Chicago Ban on Gun Sales Within City Struck Down by Judge

I was just logging in to see if this had been posted yet.

Sweet.

Every blow to Chicago's anti-gun agenda makes me happier, and happier.

Illinois is starting to not be "quite so bad" ... and proof that nothing is a lost cause.

Will this decision allow gun shops to finally open in Washington, DC?

If not, that should be the next milestone.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Chicago, if it loses, will just put up as many roadblocks as possible for anyone wanting to open a gun store.

It goes a lot further then just Chicago, because it seems to prohibit total gun bans. If not reversed it will provide substantial caselaw and support for cases now in the system against several states, such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York (city and state).

Also covered here: http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/06/fi...ransferred-within-chicago-except-inheritance/

Eugene Volokh, "No Firearm May Be Sold, Acquired or Otherwise Transferred Within [Chicago], Except Through Inheritance", Volokh Conspiracy, 6 Jan 2014.

The title quotes the law (Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-100) that was overturned by a federal judge today (Illinois Ass’n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2014)).

(Eugene Volokh is a UCLA professor whose pro gun rights legal research and arguments have been cited by winning pro gun plaintifs in several court cases including Heller. Heller is cited by the judge who relied on court cases in his decision.)

What a great week for Chicago, and Illinois. I completed my concealed carry application yesterday. The application process, which went live yesterday, is entirely digital. The application was easy enough. Let's see how long it takes. They claim 90-120 days.

Congrats! Sounds like things are moving in the right direction.

Since nobody else has put it up, a copy of the opinion is attached.

Sebastian, thanks.

There is language in that which strengthens the case against certain parts of the Illinois Concealed Carry act, namely, public transportation, parks, etc.

This, then, is the framework that Moore and Ezell have crafted. For each challenged Municipal Code ordinance, the City bears the burden of first establishing that the ordinance regulates activity generally understood in 1791 to be unprotected by the Second Amendment. If the City does not carry that burden, then it must proffer sufficient evidence to justify the ordinance’s burden on Second Amendment rights. And in this means-end analysis, the quantity and persuasiveness of the evidence required to justify each ordinance varies depending on how much it affects the core Second Amendment right to armed self-defense and on whose right it affects. The more people it affects or the heavier the burden on the core right, the stricter the scrutiny. If the City also fails at this second stage, the ordinance is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

Chicago gunshop ban struck down!

CHICAGO - A federal judge has potentially opened a new market to gun dealers after ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city's limits.

Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-rules-chicago-gun-sales-ban-unconstitutional/

Also it was said that they had 4,500 applications on the first day for conceal carry permits. Sounds like Chicago may be getting better and hopefully will become safer for it.

NRA lobbyist was on WLS 890AM this morning saying it was 10K applications on the first day.

I look forward to gun shops on Michigan Avenue and in Hyde Park.

Oh, if only I had the dough. A chain of gun shops with ranges inside them. I'd call them Tiny Dancer Guns & Gear. Rental guns to try at the range, classrooms, hand out flyers on the Gold Coast.

Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers v. Chicago

While several courts have applied intermediate scrutiny to the RKBA post Heller and MacDonald, a district point has applied "almost-strict" scrutiny to auxiliary rights to the RKBA (the right to buy a gun and the right to shoot it) in overturning a ban on gun stores and private gun transactions in Chicago.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ays-second-amendment-ruling-charles-c-w-cooke

Legally, the big issue right now is what level of scrutiny to apply to the RKBA which is recognized as an individual right under Heller and incorporated against the states by MacDonald. While the political momentum is on our side at the Federal level, we have had a number rof disturbing losses at the state level recently and getting strict scrutiny or something close to it applied to the legal testing of gun laws vs, the RKBA is our best bet now in progressive enclaves where pro-gun people have lost political power.

The decision was written by an Obama-appointed judge: http://ia700501.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065.238.0.pdf

Professor Volokh has more: http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/06/fi...ransferred-within-chicago-except-inheritance/

Mike

PS. Mods: please merge with the existing thread. I just noticed it.

This decision follows the "almost strict scrutiny" standard of Ezell v Chicago which overturned the ban on gun ranges for total bans of auxiliary rights to the RKBA (the right to shoot the gun, the right of armed self-defense, etc.) This differs from the strict scrutiny applied to the First Amendment by requiring "an extremely strong state interest" vs. a "compelling state interest" and that the regulation be a "close fit" vs. "narrowly tailored". The Ezell court left open the possibility of lesser regulations not an outright prohibition being evaluated by a lesser standard.

More info here on this 2011 case yesterday's case builds on: http://www.volokh.com/2011/07/08/ezell/

Mike

Chicago, if it loses, will just put up as many roadblocks as possible for anyone wanting to open a gun store.

Click to expand...

So very true unfortunately. For example the laws on gun ranges were recently challenged and changed in the city making it 'legal' to open a gun range in city limits. Too bad the list of requirements and regulations make it for the most part impossible to open one, let alone make it profitable. Heck just the safety requirements make it so you have to be multi-millionaire to afford all the equipment. That's not including the problems with finding a site and fighting the city to build in that location.........in other words don't bet on a gun shop opening in the city.

Hell has a better chance of freezing over, then a gun shop opening its doors.

No matter what the law says, the city will make it impossible to open a store.

I see it now, no store within 5 miles of a school, park, or church. No gun stores in residentially zoned districts. No gun store within 5 miles of where alcohol is served or sold.

No matter what the law says, the city will make it impossible to open a store.

Click to expand...

Very likely, but they'll soon find themselves back in court again.

Should they really tick off a federal judge things might get expensive.

There is no prohibition on gun stores in Washington, DC. There are zoning restrictions regarding distance from a school, etc. but if you can find the right location you can open a store. The reason there are no stores is because no one has concluded that it would be profitable. Very few DC residents own guns and the number of new owners after the Supreme Court ruling has been very low. There is only one guy doing out of state transfers. It appears there just aren't enough buyers to justify a retail store.

Makster - fear probably has a lot to do with that.

*I* am not going to run out and open up a gun shop in Chicago anytime soon. They're going to make life as miserable, costly, and painful as possible for anyone who tries.

(Although there's probably good money in it...)

I think this ruling may have other significant implications.

From page 26 of the ruling: ... residents who seek to legally buy a gun bear more of the share of the added transaction costs in time, effort, and danger than gang members or would-be criminals, who rarely buy guns from legitimate dealers directly. Given the close fit between justification and means that the City must demonstrate, it cannot justify its ban on legitimate gun sales and transfers with overinclusive means that impact more law-abiding citizens than criminals. And without a valid explanation for how its chosen means actually achieves its goal of reducing criminal access to guns, the City’s first justification fails.

Click to expand...

So, if the City's justification for banning guns fails because more law-abiding citizens are impacted by the law than are criminals, what does that mean for other laws designed to keep guns away from criminals, but actually have a greater impact on law-abiding citizens - like imposing high fees for concealed carry permits?

Oh crap, I completely missed that ngnrd. Nice spot.

This case is awesome; despite it being pretty narrow in scope (single type of business enterprise and person-to-person commerce in one county), it may have a profound impact on case law here.

Ask the owner of Chuck's Guns in Riverdale about having a gun shop in Chicago. I know it's not actually in Chicago, but it may as well be.

That priest and that reverend are always bothering the store with pickets, protesters and threats of physical violence.

Anybody from around Chicago will know exactly who I mean even though I won't name them. They both thrive on publicity and I won't help put their names in any sort of print.

I hope somebody opens gun stores in Chicago, and I hope they're extremely successful. It would be worth it just to watch the mayor's head turn purple from frustration.