracks.   Did any of the city reps show any surprise on the finding? Was the decision announced at the hearing ?

Edited by Yas, 27 February 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[Joeyl]

There's a link in the first post to the specific model of rifle I have, it's a S&W that comes from the factory with a fixed magazine. The decision was not announced at the hearing it took several days. Hopefully they're too worried about the upcoming g8, and other myriad things to really care. Just like we have to work on defeating their proposed nonsense bills.

[samy12386]

To the OP: did u check out the radlocks I posted a link to above?

[Xwing]

Joeyl,  congrants on your win in court!  Nice to hear that the city is actually following its own laws in this instance.  (Of course, all of them are un-constitutional and should be scrapped wholesale, but that's a much bigger picture issue.)