Gun Owners vs. Chicago, Round Two

[JohnRich 4]

News:

CME Trader, Firearms Sellers Sue Chicago Over Gun Law

A Chicago Mercantile Exchange trader and three other people have joined with the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers to sue the city of Chicago over a restrictive gun law passed by its legislators last week.

The gun-owning plaintiffs claim the new ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home and mandating firearms training and permitting is unconstitutional.

The measure imposes “new restrictions that have the purpose and effect of preventing plaintiffs and other law- abiding residents of Chicago from exercising their fundamental right to keep and carry firearms for self defense and other lawful purposes,” the plaintiffs said in a complaint filed yesterday in the city’s federal courthouse.

The new law limits possession of handguns to the home and possession of long guns to places of business. It also bars the establishment of shooting ranges within the city’s limits.

Were it not for the new law, CME trader Brett Benson, 37, of Chicago “would on occasion carry a hand gun for self-defense when outside the home,” according to the complaint.

The teacher’s aide, Raymond Sledge, 53, of Chicago, said he and his mother live in a high-crime neighborhood and that the new law bars him from carrying a gun from his house to his garage.

Veterinarian Kathryn Tyler, who joined in the suit with her husband, Kenneth Pacholski of Chicago, said she would prefer to keep a handgun in her office rather than a shotgun because the smaller weapon would be easier to use.

The retailer’s association claims it has members who want to sell guns and operate firing ranges within the city, yet can’t due to the law.

The plaintiffs seek a court order declaring the restrictions unconstitutional.

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago, 10cv4184, in the Northern District of Illinois.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-07/cme-trader-firearms-sellers-sue-chicago-over-gun-law.html

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

The new law limits possession of handguns to the home and possession of long guns to places of business. It also bars the establishment of shooting ranges within the city’s limits.

The teacher’s aide, Raymond Sledge, 53, of Chicago, said he and his mother live in a high-crime neighborhood and that the new law bars him from carrying a gun from his house to his garage.

So you can have a gun, but after you buy it until you get home you are breaking law.

You are mandated to take gun safety courses, but your gun can't leave your house. Do they use plastic cap guns for the course?

After you get the gun, if you want to stay proficient with it, you have to turn your house into a shooting range? I imagine that is illegal too.

I kind of reminds me of some motorcycle rules I heard of a town having once. Basically you had to keep both hands on the handlebars at all times and had to use hand signals whenever you made a turn. In another words, if you weren't their kind of people, just keep going through.

We are learning a lot about the Chicago way

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

After you get the gun, if you want to stay proficient with it, you have to turn your house into a shooting range? I imagine that is illegal too.

Of all the barriers, this might be the most legal, but most stupid of all of them. Communities have wide latitude in zoning, but what is the upside of ensuring that your gun owning public are as least current as possible with gun handling? It's a long way out of city limits and many people in Chicago don't own cars.

[quade 4]

Quote

The gun-owning plaintiffs claim the new ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home and mandating firearms training and permitting is unconstitutional.

Bolded for emphasis.

What does the actual law say?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The gun-owning plaintiffs claim the new ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home and mandating firearms training and permitting is unconstitutional.

Bolded for emphasis.

What does the actual law say?

That those who own guns are having to deal with laws that go against the constitution

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's a long way out of city limits and many people in Chicago don't own cars.

And carrying guns on public transport is usually banned too.

[skyrider 0]

The poll ask two questions, two different subjects, Connected yes, but two different subjects!

Myself, I think any person with a clean record shoudl be allowed to own and carry a hamd gun. preferably in plain sight!

No better deterant than to see a person is armed!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The poll ask two questions, two different subjects, Connected yes, but two different subjects!

Myself, I think any person with a clean record shoudl be allowed to own and carry a hamd gun. preferably in plain sight!

No better deterant than to see a person is armed!

I agree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The gun-owning plaintiffs claim the new ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home and mandating firearms training and permitting is unconstitutional.

Bolded for emphasis.

What does the actual law say?

I have yet to see verbiage. When presented by Daley last week, it was described as explicitly preventing owners from carrying outside of the house, specifically including the garage.

[futuredivot 0]

Go for getting the law overturned, it they win a financial settlement the city will just follow the state's example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business/economy/03illinois.html
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/07/07/illinois-shrugs-paying-bills/

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The gun-owning plaintiffs claim the new ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home and mandating firearms training and permitting is unconstitutional.

Bolded for emphasis.
What does the actual law say?

That those who own guns are having to deal with laws that go against the constitution

No, that's what YOU are saying.

Can you quote the actual text of the law?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

What I found so far

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/bensonvchicago1.pdf

The portions of the new law being fought start at pharagraph 18

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

http://mayor.cityofchicago.org/etc/medialib/mayor/press_room1/press_releases/press_release_pdfs/2010.Par.86343.File.dat/Responsible%20Gun%20Ownership-Ordinance7-1-10.pdf

For those interested in actual legal code. This is the proposal from Daley on July 1. It seems to be that which was passed the next day.

One notable - it does permit for interstate travel in compliance with a referenced code, but if you remain within the city for 24 hours you're presumed to be not traveling.

[Tf15 0]

Quote

The poll ask two questions, two different subjects, Connected yes, but two different subjects!

Myself, I think any person with a clean record shoudl be allowed to own and carry a hamd gun. preferably in plain sight!

No better deterant than to see a person is armed!

Didn't work for this guy.

Three times is enemy action

[quade 4]

I will admit that the NRA document sounds convincing, in particular paragraph 19, but again, I'd like to see the actual law and not somebody's selective interpretation of it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[scruffy 0]

When I carry, I don't think that the gun on my hip is going deter all crime, or get me out of any situation unscathed...I just think it can't hurt my chances.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The gun-owning plaintiffs claim the new ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home and mandating firearms training and permitting is unconstitutional.

Bolded for emphasis.

What does the actual law say?

See it here, or summarized in the complaint, here.

Quote

8-20-1OO Permissible sales and transfers of firearms and ammunition.
(a) Except as authorized by subsection (e) and section 2-84-075, no firearm may be sold, acquired or otherwise transferred within the city, except through inheritance of the firearm.
(b) No ammunition may be sold or otherwise transferred within the city, except through a licensed weapons dealer, or as otherwise allowed by this code.
(c) No firearm or ammunition shall be security for, or be taken or received by way of any mortgage, deposit, pledge or pawn.
(d) No person may loan, borrow, give or rent to or from another person, any firearm or ammunition except in accordance with this chapter.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a peace officer may sell or transfer any lawfully held firearm or ammunition to another peace officer in accordance with the other provisions of this chapter.

So, nobody can buy or sell a firearm in the City...unless you're a cop.

Quote

8-20-110 CFP-Required
(a) Subject to subsection (d), it is unlawful for any person to carry or possess a firearm without a CFP.

- and -
8-20-1 20 C FP-applicgtion
(a) An applicant for a CFP shall submit aÀ application to the superiniendent on a form or ín a manner prescribed by the superintendent. The application shall include the following:
(7) an affidavit signed by a firearm instructor certified bythe State of lllinois to provide firearm training courses attesting that the applicant has completed a firearm safety and training course, whích, at a minimum, provides one hour of range training and four hours of classroom instruction that is in compliance with the requirements of the
classroom instruction course, as established in rules and_regulations;

- and -
8-2O-28O Prohibition on shooting galleries and target ranges.
Shooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged are prohibited; provided that this provision shall not apply to any governmental agency. The discharge of a firearm in an area where hunting is permitted shall not be a violation of this section.

So, you have to have a CFP to register a gun. However, the CFP requires training, but the training can't be obtained in the city.

Quote

8-24-010 Discharging firearms.
No person shall fire or discharge any firearm within the city, except in the lawful self-defense or defense of another , or in accordance With the provisions of Section 8-24-050 of this Code.

So, you can't go to the non-existent range and practice, either.

There's plenty more like this...read the complaint.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

I think it's logical to assume that "home" includes all of the structures within the property borders. The idea a person becomes a violator by walking with the weapon from garage to his front door as argued by some is simply ridiculous.

I'd say the most troubling aspect is the 18-20 issue. The idea a person over 18 would be required to have parental permission is pretty silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

So, you have to have a CFP to register a gun. However, the CFP requires training, but the training can't be obtained in the city.

I don't know enough about Chicago, but in Orange County, California as well as in Long Beach, California, there are fairly large police facilities for target practice and training that are also open to the public.

Do you know for a fact that a person wouldn't be able to get training in a similar facility inside the city limits of Chicago?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skyrider 0]

Quote

When I carry, I don't think that the gun on my hip is going deter all crime, or get me out of any situation unscathed...I just think it can't hurt my chances.

Who said "All" crime?

[skyrider 0]

Quote

I think it's logical to assume that "home" includes all of the structures within the property borders. The idea a person becomes a violator by walking with the weapon from garage to his front door as argued by some is simply ridiculous.

I'd say the most troubling aspect is the 18-20 issue. The idea a person over 18 would be required to have parental permission is pretty silly.

So how do you suggest the owners get their new weapon home? How do they take it with them on trips? how do they legally practice?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think it's logical to assume that "home" includes all of the structures within the property borders. The idea a person becomes a violator by walking with the weapon from garage to his front door as argued by some is simply ridiculous.

It would be logical, and imo, per Heller, but that's not the case here.

"Home" means the inside of a person's dwelling unit which is traditionally used for living
purposes, including the basement and attic. A "home" does not include: (i) any garage, including an
attached garage, on the lot; (ii) any space outside the dwelling unit, including any stairs, porches,
back, side orf ront yard space, or common areas; or (iii) any dormitory, hotel, or group living, as that
term is defined in section 17-17-0102-A.

Quote

I'd say the most troubling aspect is the 18-20 issue. The idea a person over 18 would be required to have parental permission is pretty silly.

Currently those under 21 can't purchase handguns as a federal law, however, so they're already being screwed by the system.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't know enough about Chicago, but in Orange County, California as well as in Long Beach, California, there are fairly large police facilities for target practice and training that are also open to the public.

Do you know for a fact that a person wouldn't be able to get training in a similar facility inside the city limits of Chicago?

What's the rationale for explicitly banning such ranges that are privately owned? Let me rephrase, what's the legal rationale? We know the intent is to make it difficult for gun owners. Given that, I'm dubious that the police ranges are going to make themselves available. If Long Beach and Orange are doing it, it's to have citizens subsidize the cost of the facility. But since there are private alternatives, they have to provide a good service or people won't use it. If there is no alternative, they can make it available from 2-3pm on every other Tuesday.

[scruffy 0]

Quote

Who said "All" crime?

The poster presented one (very topical) example of when being able to present a firearm obviously didn't end well, so I figured it was implied

Peace, love and hoppiness

[quade 4]

Quote

Currently those under 21 can't purchase handguns as a federal law, however, so they're already being screwed by the system.

Serves me right for being an old fart and not paying attention to the age thing in general.

Interesting . . . so between 18-20 a person in Chicago can own a "long gun" with parental permission according to this law but still not a hand gun.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver