2A Arms v Chicago - Gun shop ban and Unregistered firearm confiscation

[Euler]

This one goes back a bit, but as (I think) the oldest 2A case still active in Illinois, it deserves an open topic. There was a previous thread (now locked).

 

It was filed in Northern Illinois Federal District Court on 9 July 2010. The plaintiffs are R. Joseph Franzese (dba Second Amendment Arms) and Robert M. Zieman, Sr.

 

TL;DR: When the Supreme Court issued the McDonald decision, Mayor Daley pushed the city council to pass an ordinance before the McDonald decision took effect requiring (among other things) FFLs within city limits to be licensed by the city, in addition to any other state and federal licenses they may have had. Daley's intention was then not to issue any city gun dealer licenses, thus effectively banning FFLs within the city. (Hmm, that sounds familiar.) Additionally, the city had previously required all firearms to be registered while simultaneously prohibiting nearly all of them from being registered, thus rationalizing their confiscation as contraband. People wanted their stuff back (or at least just compensation).

 

Docket

Complaint said:

...

On June 28, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago ...

...

Thereafter, on or about June 30, 2010 and July 2, 2010 SECOND AMENDMENT caused to be filed and submitted two applications with the CITY CLERK'S office ... seeking to obtain weapons dealer business licenses to permit him ... open and operate two gun shops at two separate locations within CHICAGO, and who also planned and intended to submit additional applications to apply for and open other gun shops, firing and training ranges at other locations within and throughout CHICAGO.

 

On or about July 1, 2010, in response to McDonald v. Chicago, MAYOR DALEY ... publicly announced at a press conference, "It's clear to all that our current handgun ordinance will soon be struck down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals," and therefore he would immediately propose the immediate adoption of an ordinance that would have among its key provisions, inter alia, the following:

...

f. Banning gun shops.

...

Thereafter, on the next day, July 2, 2010, and without seeking or allowing public comment or input or review, and in order to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago and deliberately deny CHICAGO'S law-abiding residents and others wishing to purchase or use lawful firearms in the CITY the ability to acquire, obtain, keep and bear arms, i.e., legal handguns and other weapons, CHICAGO adopted a more sweeping ordinance hurriedly proposed by MAYOR DALEY to become effective on July 12, 2010 (the "New Gun Ban Ordinance", ...).

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF CHICAGO'S BAN AND RESTRICTIONS ON WEAPONS DEALERS, GUN STORES, ADVERTISING AND SALES INFRINGES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS INFRINGE U.S. CONST., AMENDS. I, II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

...

On information and belief, the New Gun-Ban Ordinance provides in pertinent part with respect to weapons dealers and gun shops and sales:

...

SECTION 3. Title 4 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended ... as follows:

...

4-144-010 License -- Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of selling, or to sell, or give away or otherwise transfer, any firearm, dagger, stiletto, billie, derringer, bowie knife, dirk, stun gun or taser, as defined in Section 24-1 of the Illinois Criminal Code, 720 ILCS 5/24-1, or other deadly weapon which can be carried or concealed on the person, or any ammunition, as that term is defined in Section 8-20-010, without securing a weapons dealer license. The license required by this chapter shall be in addition to any other license required by law. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under this chapter to engage in the business of selling, or to sell, give away or otherwise transfer, any firearm as that term is defined in Section 8-20-010.

...

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS PRAYS:

 

That judgment be entered in their favor SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS and against Defendants:

 

A. permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants ... from enforcing or prosecuting all of the provisions of the Old Gun Ban Ordinance and New Gun Ban Ordinance; including, but not limited to requiring the annual renewal of firearms registrations, daily reporting of sales, fingerprinting, signage and advertising; conducting forced credit reports as a condition of submitting an application for any city license, mandating that registration certificates for firearms be obtained prior to taking possession of a firearm: as applied to prohibiting possession of an unregistered firearm within a period of time reasonably necessary to obtain registration; and any custom, policy, or practice of deeming a firearm "unregisterable" for the sole reason that it has previously been not validly registered.

 

B. awarding him declaratory relief consistent with the injunction and declaring that CHICAGO'S above-referenced ordinances ... not to constitute reasonable or permissible regulations, but rather violate Amendments I, II, IV, XIV and the Due Process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution, thus rendering them unconstitutional, null and void ab initio, and unenforecible.

...

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ZIEMAN'S INDIVIDUAL ACTION FOR RESTITUTION, DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO ACQUIRE, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
U.S. CONST., AMENDS. I, II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

...

Pursuant to CHICAGO'S unconstitutional Old Gun Ban Ordinance, ZIEMAN'S home was invaded and searched by the CHICAGO Police and numerous valuable handguns and rifles that he possessed therein and maintained in a safe as FOID Card holder were seized, confiscated and/or destroyed, and he was thereafter found guilty and fined for failing to register them thereunder.

...

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF ZIEMAN PRAYS:

 

That judgment be entered in their favor ZIEMAN and against Defendants:

 

A. permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants ... from enforcing or enforcing all of the provisions of the Old Gun Ban Ordinance and New Gun Ban Ordinance; including, but not limited to requiring the annual renewal of firearms registrations, daily reporting of sales, fingerprinting, signage and advertising; mandating that registration certificates for firearms be obtained prior to taking possession of a firearm: as applied to prohibiting possession of an unregistered firearm within a period of time reasonably necessary to obtain registration; and any custom, policy, or practice of deeming a firearm "unregisterable" for the sole reason that it has previously been not validly registered.

 

B. awarding declaratory relief consistent with the injunction and declaring, inter alia, that the above-referenced ordinances do not constitute reasonable or permissible regulations but, rather, violate he First, Second, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments and Due Process and takings clauses of the of the taking clause of the United States Constitution rendering them unconstitutional, void ab initio, and unenforecible.

...

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF CLASS ACTION FOR RESTITUTION AND OTHER RELIEF INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
U.S. CONST., AMENDS. II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

...

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ZIEMAN, individually and as class representative, prays for judgment against the CHICAGO, MAYOR DALEY, the SUPERINTENDENT and the CITY CLERK as follows:

 

A. certifying the class and declaring that the CITY'S above-referenced ordinances be found, declared, adjudged, and decreed to be unconstitutional and null and void, ab initio, as a result of the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago;

 

B. ordering Defendants ... to account for, refund and pay over and back to them any and all moneys, fines, penalties, payments, costs, expenses and fees found due, paid, owing or recovered thereunder by or on their behalf or as a result of the actions of any of the turn over and refund to ZIEMAN and the Class;

...

E. ordering said Defendants ... and all persons having acted or acting in active concert or participation with them, jointly and severally, to turn over and return all weapons any other property seized, impounded or confiscated by them from the ZIEMAN and the Class members under its said unconstitutional ordinances, or in the alternative, if such weapons or other property have been destroyed, damaged or cannot be found or located, the fair market value thereof be determined and order paid them plus prejudgment interest;

...

SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS' PENDANT STATE CLAIM FOR MANDAMUS

...

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS PRAYS:

 

That judgment be entered in their favor SECOND AMENDMENT ARMS and against Defendants:

 

A. issuing a writ of mandamus ordering, directing, compelling Defendants CHICAGO, MAYOR DALEY and the CITY CLERK perform their nondiscretionary and ministerial acts, and issue him the Weapons Dealer business licenses he applied for as aforesaid, upon payment of a reasonable application/processing fee therefore;

...

ZIEMAN'S PENDANT INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION STATE CLAIM FOR RESTITUTION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT

...

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ZIEMAN, individually and as class representative, prays for judgment against the CHICAGO, MAYOR DALEY, the SUPERINTENDENT and the CITY CLERK as follows:

...

B. ordering Defendants ... and all persons having acted or acting in active concert or participation with them, jointly and severally, to account for, refund and pay over and back to them any and all moneys, fines, penalties, payments, costs, expenses and fees found due, paid, owing or recovered thereunder by or on their behalf or as a result of the actions of any of the turn over and refund to ZIEMAN and the Class;

...

E. ordering said Defendants ... and all persons having acted or acting in active concert or participation with them, jointly and severally, to turn over and return all weapons any other property seized, impounded or confiscated by them from the ZIEMAN and the Class members under its said unconstitutional ordinances, or in the alternative, if such weapons or other property have been destroyed, damaged or cannot be found or located, the fair market value thereof be determined and order paid them plus prejudgment interest;

...

ZIEMAN'S PENDANT STATE CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (735 ILCS 5/2-701)

...

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF ZIEMAN PRAYS that this Court enter a declaratory judgment in his favor against Defendants pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701, as follows:

 

A. declaring that CHICAGO'S above referenced ordinances be adjudged and decreed, inter alia, not to constitute reasonable or permissible regulations, but rather, violate Article I. §§ 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 22, 24, and Due Process and takings clauses of the Illinois Constitution, thus rendering them unconstitutional, null and void ab initio, and unenforceable;

 

B. awarding him general, compensatory and punitive damages as the proofs will show at trial;

...

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

I'll try to post updates in a timely manner as I grind through the docket. Keep your expectations low.

 

Edited March 26, 2022 at 06:03 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On 22 October 2014, the plaintiffs filed the 4^th amended complaint, which is the current complaint. The plaintiffs are R. Joseph Franzese (both individually and dba Second Amendment Arms) and, individually, Robert M. Zieman and Tony Kole.

 

I'm not going to bother summarizing the 1^st through 3^rd amended complaints.

 

4th Amended Complaint said:

...

On or about March 19, 1982, the City enacted an ordinance that banned possession of handguns within its municipal limits, and imposed restrictive requirements on firearms ownership, possession, and use within the City ("Old Gun Ban Ordinance").

 

Owing to certain Supreme Court decisions, the Chicago City Council passed a revised ordinance on July 2, 2010 (the "New Gun Ban Ordinance"), which removed the ban on possessing handguns in City residents' homes, and replaced the ban with a number of restrictions and requirements for home firearms possession.

...

In January, 2014, the City's ban on gun sales was struck down as unconstitutional by Judge Chang in Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago, 1:10-CV-4184 (N.D.Ill. 2014). In response, the City amended its Ordinances that banned gun stores and now allows them under certain conditions.

...

These include:

• MCC § 4-144-750 prohibits gun stores from locating 500 feet from a pre-existing primary or secondary school, or a park owned or leased by any unit of local, state or federal government.
• MCC § 4-144-790(g) prohibits the display of firearms or ammunition in any window.
• MCC § 17-9-0128 -- Gun stores are only permitted in Commercial 2, Commercial 3 and Downtown Service Districts, with special use approval. This restriction is unduly burdensome with no governmental purpose.

...

COUNT I
RIGHT TO SELL, DISPLAY, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

...

City's laws effectively prohibit the operation of firearms dealers who wish to sell lawful firearms to the law-abiding public, both through its Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance. The functional firearms retail sales ban and associated laws also impede gun ownership itself by barring permission to Second Amendment Arms to market and sell its products, and inhibit the ability of Second Amendment Arms' would-be customers, such as Zieman and Kole, to purchase lawful firearms inherently necessary to the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

...

COUNT II
DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

...

The Fourteenth Amendment, which applies against the City, secures Franzese's fundamental property rights to a business license to own a retail sales firearms establishment, which also includes the fundamental rights to sell firearms through retail sales, and to display those firearms and ammunition for sale. The Fourteenth Amendment also protects Plaintiffs' fundamental right to earn his livelihood in any lawful manner in which he chooses.

 

Through arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the City, Franzese is unable to sell firearms through in-person sales, or display them for sale. These City actions have resulted in a denial of Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights.

...

COUNT III
BAN ON SALE AND POSSESSION OF LASER SIGHTING DEVICES

 

Laser sighting devices as defined in MCC § 8-20-010 may either be "integrated into a firearm or capable of being attached to a firearm." Firearms equipped with laser sighting devices, either as part of the firearm itself, or added to a firearm, are "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," and are thus protected by the Second Amendment. Indeed, laser sighting devices are designed to facilitate the Second Amendment's core purpose of self-defense by increasing the practical accuracy of a firearm for defensive purposes, especially in low light conditions.

 

The ban in MCC § 8-20-060(a) on carrying, possessing, displaying for sale, or otherwise transferring any laser sight unduly burdens, impedes, and infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of Plaintiff Franzese, who wishes to display for sale, sell, and transfer such laser sighting devices. § 8-20-060(a), and the seizure, forfeiture, penalty, and impoundment provisions of § 8-20-060(c) and § 8-20-070, unduly burden, impede, and infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of Plaintiffs Zieman and Kole, who wish to purchase and possess laser sighting devices.

 

Accordingly, MCC §§ 8-20-060(a), 8-20-060(c) and 8-20-070 are unconstitutional facially and as applied to Plaintiffs, and void ab initio.

...

COUNT IV
PHYSICAL PRESENCE, SECURITY, TRIGGER LOCK AND LOCK BOX REQUIREMENTS

...

The requirements of MCC § 8-20-050(1) that because Zieman has a minor under age 18 living in his residence he must be physically present in the home and the firearm is either being held by him or is physically secured on his body; (2) that a firearm be secured by a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render a firearm temporarily inoperable; or (3) the firearm and ammunition are placed in a securely locked box or container makes it impractical and impossible for him or other citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

...

COUNT V
PLAINTIFF KOLE'S INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR RESTITUTION UNDER THE NEW GUN BAN ORDINANCE

...

By requiring law-abiding citizens and residents, including Kole and his fellow class members, to register all firearms prior to their acquisition under the unconstitutional New Gun Ban Ordinance, Defendants under color of law unlawfully deprived them of monies by wrongfully charging and collecting fees thereunder to obtain firearms permits and firearm registration certificates in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff and the class have thus been damaged and are therefore entitled to declaratory relief and restitution of all such fees.

...

COUNT VI
PLAINTIFF KOLE'S PENDANT INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION STATE LAW CLAIM FOR RESTITUTION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT

...

That as a result of the foregoing and said ordinances violating the Illinois Constitution, Article I, §§ 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 22 and 24, City has been unjustly enriched and therefore Kole and the Class are entitled to restitution.

...

COUNT VII
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

...

The complained-of sections of the Municipal Code of Chicago and the Chicago Zoning Ordinance are against public policy and violative of Article I, §§ 1, 2, 12, 15, 22, 24, and Due Process, Equal Protection and takings clauses of the Illinois Constitution, thus rendering them unconstitutional, null and void ab initio, and unenforceable.

...

[JTHunter]

Whew !!  What a salvo !!

[2A4Cook]

Why has this case still not been tried???

[Tango7]

On 4/28/2022 at 3:34 PM, 2A4Cook said:

Why has this case still not been tried???

The same way that Horsley v Trame never was - continuance continuance continuance and perhaps a judiciary whose families have standing invitations to the parties at the defendant's campaign headquarters.

[2A4Cook]

Oh, I would say the latter, because, you know Chicago ... and Chicago.  This would never be allowed to happen in a case between two private parties.  The plaintiffs' attorneys need to do something to move this along.  Carlson or Hannity woud have a field day with something like this.  It will wind up being appealed to the 7th Circuit, I would think.  If this is a matter of a judge granting the city over a decade's worth of continuances, I would not want to have it tried in front of that judge.  Who knows what's going on?  The lack of any of word of this anywhere is kind of disturbing.

[Tango7]

BTW, I actually worked with a guy who was a victim of this scheme.

 

Years ago, he stopped off at a gas station on the south side after going hunting at the DPCA. He squealed his tires and got lit up by CPD. 

 

When asked if he had any guns in the vehicle he replied truthfully that he did, he presented his FOID and informed them he had an unloaded shotgun in a case in the bed of his truck.

 

They seized the shotgun and charged him with possession of an unregistered firearm, even though his DL and FOID clearly indicated he was a resident of a community 28 miles north of the border of Chicago, and as a non-resident you could not register firearms in Chicago.

 

Long story short the Corporate Counsel offered to drop the charge if he surrendered the shotgun, and his attorney uncle said it wasn't worth paying more for a lawyer than the shotgun was worth. Needless to say they weren't nearly as opinionated about RKBA as most of us here.

 

So his charge got dropped, and his shotgun became just another firearm to put on the press table as a "gun taken off the street" by (D)a machine.

[Euler]

There's been movement in this case, so it's time to update what has happened since the 4th amended complaint was filed in 2014.

 

28 Sep 2015 - Based on Chicago's motion for summary judgment to dismiss, the judge ruled both for and against the plaintiffs on some of the counts in the lawsuit. What remains:

Count I: 2A Arms may seek monetary damages for lost revenue from the 2010 ban on gun stores

Count III: plaintiffs may seek to enjoin the ban on the ability to sell or possess laser sights

Count IV: plaintiffs may seek to enjoin burdensome storage requirements

Count VII: plaintiffs may seek to have various city codes declared as unconstitutional

 

22 Oct 2015 - The judge granted the ability to file a 5th amended complaint. It was never filed.

 

27 Apr 2016 - Zieman moved out of state. He was removed as a plaintiff. Zieman was the plaintiff for Count IV (storage requirements), which was therefore dimissed. (Counts I, III, and VII remain.)

 

12 Oct 2016 - Plaintiffs were granted orders of protection.

 

29 Aug 2017 - Chicago sought to have Count I dismissed. It wasn't dismissed.

 

10 Mar 2020 - Chicago sought to have Counts I and III dismissed. They weren't dismissed.

 

27 Jun 2022 - The judge announced that he has an opinion drafted. However, he is seeking additional briefs from the parties in light of the NYSRPA v Bruen decision, particularly regarding the issue of laser sights. (Somehow Count VII seems to have disappeared. It's no longer mentioned.)

[Euler]

It seems like the lasting effect of the 2A Arms case is going to be an injunction against the ban on laser sights in Chicago.

 

Chicago Sun-Times

Sun-Times said:

...

U.S. District Judge Robert Dow Jr. has asked lawyers involved in a Chicago gun-rights lawsuit to offer arguments on whether last month's Supreme Court ruling applies to city ordinances that prohibit the possession of laser sights for firearms in Chicago.

 

Dow has given the lawyers until mid-July to respond in the case, Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago, which was filed in 2010 by a gun dealer in an effort to overturn the city's ban on gun stores operating in Chicago.

...

A key legal question remaining in the current Chicago gun case is whether the right to "bear arms" extends to laser sights.

...

"They are useful for improving aim and also for intimidation that can defuse the need to actually fire a firearm," Franzese said in a 2019 court filing in which he said he had them on his own guns.

...

On the issue of laser sights, lawyers for the city said in a 2020 court filing that banning them "advances important governmental interests by increasing the public's sense of safety, given the numerous public reports of laser sights being used in mass shootings and gang violence."

 

Referring to the language of the Second Amendment, they also have said laser sights are "not necessary for the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Militias have existed for hundreds of years without laser sights. Even if laser sights are beneficial for self-defense, Chicagoans are left with ample other means for self-defense. They can still use conventional long guns and pistols."

 

A city Law Department spokeswoman said the ordinances that ban laser sights are enforced but couldn't provide statistics on how often people are cited.

 

Two Chicago police officers who said they make frequent arrests on charges that involve illegally possessing guns that also are equipped with laser sights told the Chicago Sun-Times that they have never cited anyone for violating the ban on laser sights on firearms.

...

Since 2015, a Cook County state's attorney's database shows 14 charges of aggravated assault with laser sights have been approved by the prosecutor's office. Most of those were in cases that also involved other, more serious charges, such as assault on a police officer, home invasion and armed robbery.

 

In every one of those cases, the laser-sight charges ended up being dropped, or the defendant was found not guilty.

[Texasgrillchef]

Last I checked, they are waiting on comments and briefs to see how much each side thinks the Bruen decision has impact on this case.

[Euler]

Today, Chicago filed its supplemental brief on how the Bruen decision would affect the ban on laser sights. It basically says that laser sights are not covered by the Second Amendment, because they are not themselves arms and because they are features or accessories that are not required for the functioning of arms. Also they're scary. I've excerpted a bit below, but you can see how similar arguments might be used to prohibit "assault weapons" (or anything else) by accessory or feature.

 

You don't need a pistol grip for a weapon to work. A traditional stock works fine.

You don't need a detachable magazine for a weapon to work. A fixed magazine works fine.

You don't need a flash hider or compensator for a weapon to work. A bare muzzle works fine.

Etc.

 

"Assault weapons" would be a different case, of course, but you can see how Chicago is trying to establish a new basis for existing bans. I doubt that Chicago is the only place that it's happening.

 

The City of Chicago said:

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ADDRESSING BRUEN

...

As to the City's ban on laser sight accessories, that law should be upheld under the legal framework adopted in Bruen because, at a minimum, laser sight accessories are not "arms" within the plain meaning of the Second Amendment's text.

...

If textual coverage does not exist, then the inquiry ends there, and the law is upheld; the government need not show that a regulation is consistent with a historical regulatory tradition.

...

Based on its survey of historical regulations, the Court observed that "the right to keep and bear arms in public has traditionally been subject to well-defined restrictions" including those "governing the intent for which one could carry arms" or "the manner of carry."

...

... the first step of the Bruen framework -- whether the conduct at issue is covered by the Second Amendment's plain text -- mirrors the first step of the City's argument in the prior briefing, which showed that laser sight accessories are not "arms" under the meaning of that word in the Second Amendment. Because laser sight accessories are not covered by the amendment's plain text, the Bruen inquiry ends, and the City is not required to justify its laser sight ban as being consistent with historical regulations.

 

If, however, it were necessary to address the historical inquiry, Bruen recognized a historical tradition of regulating weapons that are dangerous and unusual, or that spread fear and terror -- descriptions that encompass laser sight accessories.

...

And as explained by the Supreme Court in Heller, the plain textual meaning of "arms" in founding-era dictionaries was "weapons of offence, or armour of defence," or "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."

...

A laser sight accessory does not fall within the plain textual meaning of "Arm" because it is not itself a "weapon of offence" or "armour of defence." A laser sight itself cannot be used to inflict offensive injury, nor can it be used as defensive armor. In this regard, laser sight accessories are like firearm silencers, devices that courts have held do not constitute "arms" under the Second Amendment because they are accessories rather than weapons themselves.

...

The technology of the laser sight -- the ability to visibly point and project a laser dot on a target and fire -- enhances the dangerousness of firearms and the fear they generate among the public.

...

And in the two decades since the ordinance's enactment, laser sights have remained at the fore of public consciousness, with numerous articles reporting on shooters using laser-sight devices in high-profile mass shootings; these shootings include the 2019 shooting in Aurora, Illinois, the 2018 shooting during a video game tournament in Jacksonville, and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.

...

Here, any burden on self-defense is minimal. The City's ban on laser sight accessories does not restrict who may carry firearms, what kinds of firearms may be carried, or where they may be carried.

...

Edited August 9, 2022 at 01:30 AM by Euler

[Euler]

Robert M. Dow, the judge who had been hearing this case since it was filed in 2010, has taken a job as Counselor to the Chief Justice of the United States.

 

Dow was a George W. Bush appointee. He's about 57 years old. Remember that Dow said back in June that he had a draft ruling ready to go, pending an update based on Bruen.

 

The case has been assigned to Charles P. Kocoras. Kocoras is a Carter appointee. He's about 84 years old.

 

I suddenly have a bad feeling.

[Upholder]

On 8/8/2022 at 8:22 PM, Euler said:

Here, any burden on self-defense is minimal. The City's ban on laser sight accessories does not restrict who may carry firearms, what kinds of firearms may be carried, or where they may be carried.

 

Any burden is an insurmountable hurdle, post Bruen...

[Flynn]

Quote

The technology of the laser sight -- the ability to visibly point and project a laser dot on a target and fire -- enhances the dangerousness of firearms and the fear they generate among the public.

 

That is an obvious means-end argument that is moot\

 

Quote

Here, any burden on self-defense is minimal. The City's ban on laser sight accessories does not restrict who may carry firearms, what kinds of firearms may be carried, or where they may be carried.

 

Their arguement fails on the surface, they basically admit there is a burden (that then would have to be supported with historical context) and then ignore they are denying the rigth if someone wants to carry a firearm with an integrated laser sight.

 

Quote

A laser sight itself cannot be used to inflict offensive injury, nor can it be used as defensive armor.

 

The act of defense and officde is not limited to the ability to inflict injury, a distraction is an effective defense, just ask all the schools that are now teaching kids to throw anything and everything at an active shooter, not to harm the shooter but to distract them, distraction alone is a very viable form of defense and offense!  As is the obvious 'warning' if you draw down a red dot on someone during a conflict, that alone may very well end it and be the only act of self defense needed.

 

Any Judge following Bruen shall dismiss the cities arguments, or it becomes a decent case to drive up the ladder.

 

[Upholder]

Extensions requested by the defense from the docket:

1. Oct 25, 2010 - Docket entry #9 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, Mara Georges, Miguel del Valle, Jody P. Weis for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 10/25/2010), granted 10/28.2010
2. Sep 20, 2011 - Docket entry #52 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Gary McCarthy, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to file answer or to otherwise plead (unopposed) (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 09/20/2011), granted to 9/27/2011
3. Oct 6, 2011 - Docket entry #55 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Gary McCarthy, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 10/06/2011), granted to 11/4/2011
4. Oct 22, 2013 - Docket entry #119 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Gary McCarthy, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead (Unopposed) (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 10/22/2013), granted to 10/29/2013
5. Nov 21, 2014 - Docket entry #147 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Garry McCarthy, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 11/21/2014), granted 12/19/2014
6. Dec 17, 2014 - Docket entry #152 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Garry McCarthy, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint (Aguiar, William) (Entered: 12/17/2014), granted to 1/2/2015
7. Mar 19, 2015 - Docket entry #170 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Garry McCarthy, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to file response/reply as to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 155 in Counts I-VI in Plaintiffs' Complaint (Unopposed) (Baron, David) (Entered: 03/19/2015), granted to 4/6/2015
8. Sep 23, 2016 - Docket entry #199 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to complete discovery (AGREED) (Mclaughlin, Ellen) (Entered: 09/23/2016), granted to various dates
9. Oct 20, 2017 - Docket entry #221 - MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel for extension of time to file joint status report (agreed) (Mclaughlin, Ellen) (Entered: 10/20/2017), granted to 11/3/2017
10. Nov 14, 2017 - Docket entry #226 - MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Status hearing held and continued to 9/12/2018 at 9:00 a.m. The Court adopts the parties' proposed discovery schedule. Signed order to follow. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
11. Sep 13. 2018 - Docket entry #239 - AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 9/13/2018. Discovery of Plaintiffs' experts closes on November 21, 2018; Defendants' expert disclosures (if any) will be due by January 2, 2019; and Discovery of Defendants' experts closes on February 13, 2019. Status hearing is scheduled for February 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice(cdh, ) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
12. May 14, 2019 - Docket entry #250 - AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER Regarding Briefing on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert Issues: Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/14/2019. Mailed notice. (bg, ) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
13. Jun 11, 2020 - Docket entry #283 - MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for extension of time AGREED MOTION for Extension of Briefing Schedule (McNulty, Thomas) (Entered: 06/11/2020), granted to 6/16/2020
14. Jul 31, 2020 - Docket entry #293 - MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for extension of time to file response/reply UNOPPOSED Motion (McNulty, Thomas) (Entered: 07/31/2020), granted 8/20/2020
15. Aug 17, 2020 - Docket entry #296 - MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for extension of time to file response/reply AGREED MOTION for Extension of Briefing Schedule (McNulty, Thomas) (Entered: 08/17/2020), granted to 8/27/2020
16. Jul 13, 2022 - Docket entry #307 - MOTION by Defendants City of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Garry McCarthy, Susana Mendoza for extension of time to file Unopposed Motion for Extension to File Supplemental Briefs (McNulty, Thomas) (Entered: 07/13/2022), granted to 8/8/2022

 

COVID orders are 279, 280, 281, 282, 290

 

The City of Chicago requested 12 extensions and there were 3 entries resetting the scheduling..

[Euler]

October 11, 2022, was the day that Robert Dow (the previous judge) took a staff job at the US Supreme Court and that this case was reassigned to another judge. So October 11, 2023, marked the one-year anniversary of nothing happening since then.

[mab22]

On 10/23/2023 at 3:16 PM, Euler said:

October 11, 2022, was the day that Robert Dow (the previous judge) took a staff job at the US Supreme Court and that this case was reassigned to another judge. So October 11, 2023, marked the one-year anniversary of nothing happening since then.

Umm if you read the previous post,  NOTHING really has been happening since 2010. 
I would be looking to fire the attorneys long before that. 

[Euler]

On October 23, 2023 at 03:50 PM, mab22 said:→

Umm if you read the previous post, NOTHING really has been happening since 2010.
...

Every count other than the legality of laser sights in Chicago has been dismissed. So that's happened since 2010.

The lack of anything happening in the past year is in spite of the fact that Dow had announced that he had a draft opinion ready to issue. Then the case was assigned to another judge. Meanwhile we're still waiting.

[Euler]

On December 7, the judge scheduled a status hearing for December 21.

[Euler]

On December 21, the judge ordered the defendants to file a brief concerning laser sights considering the relatively recent Bevis ruling by the 7th Circuit. He set the following schedule:

Jan 23: Defendants' brief due
Feb 21: Plaintiffs' response due

The judge stated that he would issue a ruling via mail.

Since laser sights are the last remaining claim in plaintiffs' complaint, that ruling would close this case (at least at the district level).

The original complaint was filed in July 2010.

[Euler]

On January 23, in lieu of a brief on the relevancy of Bevis, the City of Chicago requested to file a memorandum under seal. The court has granted the request and canceled a hearing set for January 30. (I see nothing in the docket that scheduled the hearing for January 30, but it's canceled, anyway.)

[SiliconSorcerer]

Got any guesses on the under seal?

What freaking "confidential" information can there be.