search
top

Chicago and Mayor Daley Sued, Again

Looks like NRA is supporting a federal lawsuit today to overturn Chicago’s ban on gun shops and shooting ranges, and a whole slew of other violations under Chicago’s new ordinance. The federal civil complaint can be found here. It’s civil rights based, obviously:

Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), in that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of law, of rights secured by the United States Constitution.

Seeing that in print related to a subject matter like this is music to my ears (eyes?). The only sad thing is that Daley is being sued in his official rather than personal capacity, but the goal here is to get an injunction, so that doesn’t need to be on the table. So what are they going after exactly? It’s an eight count complaint.

  1. Count one goes after the definition of home that’s defined so narrowly.
  2. Count two goes after the requirement that they be 21 years of old, arguing it violates the constitutional rights of those adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 to keep and bear arms.
  3. Count three goes after the ban on gun shops.
  4. Count four goes after the ban on shooting ranges.
  5. Count five goes after the ban on having more than one operable gun in the home.
  6. Count six goes after the unsafe handgun roster that the Police are supposed to maintain under the new ordinance. The complaint argues that the “unbridled discretion” violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  7. Count seven challenges the ban on laser sights.
  8. Count eight actually goes after the prohibition on carry outside the home or fixed place of business.

The case is seeking a declaratory judgement, injunctive relief and attorneys fees. Yes King Daley, the Constitutional applies to you too.

18 Responses to “Chicago and Mayor Daley Sued, Again”

  1. monte says:

    Is the kitchen sink approach to litigation the best strategy? So far the strategy has been carefully crafted incremental steps, is McDonald such a game changer that the strategy should be dropped?

  2. Monte says:

    Is the kitchen sink approach to litigation the best strategy? So far the strategy has been carefully crafted incremental steps, is McDonald such a game changer that the strategy should be dropped?

    I know people will support getting it all to the courts asap, but is speed more important then the end result?

  3. Jake says:

    “The only sad thing is that Daley is being sued in his official rather than personal capacity”

    There are some seriously difficult hurdles to suing an official personally over something he did as part of his job. Qualified immunity can be a PITA, especially with someone in a legislative or administrative capacity. They probably felt they didn’t have enough to overcome it.

  4. Jake says:

    Oops. Hit send before I was done thinking.

    They probably felt they didn’t have enough to overcome it, this time around.

    McDonald essentially opened up a whole new area of Constitutional law that was closed for the last 150+ years. Since overcoming qualified immunity requires that his actions were obviously unconstitutional, it gives him a lot of room to weasel out by saying that no one is sure what is unconstitutional yet beyond a total ban. And to be fair (not that I want to) he would be right, at least in the courtroom sense. Both Heller and McDonald are somewhat vague about what is unconstitutional outside of a total ban on ownership or a total ban on carrying inside one’s home – both of which are, to an extent, allowed in the new ordinances.

    Unless the Illinois legislature passes a preemption statute that doesn’t exempt Chicago (very doubtful), then the only way the Second Amendment is going to be applied to Chicago is through a long, drawn out series of lawsuits. Hopefully, they’ll be done right so we can get some good precedents out of the situation – because you know Chicago is going to appeal them as high as they can.

  5. Today the pits, tomorrow the wrinkles. One small step at a time.

  6. Fiftycal says:

    This lawsuit isn’t all encompassing. It looks like it goes after all the “low hanging fruit”. Once this goes thru, then the rest will follow. Check out the cred of the lawyer. Daley had best hope the city will pay for his Depends.

  7. A non says:

    The person executing an unconstitutional law may be granted qualified immunity, but enactors of the law, like judges, are entitled to absolute immunity.

  8. Ash says:

    It will be nice to see Daley get his comeuppance on these issues, and hopefully will serve as a warning to CA, NJ and NY.

  9. Count 6 could also be interesting for PA, as it could potentially affect the legality of the state’s handgun “sales database” which has effectively been used as a registry.

  10. Gareth A says:

    Didn’t know they banned laser sights as well.

    Daley must be bricking it. Part of me feels for the city having such an arse-biscuit like him in charge, and hopes he drops the laws.

    The other part’s hoping for another “unconstitutional” decision.

    Good luck, NRA!

  11. MJS says:

    To anti-gunners, all of those ordinances are ‘reasonable regulations’.

  12. Ian Argent says:

    Hey – item 28 in the complaint (#7 in your list) challenges the laser sight ban on the grounds that a “device substantially enhances the user’s prospects for hitting the target—such as an attacker in one’s home—and banning such devices therefore impairs the ability to exercise, safely and effectively, the right to armed self-defense. Moreover, laser aiming devices limit collateral consequences of missed shots and may end a confrontation with a “laser stop,” rather than a discharge, further adding to their public safety benefits.” This would also apply (at least up to the “laser stop” bit) to forward grips on pistols, collapsible stocks on rifles or attachable stocks on pistols, and hollow-point ammo. Hell, SBS/SBR in general, and many AOW, are more appropriate for home defense than full-length longarms or conventional pistols…

  13. Ash says:

    The laser ban also effectively bans weapons with built-in laser sights like the new handguns that S&W launched the Shot Show.

  14. Mikee says:

    Getting inside Chicago’s OODA loop, is the way I would characterize this lawsuit.

    Keep the filing of suits going at a fast enough pace, and Mayor Daley will find himself spinning in cirlces trying to keep up with them.

  15. Ronnie says:

    Either Mayor Daley himself or some other gun-hating libtard in Chicago probably thinks that laser gun sights are somehow just like the laser guns from sci-fi TV shows and movies like “Star Wars” or whatever, which of course were “never dreamed of” by America’s founding fathers when they drafted the Second Amendment, so naturally, they would just have to be banned immediately.

  16. denton says:

    Popcorn. Soda.

    Daley will lose, big time, to the great merriment of many of us.

  17. John says:

    Wow – I can’t believe that the lasers are banned. It goes to show how far this nutjob is willing to go to stop firearms and firearm owners!

  18. Ian Argent says:

    Enh – don’t forget this is taking up resources on our side as well. Amusing to watch, and we probably have more reserves, but still…

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Less than a week since McDonald… « Curses! Foiled Again! - [...] July 6, 2010 by Jake and Chicago is being sued over it’s prohibitive gun…
  2. SayUncle » Chicago part 2: Benson v. City of Chicago - [...] A look at the complaint. [...]
top