Jump to content

Benson vs Chicago


JackTripper
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

 

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.

Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

 

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

 

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Drylok. With a pulled magazine, many guns can still fire with a round in the chamber, so that definitely is not inoperable. It would also be too easy to simply insert the magazine.

 

To make a gun temporarily inoperable and comply with Crookago, you probably would have to either field strip it or install a lock that would prevent the trigger from functioning. In a pistol, you could rack the slide back and then put a cable lock through the action and magazine well, which should effectively make it temporarily inoperable.

 

I love these gun laws because no criminal will ever bother to render their gun temporarily inoperable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if the gun in question is locked in a safe?

 

is it "inoperable"? since it is "locked"

 

Yes, in a safe or locked cabinet meets the ordinance. You can have it locked and loaded in a safe as well, if that is how you roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

 

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

 

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

 

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

 

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.

 

You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

 

A simply ridiculous requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

 

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

 

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.

 

You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

 

A simply ridiculous requirement.

 

Techically, but I doubt you'd see any charges brought. I wonder if Hale DeMar law would kick in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

 

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

 

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.

 

You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

 

A simply ridiculous requirement.

 

Techically, but I doubt you'd see any charges brought. I wonder if Hale DeMar law would kick in...

 

Agreed, but that is just another reason why the requirement is ridiculous. Another unnecessary law on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

 

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

 

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.

 

You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

 

A simply ridiculous requirement.

 

 

I'm sure if you asked nicely the bad guy would give you a minute to dash upstairs to grab the 1st gun. (He says tongue firmly in cheek)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JACK

 

If you haven't read the Heller V DC ruling by Justice Scalia, you should. Below is a little excerpt from his written opinion. The bolding is mine. And yes, some of the Chicago laws are blatantly unconstitutional to say the least.

 

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban

on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an

entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the

lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny

the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this

prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense

of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional

muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

 

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional.

 

Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I remembered something about locks in Heller!

Thanks for posting this.

 

Should a DA seek to press charges, good luck making them stick, on this point.

 

JACK

 

If you haven't read the Heller V DC ruling by Justice Scalia, you should. Below is a little excerpt from his written opinion. The bolding is mine. And yes, some of the Chicago laws are blatantly unconstitutional to say the least.

 

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban

on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an

entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the

lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny

the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this

prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense

of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional

muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

 

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional.

 

Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.

 

Daley is not in prison because, if he has been involved in illegal activities, he is far smarter than, say, our last two Governors and many other elected officials from both parties. It is not yet a crime to pass a City Ordinance which is unconstitutional or unenforceable... It's just a big waste of time and resources.

 

Paraphrasing the City Attorney, they wrote the new ordinance based on what the Supreme Court said they could do. The Supreme court said a handgun in the home is permissible. Anybody knows that "a" is just another way of saying one. Yeah... Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

 

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional.

 

Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.

 

EXACTLY!! Why is it....when these arrogant politicians stick their middle finger up at the law....that they're not prosecuted??

 

We see what happens when gangsters aren't prosecuted for gun crimes....we have rampant shootings going on unpunished.

 

And so, what do you suppose happens when arrogant politicians flaunt their immunity from prosecution? We get TYRANNY! That's what you get!

 

Arrest Daley!! (It may happen soon anyway. That's just wishful thinking, though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

 

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.

Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

 

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

 

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.

 

I am not a lawyer. I am a judge, but only an election judge. This is my common sense opinion which may not hold up in a Chicago court. If you are seeking legal advice go to an attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

 

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.

Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

 

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

 

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.

 

They tried to get one only but settled on one per person per household.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

 

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.

Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

 

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

 

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.

 

Woops, I double posted just after Federal Farmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

 

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional.

 

Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.

What about that time he suggested he stick an AK up the reporters butt? Never heard anything else. Of course, if Joe Schmoe says the same thing directly to Dick, they face all sorts o' sh!t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

 

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.

Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

 

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

 

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.

 

They tried to get one only but settled on one per person per household.

 

Would that mean that an 18 year old living at home could also have one, making a total of 3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that mean that an 18 year old living at home could also have one, making a total of 3?

Only if the 18 YO has a CFP:

 

If more than one person in the home has a valid CFP and registration certificate, each person with a valid CFP and registration certificate is entitled to have one such firearm assembled and operable in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

 

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.

Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

 

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

 

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.

 

They tried to get one only but settled on one per person per household.

 

Would that mean that an 18 year old living at home could also have one, making a total of 3?

 

If, as noted above, the 18 yr old has a FOID and CFP (requires parental permission for under 21... 18yr old out on their own is out of luck)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw....

 

 

this aspect within the absurd unconstitutional ordinace is being challeged in benson vs. chicago.

 

can't wait.

 

Thanks!

This is what my original question actually was. It is the main piece of the ordinance that makes it difficult for me to comply (as a practical matter).

Well that and the 12 round limit :)

I just hate to throw away 3 perfectly good 17 rounders, that come in the box. :frantics:

 

I will go lookup that case name, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw....

 

 

this aspect within the absurd unconstitutional ordinace is being challeged in benson vs. chicago.

 

can't wait.

 

Thanks!

This is what my original question actually was. It is the main piece of the ordinance that makes it difficult for me to comply (as a practical matter).

Well that and the 12 round limit :)

I just hate to throw away 3 perfectly good 17 rounders, that come in the box. :frantics:

 

I will go lookup that case name, now.

 

I'm storing my standard capacity mags outside city limits for now. Gotta store my AK's anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...