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.(source)

Is this the way gun control laws will fall like dominoes across the land?

Tags: Chicago, control, gun

Views: 104

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Is this the way gun control laws will fall like dominoes across the land?

I doubt it. The gun lobby will win most of the battles, but it won't win them all.

Judge Upholds Most of NY Gun Control Law: "A federal judge upheld most of New York [state]'s new gun control law on Tuesday, rejecting arguments that its bans on large-capacity magazines and the sale of some semi-automatic rifles violate Second Amendment rights."

Is this the way gun control laws will fall like dominoes across the land?

It does seem like Chicago and Illinois have been getting smacked upside the head a lot for their gun laws.  Though as Gallup points out, other localities' laws have survived, at least at lower levels of the judiciary.  (The only thing the judge there struck down was the silly and arbitrary rule that you can only put seven rounds into a ten round magazine.)

They were forced by a judge to pass some sort of concealed carry; as part of this the state government has forbidden localities from regulating handguns (and only gave them a few days to pass new regs like magazine limits on long guns). 

Given that the concealed carry permit process is still ramping up in Illinois, ironically if you are from out of state you have privileges locals do not.  You can, if driving through Illinois and you have a concealed weapons permit, conceal the gun while in your car.  (This is in spite of the fact that Illinois will not otherwise recognize any other state's permit.)  But not if you are an Illinois resident!

The Illinois law for getting a permit is fairly onerous, requiring 16 hours of training (which costs money), a hundred and fifty dollar fee (three hundred dollars if you are trying to get a non-resident permit), and the list of places you are not permitted to carry is quite long, long enough to render the "privilege" (which is really a right) useless for many.  But under Illinois law, if you meet all these requirements, they cannot refuse to issue you a permit.

It does seem like Chicago and Illinois have been getting smacked upside the head a lot for their gun laws. 

The metro Chicago gun bans date back to 1970s, while the Heller decision (which is the basis for this particular smacking) dates back to the Roberts court in 2008. Before Heller there was enough legal ambiguity about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to allow outright bans in places like Chicago for some 40 years. Heller is so recent that there are still years of legal retrofitting ahead, while old laws are rewritten or challenged and thrown out, and new laws are passed instead.

The Illinois law for getting a permit is fairly onerous, requiring 16 hours of training (which costs money), a hundred and fifty dollar fee (three hundred dollars if you are trying to get a non-resident permit), and the list of places you are not permitted to carry is quite long, long enough to render the "privilege" (which is really a right) useless for many.

Heller essentially established that 'well regulated' means the state or federal government can take steps to ensure you're not a criminal or a nutcase, to make sure you're not a danger to yourself or others, to prevent you from carrying dangerous and unusual weapons, and to prevent you from carrying into 'sensitive' places. (The courts generally grant a fair amount of leeway as to what measures may be taken. The value and effectiveness of these measures is another issue.)

Your 2nd Amendment right, as of Heller, means the state at a minimum must issue a permit for you to possess a firearm in your home for legal purposes. The state can't stop you from buying one and owning one without due process, although they can make you jump through some hoops first if they want to. That's basically it.

Some states will hold the hoops high and make them expensive. Others states hold them lower and make them cheaper. Other states won't hold up any hoops at all, or will be much more permissive about where and how and what you can carry. But these aspects have more to do with federalism and state law than with what the Supreme Court has established as your 2nd Amendment right.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

The prefatory clause [of the 2nd Amendment: "well regulated militia"] comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

[...]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. 

[...]

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service