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

Skip to comments.

Federal judge strikes down Chicago gun law
The Hill ^ | 1/6/2014 | Rebecca Shabad

Posted on 01/06/2014 4:13:36 PM PST by markomalley

Edited on 01/06/2014 4:53:05 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

A federal district court judge in Chicago ruled Monday that the city’s ban on gun sales is unconstitutional.

In a 35-page opinion, Judge Edmond E. Chang from the Northern District of Illinois wrote that the city’s law “goes too far.” Chang was appointed by President Obama in 2010. 

Chang delayed the effect of his ruling, however, in order to allow the city time to respond. In his opinion, he acknowledged the city’s “stark reality” of thousands of shooting victims and murders each year.  

“But on the other side of this case is another feature of government.: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,” he wrote. “This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm.”

Currently, Chicago bans the sale of handguns within city limits. The ban was imposed when the city enacted new regulations after the Supreme Court struck down the city’s handgun ban in 2010.

In September, a committee of Chicago’s city council members amended its laws to allow concealed weapons. This change reflected the law Illinois lawmakers passed last year allowing people to carry concealed guns.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; chicago; edmondchang; gunban; illinois
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 01/06/2014 4:13:36 PM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And Rahm will cut another nice check to the plaintiffs.

It’s death by a thousand cuts at this point with all of the ridiculous, petty, anti-2A ordinances the Chicago city council can’t help themselves from passing (unanimously in most cases).


2 posted on 01/06/2014 4:19:12 PM PST by RugerMini14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Doing my best Barney Fife Imitation - "Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Daley-Obama et al ain't gonna' like that.

3 posted on 01/06/2014 4:22:23 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RugerMini14

Still, it’s going to leave a mark.


4 posted on 01/06/2014 4:24:29 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The ban was imposed when the city enacted new regulations after the Supreme Court struck down the city’s handgun ban in 2010.

Do I understand this correctly? Chicago passed a new law banning the "sale of" guns in Chicago after the supreme court ruled they could not ban the right to bear arms? Next they'll ban the use of ammunition, then the sale of ammunition. Then they'll move on a ban to limit the forcible projection velocity of objects smaller than a baseball.

Chicago is a joke, a circus and bastion of immoral filth, hatred and corruption.

5 posted on 01/06/2014 4:27:31 PM PST by Tenacious 1 (Liberals can afford for things to go well, to work, for folks to be happy. They'd be out of work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Electing(selecting) democrat judges is suicidal.. in every case, federal, state or local..


6 posted on 01/06/2014 4:31:58 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

7 posted on 01/06/2014 4:32:04 PM PST by FLAMING DEATH (I'm not racist - I hate Biden too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Doing my best Barney Fife Imitation - "Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Wrong guy.


8 posted on 01/06/2014 4:37:15 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The Obama Crime Family will not be happy. It’s not nice to mess with the Dear Leader. For a window into the future, I refer to to recent events in North Korea.


9 posted on 01/06/2014 4:44:22 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The appalling rate of firearm homicides in Chicago is the very reason to strike down any and all impediments that keep the local citizenry unarmed.
The police have no obligation to protect anyone. The courts have no authority to force them. People must rely on themselves and their neighbors for their own protection.

Let it happen.


10 posted on 01/06/2014 4:47:41 PM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Chicago has frozen over
both literally and figuratively.

The work environment for the goons
and thugs that keep some of these
hoodlum politicians in office is
about to become significantly
more hostile.


11 posted on 01/06/2014 4:54:46 PM PST by infool7 (The ugly truth is just a big lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Not really.


12 posted on 01/06/2014 4:56:58 PM PST by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
...ruled Monday that the city’s ban on gun sales is unconstitutional... Judge Edmond E. Chang... wrote that the city’s law “goes too far.” ...was appointed by President Obama in 2010. ...delayed the effect of his ruling ...to allow the city time to respond... acknowledged the city’s “stark reality” of thousands of shooting victims and murders each year. “But on the other side of this case is another feature of government.: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,” he wrote. “This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm.”
IOW, on the correct side of this case is the stark reality of the unconstitutional nature of the law. Thanks markomalley.
13 posted on 01/06/2014 5:00:36 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This will allow more guns in Chicago. I wonder if, oddly, there will now be a decrease in murders in Chicago.

BWA HAA HAAAA


14 posted on 01/06/2014 5:04:51 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: markomalley

“Shall not be infringed” Do these morons need to be reminded of what infringe means? I know, the question doesn’t mean much in light of our lost culture in America.


16 posted on 01/06/2014 5:16:32 PM PST by vpintheak (Thankful to be God blessed & chosen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
.. including the right to keep and bear arms for  self-defense  any damned reason or no reason at all under the Second Amendment ..
17 posted on 01/06/2014 5:21:10 PM PST by tomkat (unreconstructable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Actually, that’s Gomer Pyle. Barney was all “Nip it! Nip it in the bud!” Frankly, I think Barney would have been a gun grabber.


18 posted on 01/06/2014 5:47:21 PM PST by knittnmom (Save the earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Shazam’ You Nailed it!


19 posted on 01/06/2014 5:49:28 PM PST by Autonomous User (Pain Fades. Chicks Dig Scars. Glory, lasts forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

The Federal circuit here is surprisingly conservative. The fact that on Obama appointee wrote this is pretty incredible, tho.


20 posted on 01/06/2014 5:55:23 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I suspect a audit is in his future.


21 posted on 01/06/2014 5:59:02 PM PST by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Yup. Better be checking under the hood of the car.


22 posted on 01/06/2014 6:18:32 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

A “wretched hive of scum and villainy.”


23 posted on 01/06/2014 6:19:58 PM PST by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: matt04
"I suspect a audit is in his future."

or even an Obamacare injection, the way things are going they may have to start making house calls

24 posted on 01/06/2014 6:24:20 PM PST by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
A rare smart federal district court judge. Heller and McDonald will be implemented over many years and only with much effort, just like with Brown.
25 posted on 01/06/2014 6:24:29 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

oops. Right sitcom.


26 posted on 01/06/2014 6:36:48 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Why not just make murder illegal that will solve crime right? These guys are stupid.


27 posted on 01/06/2014 7:27:18 PM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Oh, no. Now the streets will run red with blood because law-abiding citizens don’t have to go to Skokie to buy a gun. Don’t they understand that they’re doing it all for the children?/sarc


28 posted on 01/06/2014 9:16:00 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
From TFA:
Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said the financially powerful NRA has systematically fought to water down gun laws in Illinois and across the country.

“That's the NRA's game plan. They keep filing suits and filing suits to chip away laws and get to their ultimate goal of a complete armed citizenry,” he said.

Why, I declare, he's right!

I fail to see the problem with a fully armed citizenry. Indeed, the Founders would be proud, I wager.

29 posted on 01/06/2014 9:32:03 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RugerMini14

“And Rahm will cut another nice check to the plaintiffs.”

No. Rahm will get payoffs from those who wish to sell firearms legally.


30 posted on 01/06/2014 10:17:28 PM PST by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

I think it is important to remember that Heller and McDonald did not hold that the Second Amendment in toto applied to the states and municipalities. In fact, so far the Supreme Court has only upheld the rights of all citizens to own a handgun for home protection, nothing more. No rights to a hunting rifle or any other weapon have been found to apply.

This is because the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights only protected against encroachment by the federal government. The states were free to make any law contrary to the Bill of Rights. Every decision of the Supreme Court since our country’s founding, has recognized that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to states and municipalities. Every current member of the Court has also recognized this original intent of the founders. To extend the application of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, beyond the federal government, the Supreme Court has relied on the Fourteenth Amendment to evolve a judicial process called “selective incorporation.” This holds that certain rights are fundamental, because they are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or because the rights were “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions.” Heller was the first time that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applied against the states and local governments, but again, it did so only to the extent that it recognized the right to own a handgun for home protection. There is indeed a long way to go.


31 posted on 01/06/2014 11:18:42 PM PST by paristexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
A federal district court judge in Chicago ruled Monday that the city’s ban on gun sales is unconstitutional.

Big whoop, they will ignore this like all the other rulings.

32 posted on 01/07/2014 12:30:41 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
Chicago is a joke, a circus and bastion of immoral filth, hatred and corruption.

I was stationed on a Nike Base back in 1957 in a small town near Chicago, and frequently hauled Missiles downtown. I picked up lead dimes and quarters there in change, that is really corrupt.

33 posted on 01/07/2014 12:34:00 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Damn..first Sottamayor sorta does the right thing....

And now this.....

Pray for a reverse Souter..lol


34 posted on 01/07/2014 2:21:13 AM PST by wardaddy (wifey instructed me today to grow chapter president beard back again....i wonder why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
In a 35-page opinion, Judge Edmond E. Chang from the Northern District of Illinois wrote that the city’s law “goes too far.” Chang was appointed by President Obama in 2010

Sotomayor. Chang. One more Obammy judge issuing a sensible opinion and I'll start playing the lottery.
35 posted on 01/07/2014 3:56:27 AM PST by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Random Act of Justice. How refreshing.


36 posted on 01/07/2014 5:13:22 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

Maybe not. Maybe Chang figures that if you arm the minorities...

...They might be more intimidating to the conservatives.


37 posted on 01/07/2014 5:13:23 AM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“Chang delayed the effect of his ruling, however, in order to allow the city time to respond.”

A ruling for the left would take effect immediately.


38 posted on 01/07/2014 5:56:03 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
A federal district court judge in Chicago ruled Monday that the city’s ban on gun sales is unconstitutional.

Now if we could just work on overturning the Federal ban on light bulbs.

39 posted on 01/07/2014 6:07:45 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
“Shall not be infringed” Do these morons need to be reminded of what infringe means? I know, the question doesn’t mean much in light of our lost culture in America.

The only "infringement" these thugs recognize is that posed by an armed populace against their designs for a totalitarian police state.

40 posted on 01/07/2014 6:10:01 AM PST by ScottinVA (Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Doing my best Barney Fife Imitation - "Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!"

That should be a Gomer Pyle imitation.

41 posted on 01/07/2014 6:22:21 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Let there be concealed carry rights!

With the rampant crime in this area.... JEEEEZUS, give a law abiding citizen a fair chance to defend himself!


42 posted on 01/07/2014 6:34:15 AM PST by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Why is Chicago dead-set on making its citizens defenceless sitting ducks to be killed, robbed and raped by criminals that IGNORE gun laws?
Its almost as if Chicago has a vandetta against productive citizens and WANTS them to be defenceless.

“””Come visit, Chicago. We have the highest crime rate in the country, but sorry, we made it illegal defend yourself.”


43 posted on 01/07/2014 6:44:05 AM PST by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Chang delayed the effect of his ruling, however...

Note the deference the judicial system gives to liberal governments and contrast that with the absurd decision in Utah or any SSM case.

44 posted on 01/07/2014 6:50:16 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Alderman scum have had up to four bodyguards (Chicago police) protecting themselves, acting as their personal chauffeur as well.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/6266740-418/ald.-burke-could-give-up-bodyguards-or-have-them-yanked

Incidentally, Alderman Burke, had an 8 million dollar campaign war chest. I’m not sure how many bodyguards he has at the moment, nor how much money is in his kitty, but I’ll wager that if he wanted to pack heat all these years to protect himself and his family, he did so at will, as well all the aldermanic scum.


45 posted on 01/07/2014 6:54:42 AM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Doing my best Barney Fife Imitation - "Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!"

I think you meant Gomer Pyle...

46 posted on 01/07/2014 6:58:08 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: envisio

Whenever lefists are forced to obey the Constitution and permit gun ownership; it destroys a few of their long held sacrosanct commie narratives.

One- guns are dangerous and cause crime. No- guns save lives and prevent criminals from harming us and our families. Two- the state/collective/hive protects us with their guns. No- I protect myself and my family with my gun(s.)


47 posted on 01/07/2014 7:09:48 AM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: paristexas

Yes, protection from the Federal Gov’t, BUT many states have that same guarantee in their state constitutions. Not Illinois.

STOLEN from another web site:

Constitution of the State of Illinois
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
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. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Richard Pearson, Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association says , it wasn’t “supposed” to be in there.
Although the title of Section 22 is “Right to Arms,” it isn’t about the individual’s right at all.
What is does, is define the path by which the Illinois State Government can strip away what the U.S. Constitution promises “shall not be infringed.”

The State of Illinois has been stripping away thefundamental right of arms ever since.


48 posted on 01/07/2014 7:33:52 AM PST by 1stIowa ( GMC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Let any good citizen carry concealed and crime will really drop.


49 posted on 01/07/2014 9:06:40 AM PST by Rapscallion (Had enough? Let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
Do I understand this correctly?

Yes, you do. They call themselves democrats but they aren't. They are defiant progressives part of the group here to destroy what is left of America through crime and bankruptcy. Get it?

50 posted on 01/07/2014 9:10:12 AM PST by Rapscallion (Had enough? Let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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