Chicago gun ban ruled unconstitutional by federal judge

One for the people!

A federal judge has ruled that Chicago's ban on the sale of handguns is unconstitutional, Bloomberg reported Monday. U.S. District Court Judge Edmond E. Chang said the municipal ordinance goes "too far." He delayed the effect of his ruling to allow the city to respond. “Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms," Chang wrote in the opinion, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Chicago currently prohibits the sale of handguns within city limits. In September, a city council committee approved a rewrite of the city's gun laws, which included bringing the city's policy on the carry of concealed weapons in line with the state of Illinois' recently passed concealed carry law. The decision comes days after Chicago's Police Department announced that the city's homicide rate in 2013 had reached its lowest level since 1965. The overall crime rate also fell dramatically.

Huffpost

While I may or may not currently own a gun (), I love me some second amendment! I'd love to hear from some windy city ATSers...

I am happy to hear this, as I am a proponent of the inalienable right to own firearms.

At least some judges are willing to stand by the law of the land.

reply to post by six67seven


Glad to see a judge stand up for the people and not be influenced by TPTB

Ban guns or not, the gang-bangers will always have guns

They can pass as many gun laws as they like, it won't stop the criminals from doing what they do
It only hampers the innocent law abiding citizens

Chicago has the strictest gun laws around and yet the highest gun crimes
Why????
Because the thugs don't go by our rules or regulations...they live in their own world, a dark world with their own rules
They thumb their nose at the law and every thing that it stands for

reply to post by six67seven


Go people!

Anytime petty bureaucrats overrule the law of the land they require a good judicial thumping. At the very least, personally I'd arrest all those who outlawed the guns in the first place.

Amazing that it takes so long for people in "authority" to understand what a normal rational person already knows. It's not the law abiding citizens and businesses committing the crimes.

reply to post by six67seven





That's all I have to say about that....

reply to post by Bassago


I know, its crazy right? I mean one would assume the constitution is the law of the land, the WHOLE country but its not so. See the "Constitution-free zone of the US" thread and try not to scratch your head...

I'd like to shake the hand of Judge Chang.

I bet Rahm Emanuel and Obama are shaking their heads in disgust...lmao

reply to post by six67seven


I used to live in Chicago, now live right outside the city limits (more affordable cost of living ) but I have a good amount of experience living in the city since I was there for 7 years. On one end I like seeing the constitution being protected, but I also understand that my city has a significant gun problem as it is, meaning homicides/armed robberies/etc... It's one of those situations where they can ban the guns, but it won't make any different, other then the "good" guys losing their rights to bear arms, but the criminals who are constantly terrorizing this city (high murder rate/crime rate) will continue to use guns whether a law is in place or not.

I'm a little confused when I read them say 2013 was the lowest homicide rate since 1965? This is the same Chicago I've written some about myself this year and many many others have as well, for the random mass shootings on the street and all around the Chicagoland area?

Perhaps that's it. C.P.D. is getting real particular about which side of the street the crime is called on where a city line is involved. Calling that a low homicide town just doesn't compute on any level. It's been too much the headline for 12 months saying just the opposite.

Black is White and Up is Down ... At least a Federal judge is giving Mayor Rahm a good lesson in how even Chicago is subject to the 2nd Amendment. Yup.. There too....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Apparently Chicago had a 'good' year. Let's hope that continues.

huffpo

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


More specifically, Chicago is subject first to the Illinois State Constitution, in which it mimics the Federal Constitution.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Good on the Federal judge though.

six67seven
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Apparently Chicago had a 'good' year. Let's hope that continues.

huffpo

Improvement is still 400+ murders, so as a Chicagoan I understand that they improved, but it's improvement off god awful figures... I don't consider this a "win" by any means, it's still a VERY bad problem here in the city that's spilling over from bad parts to the nicer parts..

ownbestenemy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

More specifically, Chicago is subject first to the Illinois State Constitution, in which it mimics the Federal Constitution.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Good on the Federal judge though.

You would have thought Chicago learned its lesson the first time around when the law made it to the US Supreme Court and struck down (2008). So they opted to draft another law along the same lines of the first and lost.

2 for 2.

I wonder what the Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois has in store next...

reply to post by six67seven


Mayor Rahm "IDF" Emanuel's office:

‘‘Every year Chicago police recover more illegal guns than officers in any city in the country... ‘‘We need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.’’

ILLEGAL guns. How are stricter laws going to prevent sales by those who dont care about the law!?

Oh, the irony.

Hm, I wonder if the judged considered going super literal and saying the constitution doesn't gurantee the right to sell firearms, only own them, so the law stands. That'd have been interesting.

I wonder which people think is more important, states rights or gun rights. I know the constitution is explicit in guaranteeing individuals the right, but hypothetical philosophical, if 100% of the people in Connecticut say we wan't do make guns illegal, should they be able to?

reply to post by SkullofThought

I wonder which people think is more important, states rights or gun rights. I know the constitution is explicit in guaranteeing individuals the right, but hypothetical philosophical, if 100% of the people in Connecticut say we wan't do make guns illegal, should they be able to?

Doesn't matter what they think the constitution is the law of the land. Which is why sleazy lawyers and politicians spend so much time and effort trying to circumvent it.

Since amending the 2nd isn't going to happen they'll try to drown it in illegal legislation which thankfully this judge just put a hammer on.

gladtobehere
How are stricter laws going to prevent sales by those who dont care about the law!?

edit on 6-1-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording

Thus the reason gun control does not work. Failing logic that most politicians aren't smart enough to figure out.

I firmly believe the excuse of trying to prevent weapons from falling into criminal hands / stop gun crimes is bunk and serves as a screen to trying and water down the 2nd amendment.

One of the old "you will be safer by giving up your rights" argument.

I really wish someone would ask, and refuse to leave until they get an answer, these politicians to explain how they think their control laws will stop crime.

SkullofThought
I wonder which people think is more important, states rights or gun rights. I know the constitution is explicit in guaranteeing individuals the right, but hypothetical philosophical, if 100% of the people in Connecticut say we wan't do make guns illegal, should they be able to?

The People of Connecticut in the example you provided, would have to amend their Constitution to reflect that view; legislation is not always Law.

Given your example, what if 100% of the People of Connecticut say "we wan't all the tax revenue deposited in our bank accounts"?

The way they will get us is by restricting access to ammunition since the 2nd doesn't mention the right to keep and bear ammunition; though it should certainly be inferred.

reply to post by six67seven

Good!!!! About time this Anti-Gun Rights crap got smacked upside the head.

reply to post by macman


Indeed. I always hear Chicagoans express their love for their city, even with all the crime and corruption so it's definitely nice to see the judge stand up for the constitution, politics aside.

Enjoy this everyone! The news is over-run with bad news so its great to see a piece like this come through, especially in one of the toughest cities in the nation.