Federal Judge rules Chicago ban on firearms sales and transfers unconstitutional

[Guderian]

District Court Judge Edmund Chang ruled today that Chicago's outright ban on firearms sales and transfers within city limits violates the 2nd Amendment. Judge Chang says the 2nd Amendment provides "the right to acquire a firearm, although that acquisition right is far from absolute . . . But Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms. . ." The actual effect of the ruling is minimal as the city and state will no doubt appeal, but this is another win for the Gun Rights movement in one of the worst strongholds of Gun Control in the country.

http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/238 - Opinion (3).pdf

Why we can't get a decision like this in Maryland is beyond me. I realize not all firearms are banned in Maryland, but if the ones everyone wants essentially are, what difference is our law from Chicago's?

 

[swinokur]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/passantino/chicagos-ban-on-gun-sales-ruled-unconstitutional-by-federal

 

[JMS79]

While a good start for Chicago, it does leave things open for other bans and "regulations" to still be valid in the courts eyes.

 

[Long1MD]

I think there's a warm front moving through my southern region.

 

[RightNYer]

The judge is a 43-year-old Obama appointee. The judge in the California case is also an Asian American. Maybe people whose parents grew up in places where only the police have guns see the folly in such a policy.

Same way that people who grew up in the Communist Bloc seem to be the most ardent opponents of socialism.

 

[Minuteman]

First Detroit police chief says law abiding gun owners deter and stop crime; now this.

Strange how Maryland is on the same old path while the rest of America is figuring it out.

 

[Tyeraxus]

I'm digging this:

The City, however, does supply a reason: it contends that inner-city gang members and criminals find it hard to travel to the suburbs, thus making it more difficult for them or their likely straw purchasers to shop at gun stores. See DSOF ¶ 78. Dr. Philip Cook, one of the City’s experts, attributes this travel difficulty to the “parochial[ism]” of gang members, and CPD Commander Gorman believes that making the trip to the suburbs is dangerous for gang members because they may have to cross rival gang boundaries both in Chicago and in the suburbs. Id. So through these ordinances, Chicago intentionally increases the distance that Chicagoans have to travel to get to gun stores in order to tack on extra transaction costs (measured in time, effort, and danger) to any criminal attempt to buy guns. These extra transaction costs, the argument goes, deter would-be criminals from buying guns.

But these transaction costs are also borne by law-abiding residents of these neighborhoods, who are equally parochial and may suffer many of the same dangers by crossing into gang-infested territory. See Pls.’ Resp. DSOF ¶¶ 78-A, 78-B. So whatever burdens the City hopes to impose on criminal users also falls squarely on law-abiding residents who want to exercise their Second Amendment right.

It takes an Obama apointee to note that infringement is infringement. Not that I hold much hope for other courts to start seeing the light based on this, but I'll take it as a start.

 

[SneakySh0rty]

I am enjoying reading this guys analysis.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

First Detroit police chief says law abiding gun owners deter and stop crime; now this.

Strange how Maryland is on the same old path while the rest of America is figuring it out.

What US Circuit Court does Detroit enjoy?

 

[jrumann59]

Well I guess we will not have worry about seeing this guy sitting on the SCOTUS.

 

[thomfantomas]

well when will someone here declare the laws and regulations are unconstitutional?

 

[swinokur]

Never. The 4CA did that when they overturned Legg's ruling in Woolard.

 

[thomfantomas]

Never. The 4CA did that when they overturned Legg's ruling in Woolard.

soo basically the sb281 will never be overturned?

 

[swinokur]

Parts might be. A complete reversal looks doubtful IMO.

IANAL

 

[thomfantomas]

Parts might be. A complete reversal looks doubtful IMO.

IANAL

well if they can rule out the hql is an infringement that would make me a happy camper...

 

[DC-W]

Chicago went all-in on their schemes; that's why they've been struck down.

BAN carry altogether?
Can't do that.

BAN ownership, legal sale and transfer?
Can't do that.

In MD, we have tons of red tape on these things, but they aren't outright banned. Though rare, people do get CCW permits here. The state has to allow it to some extent, otherwise the powers that be know they are in blatant trouble of getting these sorts of rulings.

The case against NJ right now and their "may issue" status will have mammoth affect on our status. If the court finds that "reasonable need" in NJ is unconstitutional, our "good and substantial" will be easier to target. If not, expect the status quo to persist until there is a political sea change here in MD.

The courts turn things out slowly. These battles take years. Be patient and vigilant.

 

[swinokur]

HQL is's one portion I think will be left alone unfortunately. The 4CA showed where they come down on the state's claimed stats which are bogus of course.

IANAL

 

[frogman68]

thought I heard a small explosion coming from the White House yesterday must of been Obozo's head exploding . I wonder if this judge will have a "accident" or something illegal "found" on him shortly

 

[Hopalong]

Chicago went all-in on their schemes; that's why they've been struck down.

BAN carry altogether?
Can't do that.

BAN ownership, legal sale and transfer?
Can't do that.

Although I hate being right about this one, I predicted that Chicago/Illinois would end up ahead of us because their laws were stricter. Maryland has managed to skirt by because our laws, while bad, aren't blatantly flying in the face of SCOTUS precedent. Chicago's were, so they got hit first.

This is also why I'm really hopeful about the CCW case coming out of Hawaii (Baker v Kealoha). Think Wollard with one permit (or no permits, depending on who you ask) issued for the entire state. It's a much more extreme situation than Maryland, so likely much more ripe for SCOTUS review. Sadly, it's currently hung up in the 9th circuit waiting on the outcome of another case.

 

[ryan_j]

The case against NJ right now and their "may issue" status will have mammoth affect on our status. If the court finds that "reasonable need" in NJ is unconstitutional, our "good and substantial" will be easier to target. If not, expect the status quo to persist until there is a political sea change here in MD.

The courts turn things out slowly. These battles take years. Be patient and vigilant.

For what it's worth, the term in the NJ statutes is "justifiable need" not reasonable need. Also, what exactly constitutes "justifiable need" was never defined by the legislature. Justifiable need was defined as part of the administrative code, via a series of anti-gun court decisions. In other words, it's judge made law. Take a look at NJ2AS' Amicus brief for the Pantano case.

http://www.nj2as.com/Resources/PDF/pantano.pdf

Specifically pages 7-9.