Skip to comments.Judge strikes down part of Chicago gun law as unconstitutional
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 citys 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 citys 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 Gowders 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 Gowders 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 Gowders 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 Chicagos 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 Owners 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 peoples 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 Gowders 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 citys 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 citys 28-year-old handgun ban.
28-year-old handgun ban.
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.
I’m just curious. 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!
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.
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.
>>Its 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?
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.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Ditto here. I do the same thing. :-)
Executive orders do not apply to the people as a whole, but only to the staff of the president IOW federal employees.
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.
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks, I appreciate the info.
“Whats 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?
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; orCan 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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
FDR banned gold by Executive Order. It applied to everyone.
FDR banned gold by Executive Order. It applied to everyone.
An executive order is an instruction to federal employees only.
editor-surveyor: Not as smart as I’d hoped he was
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Oh, it’s you again. Yawn... Keep telling yourself whatever fantasies that you need to get you through your wasted life.
FO Obama, you have only one follower here: south crack.