Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge strikes down part of Chicago gun law as unconstitutional
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | Jun 20, 2012 | NATASHA KORECKI

Posted on 06/20/2012 5:32:58 PM PDT by neverdem

A federal judge in Chicago on Tuesday struck down a portion of the city’s firearm ordinance, calling it unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan ruled in favor of a Chicago man who challenged a section of the city’s gun law after he was denied a permit because of a misdemeanor conviction.

Der-Yeghiayan, in a 30-page ruling, called that part of the Chicago Firearm Ordinance “unconstitutionally void for vagueness,” and said it violated Shawn Gowder’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Gowder had filed a federal lawsuit challenging a portion of the ordinance that bars a person from obtaining a Chicago firearm permit if that person has been convicted “in any jurisdiction” of an “unlawful use of a weapon that is a firearm.” Under Chicago municipal code, it is unlawful for someone to possess a firearm without a Chicago firearm permit.

In Gowder’s case, he had been convicted in Illinois in 1995 with the unlawful use of a weapon. He was not accused of discharging a weapon illegally, however, but only with the possession of a firearm. At the time, the charge was a felony. But that law was challenged, according to the federal court opinion, and Gowder’s conviction was downgraded to a misdemeanor.

“The only thing that Mr. Gowder did was to own a firearm as he was entitled to do under the Second Amendment. As a result of that he was treated as a criminal by the City of Chicago when all he did was exercise his fundamental Second Amendment rights,” said his attorney, Stephen A. Kolodziej. “We think the City of Chicago’s actions in denying Mr. Gowder a firearm permit were punitive and draconian as well as violative of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

Gowder does have an Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification Card, but the City of Chicago denied a local permit, citing his conviction.

“There is something incongruent about a nonviolent person, who is not a felon, but who is convicted of a misdemeanor offense of simple possession of a firearm, being forever barred from exercising his constitutional right to defend himself in his own home in Chicago against felons or violent criminals,” Der-Yeghiayan wrote. “The same constitution that protects people’s right to bear arms prohibits this type of indiscriminate and arbitrary governmental regulation.”

In court filings, the city had urged Der-Yeghiayan to rule against Gowder, citing studies that indicated a greater likelihood that those convicted of misdemeanor crimes and who bought guns could be more trouble down the road.

“Handgun purchasers with at least one misdemeanor conviction had a 7.5 times higher risk for a later offense,” the city wrote, citing a study that Gowder’s lawyers said was flawed.

“The study importantly concluded that convicted misdemeanants like Plaintiff, who choose to own weapons — exactly what Plaintiff desired to do — are at an increased risk for committing future violent crimes,” the city countered.

The city’s ordinance on guns has long been contested, including in cases that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city’s 28-year-old handgun ban.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 06/20/2012 5:33:02 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

28-year-old handgun ban.


Forward!


2 posted on 06/20/2012 5:44:05 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank; endthematrix; Chgogal; NotJustAnotherPrettyFace; Lawgvr1955; Petruchio; stylin19a; ...
BANG! More crappy studies being cited by the left. I hope the judge laughed in their faces.
3 posted on 06/20/2012 5:44:43 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It will be just like in Washington DC.

Th law is found Unconstitutional. so the City Council passes a new Unconstitutional law and it will take ten years to get that one through the Supreme Court..

They can pass bad laws faster than lawyers can beat them and meanwhile the public gets screwed.


4 posted on 06/20/2012 6:11:54 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’m just curious. What ethnicity is the name “Der-Yeghiayan”? I’ve never seen anything similar to it before.


5 posted on 06/20/2012 6:25:02 PM PDT by OldPossum ( "it's" is the contraction of either "it is" or "it has"; "its" is the possessive pronoun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
What ethnicity is the name “Der-Yeghiayan”? I’ve never seen anything similar to it before.

It's been my experience that a 'ian' or 'yan' "suffix" on a surname denotes Armenian ancestry. I'm nosy. I live in NYC, and I ask!

6 posted on 06/20/2012 6:39:15 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Exactly. There must be PENALTIES for breaking the law. They broke the law by passing an unconstitutional law.

Like when a previous governor of Florida blatantly broke his state’s constitution for some liberal cause, and he didn’t give a damn, becaus ethere were no consequences.

The people passing these laws should be found in contempt of court.

Or just simply pass a law requiring penalties for those who sign, sponsor, or vote for unconstitutional laws. Financial penalties, say.


7 posted on 06/20/2012 6:47:39 PM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
I’m just curious. What ethnicity is the name “Der-Yeghiayan”? I’ve never seen anything similar to it before.

From The New Hampshire Bar Association:


8 posted on 06/20/2012 6:47:39 PM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

You know whats happening? All 50 states will wind up without gun control laws, we will all be happy. Then they will pass a federal law.

It’s coming. Fast and Furious was the setup for the federal law. It blew up and now they have to cover it up and try again.


9 posted on 06/20/2012 6:58:39 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

>>It’s coming. Fast and Furious was the setup for the federal law. It blew up and now they have to cover it up and try again.<<

What’s to keep Obozo from passing an executive order banning certain types of guns or mag capacity?


10 posted on 06/20/2012 7:02:23 PM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Right, it wouldn’t mater if they were 10,000 times more likely to commit some crime in the future. You can’t revoke someone’s rights for something they haven’t done yet, period. If they set that precedent, then we’ll end up like Britain, where everyone’s classed as a potential criminal not to be trusted with the right to defend themselves.


11 posted on 06/20/2012 7:06:33 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
If you love American History, and you have about 3 hours to spare, or you have kids studying our Founding Fathers, this first link is a great read!

Washingtonianism - The Father of his Country’s vision for the American Founding

No One Left to Pander To

Salena Zito: New Deal Democrats Not Part of Obama Electoral Map

NRA Applauds Passage of U.S. House Committee Resolution Recommending that the House Find Attorney General Holder in Contempt of Congress

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

12 posted on 06/20/2012 7:19:13 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It's been my experience that a 'ian' or 'yan' "suffix" on a surname denotes Armenian ancestry. I'm nosy. I live in NYC, and I ask!

Ditto here. I do the same thing. :-)

13 posted on 06/20/2012 7:19:23 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

Executive orders do not apply to the people as a whole, but only to the staff of the president IOW federal employees.


14 posted on 06/20/2012 7:30:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

There is no federal law coming. As far as Congress is concerned gun control laws are dead in the water there will be no new ones passed only laws loosening controls.


15 posted on 06/20/2012 8:08:41 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


16 posted on 06/20/2012 9:08:50 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks, I appreciate the info.


17 posted on 06/21/2012 5:10:34 AM PDT by OldPossum ( "it's" is the contraction of either "it is" or "it has"; "its" is the possessive pronoun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Thank you.


18 posted on 06/21/2012 5:11:55 AM PDT by OldPossum ( "it's" is the contraction of either "it is" or "it has"; "its" is the possessive pronoun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

“What’s to keep Obozo from passing an executive order banning certain types of guns or mag capacity?”

Worse yet, what’s to keep Obozo from saying “Who” can have certain types of guns or mag capacity?


19 posted on 06/21/2012 5:20:42 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Exactly. There must be PENALTIES for breaking the law. They broke the law by passing an unconstitutional law.

All it would take is a President willing to set the precedent of having his Justice Dept indict such officials (and police officers acting under their direction) under United States Code Title 18 § § 241 - Conspiracy against rights:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Can you imagine the effect of an official or legislator of Chicago or DC being indicted under the above for violating a person's Second Amendment rights?
20 posted on 06/21/2012 9:27:42 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Could we correct the problem with a simple amendment requiring penalties for any legislator who participates in the passage of any law that is ruled to be unconstitutional? A large fine and disqualification from holding any government office either elected or appointed might make them stop and think. I am just throwing this out for consideration.


21 posted on 06/21/2012 9:42:18 AM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer

What we need to do is toss out the gutless, immoral, incompetent oath breaking Mother luvvers who pass laws that are Unconstitutional.

Lawyers are the lowest form of human life and our Congress and Washington are full of the thieving socksuckers.


22 posted on 06/21/2012 11:43:57 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

“Lawyers are the lowest form of human life and our Congress and Washington are full of the thieving socksuckers.”

Just wait until you need one. And someday you will.


23 posted on 06/21/2012 3:20:23 PM PDT by chooseascreennamepat (The response to 1984 is 1776.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chooseascreennamepat

I have needed them and they got paid——plenty

I wouldn’t trust one as far as I can throw them.

They attack each other in court, leave the court to go eat together have a beer and come back to the attack again.

You Know: Just like the Democrats and Republicans in Congress.


24 posted on 06/21/2012 4:29:02 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Liberals have lost the gun control issue as far as the public is concerned. It’s why dems don’t run on it. It’s why the doting court eunuchs in the MSM quit running stories about gun control. Dems told them to stop and they stopped.


25 posted on 06/21/2012 7:19:51 PM PDT by GOPJ (The 'doting court eunuchs' of the MSM fail to notice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

FDR banned gold by Executive Order. It applied to everyone.


26 posted on 06/22/2012 9:09:15 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

FDR banned gold by Executive Order. It applied to everyone.


27 posted on 06/22/2012 9:09:54 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Not true.

An executive order is an instruction to federal employees only.


28 posted on 06/24/2012 2:32:49 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102


29 posted on 06/24/2012 3:34:02 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102


30 posted on 06/24/2012 3:34:24 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102


31 posted on 06/24/2012 3:34:37 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

editor-surveyor: Not as smart as I’d hoped he was


32 posted on 06/24/2012 3:36:00 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Posting it three times doesn’t make it correct.

Constitutionally, the executive can only order his own staff.

Perhaps you’re in love with judicial activism?


33 posted on 06/24/2012 6:25:50 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I posted fact-based history. In contrast, your ego isn’t letting you back down even in the face of overwhelming evidence that you were wrong.

Sad.

But, I get it. Now shut up and go away. Stop wasting my time. Now that I know what you are, you are dead to me.


34 posted on 06/24/2012 11:33:09 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Southack

So, by your limited cognition, everything that has happened in the past is correct?

The constitution does not allow executive orders directed to the people, whether your progressive mind likes it or not.


35 posted on 06/25/2012 11:04:56 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

You don’t know what the Constitution says, and you certainly wouldn’t understand it.

Moreover, what I said was that FDR banned gold via Executive Order.

That happened.

You can pretend from down in your mama’s basement that gold was never banned, but such delusions are your crutch and have no bearing on actual world history facts.


36 posted on 06/25/2012 5:08:02 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Southack

It appears to be you that lacks the understanding.

FDR’s ‘ban’ was of limited scope: The dummies like you lost their gold; the cognoscenti kept their gold, knowing that they had nothing to worry about. I know lots of people that gained massively by hanging on to their property.

You can pretend that you understand, but your posts show that all you’re doing is playing parrot.

BTW, don’t be a Wikipedophile!


37 posted on 06/26/2012 8:35:49 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Oh, it’s you again. Yawn... Keep telling yourself whatever fantasies that you need to get you through your wasted life.


38 posted on 06/26/2012 12:26:54 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Southack

FO Obama, you have only one follower here: south crack.


39 posted on 06/26/2012 12:55:28 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson