Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics

Federal Judge Rules Chicago's Ban On Licensed Gun Dealers Unconstitutional 934

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the urban-bear-hunting dept.
wooferhound writes with news that a federal judge has overturned part of Chicago's firearm laws. From CNN: "A federal judge ruled Monday that Chicago's ban on virtually all sales and transfers of firearms is unconstitutional. 'The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,' wrote U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang." The Chicago Tribune notes: "The ruling also would make it legal for individuals to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale as long as the recipient was at least 18 and had a firearm owner's identification card." The ruling doesn't change anything yet: the ruling's effect was delayed to give the city time to appeal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Judge Rules Chicago's Ban On Licensed Gun Dealers Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:
  • FTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by colin_faber (1083673) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @01:49PM (#45889169)
    "Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,"
  • by therealkevinkretz (1585825) * on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @01:53PM (#45889235)

    Well, that's silly. They ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act"'s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. It (mostly) affirmed the constutionality of "affirmative action" in university admissions. It allowed Congress to change the formula determining which local and state governments have more strict requirements under the Voting Rights Act. And other stuff I can't remember.

  • by EmperorArthur (1113223) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @01:55PM (#45889253)

    Short answer: Pretty much yes.

    Long answer: While legally it's "no" the truth is that minors have significantly less rights than adults. It's even worse than that since in America you're no longer considered a minor when you turn 18 or 19 depending on the state, but you can't drink or own a pistol until you're 21.

    There are several cases where US schools have punished students for doing things which aren't illegal while off school grounds. Student's have essentially no rights while they are on school grounds. They can be searched without any justification. They're punished if they have something that even like a weapon [techdirt.com]. Even worse, school is compulsory, so it's not like any of this is opt out.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @01:56PM (#45889267)

    US law that 18 years of life makes you an adult

    Not US law but custom. States can stipulate arbitrary age of majority such as Nebraska where it's 19.

  • Nerds like guns? (Score:5, Informative)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:08PM (#45889445)
    Some nerds like guns. Some nerds REALLY like guns. In fact, some nerds are defined by the fact that they play a ton of games that revolve around, pretty much, guns... So, guns themselves aren't "anti-nerd."
  • Re:Gun control (Score:5, Informative)

    by OhPlz (168413) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:09PM (#45889465)

    Not only that, but most of the mass killings lately have been in "gun free zones". Clearly the gun free zones do not protect life or liberty.

  • Re:hold it (Score:4, Informative)

    by SydShamino (547793) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:10PM (#45889473)

    Yes. [defdist.org]

  • by Macgruder (127971) <chandies@williamson.gmail@com> on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:16PM (#45889551)

    Funny picture. But wrong.

    "10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

  • by sjbe (173966) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:17PM (#45889569)

    How many crimes were perpetrated with fully automatic machine guns?

    Very few. The actual number is pretty close to none [freerepublic.com].

    How many school killings were committed with one?

    Also an incredibly small number.

    How many people in the USA died at the wrong end of a fully automatic assault rifle?

    So few that it is statistically insignificant. The exact number is less than 100

    I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.

    Really? There are about 100 million rifles in the US with AR15 "assault rifles" accounting for around 5 million of these. In 2012 rifles of any sort were used to kill 348 people. That means the percentage of rifles used in a murder is 0.000384%. More people were killed from hands and feet then were killed by rifles of any sort last year. And you are going to tell me that an assault weapon ban is anything but propaganda?

    If you want to talk about gun control, handguns account for virtually all murders with a firearm. Worrying about any other type of firearm is simply a waste of time.

  • by mapsjanhere (1130359) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:18PM (#45889579)
    This is the currently popular one, as it is from Harvard (typically not a pro-gun source) http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf [harvard.edu]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:22PM (#45889611)

    The Government knows:

    Who you gun owners are

    Where you gun owners are

    What you gun owners own.

    And what you gun owners are saying - at least on the Internet thanks NSA!

    Now let's say you want to fight "tyranny" as the current NRA President says.

    So, do you think you can do it part time while you work?

    Hell no!

    You'll have to quit your job - assuming you are not fired first because you WILL be labeled as a terrorist by the authorities and your fellow NRA members will be right there - backing up the authorities; talking BIG how they'd take YOU out themselves (I've seen it. ).

    So, you quite your job to fight tyranny.

    Your house will be taken away. And if you spent your entire life savings on ammo, you'd have enough for one battle.

    But wait! There's more! You'll be fighting professional troops who are trained and more than likely battle hardened. Sorry, your one token Afgan/IRaqi vet doesn't cut it. They'll kick your ass without any losses - that's what happened initially when the US Revolutionary Militias fought the British - British - zero losses; Americans - wiped out.

    And there's more! While you're fighting tyranny, your house is taken away, your bank account seized and you are put on America's Most Wanted. Good luck buying supplies.

    Self defense? WTF are you doing going into places where you need a gun? Looking for a fight are we?

    I am part of the gun culture in the US - I'm just a target shooter. That's all. And there are the hunters. Great folks who I think are doing a service to the environment since all the predators were killed - mostly at the behest of folks who freak out when they see a big cat or wolf in their back yard.

    Then there are the folks who live and breath watching action movies - the hero has a high kill rate and "just a scratch wound" or some stupidity - the ones with the AR15s or AK47s - shit guns.

    If you are so afraid of your neighbors, just fucking move!

    As far as I'm concerned, nothing I own is worth a firefight and if my loved ones are in danger, I'd get their asses to safety because I am by no means a one man army.

    tl;dr: your gun rights are just a bone the ruling class throws at you to shut you up and distract you. And it works quite well.

  • by cold fjord (826450) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:27PM (#45889691)

    How may gun-relate crimes have been stopped thanks to citizen carrying guns? It seems to me that the more guns there are, the more death there are.

    It happens all the time. Recent example:

    Dallas Store Manager Shoots at 5 Armed Robbers Police Arrive 74 Minutes Later [blog.rtba.co]

    Study shows concealed-carry laws result in fewer murders [humanevents.com]

  • Re:Wrong target (Score:5, Informative)

    by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:41PM (#45889939) Homepage Journal

    ...

    Banning the sale of a legal product that is protected by the constitution will be almost impossible. When a higher court refuses to hear the case the politicians can say "At least we tried". This is a PR stunt as they just want to look like they are doing something even when they know it will not work. What a waste of time and money that could be better used elsewhere.

    Tell me about it. I live in Colorado where the politicians pandered to a vocal constituency and passed a bunch of unenforceable laws in response to the Aurora theater shootings. In spite of these laws and laws already on the books a paroled felon was able to acquire a gun and use it to kill two people. The only difference the new laws made was to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy or sell guns. And, as you predicted, all we heard from the politicians was, "At least we tried". Sadly, this will probably be followed by calls for even more controls that also won't work.

    Cheers,
    Dave

  • by cold fjord (826450) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:43PM (#45889967)

    Abstract: An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates [tandfonline.com]. Like many papers published in academic journals you would have to pay to see the whole thing, although you can preview it.

    You can read a news story about it here:

    Study shows concealed-carry laws result in fewer murders [humanevents.com]

    Similar work:

    An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. [uchicago.edu]

    You may find this interesting as well.

    Detroit police chief: More legally armed citizens deter crime [dailycaller.com]

  • by fatphil (181876) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @02:53PM (#45890097) Homepage
    Isn't that definition from 1958?

    The authors of a document from the 1790s were not using a definition codified in 1958 when they were writing.
  • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @03:04PM (#45890221)
    Concealed carry is now the norm in more than 80% of the United States, and in every case, every case without exception, violent crime has either decreased or remained the same after concealed carry laws went into effect. There is nothing "out there" about it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @03:10PM (#45890297)

    Might also add that most of the crime is in the inner cities

    Your data is 25 years old. Per capita violent crime is lower in inner cities. You're much less likely to get raped or murdered in New York City than Bumfuck, Ohio.

  • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @03:10PM (#45890307)
    "Most states" says the person who clearly knows very little about states' firearms laws. Open carry is legal throughout most of the US [opencarry.org], in many (but not most) cases predicated on having a concealed carry license/permit.
  • by ravenshrike (808508) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @03:13PM (#45890331)

    Wow you're pretty damn ignorant aren't you. Contrary to Hollywood unreality and the pulp westerns put out by book publishing companies at the time that were sensationalized to, and this part is key, sell books, the Wild West was not wild because people were being gunned down like rabid dogs left and right. In point of fact, they were safer from being shot than most medium to large cities today.

    As for your twelve years of EMT work, were you even in a city where at least 30% of the of age law abiding populace owned guns? Somehow I seriously fucking doubt it. Seeing as less than 10% of mexican crime guns come from Non-governmental US sources, what in the nine hells do you fucking think that banning guns would do in the US given our porous borders. We can't even keep things as large as containers of people slipping through.

  • Decision details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Flamerule (467257) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @03:26PM (#45890523)

    Really sad that the links have few details, and more than 1.5 hours later, no one's posted anything more.

    The decision text is available here [scribd.com]. The decision is by Judge Edmond Chang [wikipedia.org], appointed in 2010 by Obama to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case name is Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago (formerly known as Benson v. City of Chicago).

    This link [nraila.org] says that the lawsuit challenges five aspects of Chicago's law:

    1. the ban on any form of carriage
    2. the ban on gun stores
    3. the ban on firing ranges
    4. the ban on self-defense in garages, porches, and yards
    5. the ban on keeping more than one gun in an operable state
  • by fredprado (2569351) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @03:29PM (#45890569)
    Indeed. There is no evidence that shows any relation between the number of legal guns and violence, mostly because legal guns are used only very rarely for illegal purposes.
  • by drnb (2434720) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @03:58PM (#45890879)

    Fully automatic. Think Tommy gun.

    The reason so few crimes are committed with them is because we have regulated them out of common use. It is very difficult to buy one.

    You missed the GP's point with respect to "assault weapon" bans. The 5 million or so AR-15s are NOT fully automatic, "assault weapons" are a political fiction based on cosmetics not fullauto capability. Put a 5 round magazine into an AR-15 and it is functionally identical to various popular semiauto small game and target rifles that have detachable magazines. Put a 30 round magazine into one of these small game and target rifles and they are functionally identical to the gun banner's poster child of crime, the AR-15.

    The point being that there are FAR more than 5 million semiauto rifles with detachable magazines AND there were only 348 people killed with rifles of any kind in 2012 out of a population of 312 million. The GP's point about "assault weapon" bans stand.

  • other reasons too (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chirs (87576) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @04:04PM (#45890951)

    I suspect that the most important reason is the same reason why most gun crimes are committed with handguns...rifles of any sort are big, bulky, unwieldy, and heavy. So allowing automatic rifles would likely not make much difference.

    Fully automatic machine pistols though might increase the danger, though I suspect in many cases it would just mean that the person would zip through their magazine that much faster and then be stuck with no ammo. It might actually make things safer since inept users would be more likely to use up the whole magazine in one (likely inaccurate) burst.

  • by msauve (701917) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @04:04PM (#45890963)
    It doesn't mention marriage anywhere, which means the 10th A applies:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @05:40PM (#45891995)

    My apologies - I actually misread the data in the original article. Those 45 homicides from 1870 to 1885 was actually the combined number from Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @06:00PM (#45892195)

    There were only about 613 fatal gun accidents in 2007

    "In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings. More than 600 of these shootings proved fatal."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/why-does-the-gun-lobby-fear-science-and-safety.html [thedailybeast.com]

    The same number you quoted... but interesting that you left out the injuries and just quoted the fatalities.

    Then there's another 20,000 DEATHS from suicide by gun. (Now some people are just determined to die and will find another way if they don't have their gun at hand in their darkest hour, but a LOT of people will choose less effective means of suicide and fail and get help, a LOT of those people will have second thoughts about suicide on the trip to the jumping bridge, a LOT of those people will just get over it and choose to live if they don't end up dead because gun suicide is just literally a finger flick away. Suicide by gun is the suicide equivalent of an impulse buy at the candy store.

    "That compared to at least 67,740 incidents of self-defense with a firearm a year and possibly far more..."

    Yes, I've read that stat. No context whatsoever. Just that guns happened to be around in a 'self-defense' capacity or behavior. It counts pulling a gun on the neighbors dog. It counts pulling a gun when your hear strange noises outside while you called the police. It even counts cases where the victims were still successfully victimized (ie they pulled a gun but were still robbed anyway, and probably robbed of the gun too.)

    So... 20,000 dead by suicide, another 20000 injured in accidents, 600 of those dead, 150+ of those children.

    And that's offset by 67k 'defensive' actions? In many cases where the gun was neither required nor effective in any capacity.

  • Re:The Wild West (Score:4, Informative)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @07:20PM (#45892951) Homepage Journal

    Actually the so-called "wild west" was sometimes open carry, and sometimes not. And that shootout was down the street from the OK Corral. Per your own reference, guns were prohibited in town by local ordinance enacted while Wyatt Earp was serving as Pima County deputy sheriff.

  • Well regulated (Score:5, Informative)

    by fyngyrz (762201) on Wednesday January 08, 2014 @01:47AM (#45895187) Homepage Journal

    Well regulated, in the parlance of the times, meant that they would show up with x amount of shot, powder, a weapon to use same, change of socks, etc. It was used the same way "regulator" is used as a clock trademark. It didn't mean bossed around; it meant consistently supplied and prepared. This is explicitly laid out in legislation from the time. The point of the 2nd being made was that people required the freedom to keep an bear arms if they were to form up in a well prepared and supplied manner.

    We're still pretty well regulated in that sense. A very large number of US citizens could show up with a rifle and cartridges for same if called upon to do so. Be quite a few handguns, too, and a wide assortment of other weapons that aren't classed as firearms at all. But that's the 2nd for you: arms. Not just firearms, but arms.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito

Working...