Chicago's "Out Of Step And Outrageous" Gun Sales Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Tyler Durden's picture

After ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. As AP reports, the decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation; with the NRA noting it "shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are." Despite the city's ban "to protect its citizens," Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation.

Via AP,

A federal judge has potentially opened a new market to gun dealers after ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits.

 

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.

 

The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.

 

...

 

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang’s decision, saying it “shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are.”

 

...

 

Every year Chicago police recover more illegal guns than officers in any city in the country, a factor of lax federal laws as well as lax laws in Illinois and surrounding states related to straw purchasing and the transfer of guns,” Drew said. “We need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.”

 

...

 

“That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens,” he wrote. “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.”

 

Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation. City officials have long acknowledged the ban on gun sales has been weakened due to the legal sale of guns in some surrounding suburbs and states.

 

...

 

“All the people I know who own guns legally are really careful,” said Pacholski, whose wife, also was a plaintiff. “I’m a collector; my guns are not going anywhere unless I know where they’re going because I don’t want to be responsible for someone’s death.”

 

Illinois Council Against Hand Gun Violence campaign coordinator Mark Walsh said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling.

 

“I’m not sure what the city’s plan is (following the ruling), but I think obviously there is a need to make sure gun dealers coming into the city are aware of those who have restrictions on gun ownership and don’t sell to them,” he said.

 

Chicago still has a ban on assault weapons.

As we noted previously, the facts are problematic for the anti-gun lobbyists (no matter how much common sense they believe they have)...

In an inconvenient truth moment for the anti-gun lobby, Harvard's Don Kates and Gary Mauser expose the facts behind gun control and violent crime. While not the first time we have discussed this awkward reality, the depth of the academics' datasets and the findings are unquestionable that there is in fact a "negative correlation" between violence and gun ownership. As they state,

"where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest,"

The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.

To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fonestar's picture

If these people really wanted to stop "gun violence" they would ban thugs (but that wouldn't be politically correct).

PrecipiceWatching's picture

And yet your comment is dripping with political correctness.

Proper banning would be dictated by FBI crime statistics broken down by race.  That means persons of color, most especially BLACKS.

In other words, Profile, baby.

 

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

a judge publicly stating that gubmint is 'obligated to protect constitutional rights'

circa 2014 reign of Odoofus, THAT'S CRAZY TALK

Headbanger's picture

Make open carry of handguns legal and mandatory in Chicago and let Smith & Wesson and Colt and Ruger and Keltec and even fucking High Point sort em out!

THEN we would see some civility for a change.

Of course there would be about half as many people left alive in Chicago.

Duke of Earl's picture

Don't forget legalizing concealed carry.  I would argue the opposite would happen and there would be a violent breakout of peace.

gmrpeabody's picture

The judge once had a maid that just said _______ (fill in the blanks)

Headbanger's picture

Duke:  The problem with concealed carry is that you still have the problem of "brandishing a weapon" even if it prints a little.

And concealed carry weapons tend to be smaller with less capacity, sight radius, snappy recoil, etc.

With mandatory open carry THEN you've got much better options of what to carry like a nice big revolver (or even TWO) and ya can be "stylin" with a fancy gun belt, a nice hip, shoulder or bandolier holster...

Think of the boost it would give the fashion industry!

Of course there are always going to be those frugal types who just want to carry "Mexican" style and that's OK, but it makes carrying two big revolvers a bit difficult on certain aspects of the anatomy.

fallout11's picture

Statistics show that in the vast majority of cases the presence of a gun prevents a crime without it ever even being discharged. Thus open carry also offers substantial deterant value not found with concealed carry.

InjectTheVenom's picture

... and a surprise IRS audit of Judge Chang begins in  3 ... 2 ... 1    .  .  .  .  .

Jam Akin's picture

Surprisingly he was nominated to the federal court by Obama in 2010.

Incidentally, Chicago had a big drop in number of murders this year past in both relative and absolute terms:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/01/the-year-in-murder-2013...

TeMpTeK's picture

The drop in crime due to a shortage of people left to murder

chemystical's picture

"Make open carry of handguns legal and mandatory"

Do you mean like this? :

"It has been featured as one of the top 10 best towns in America for families by Family Circle magazine, and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the entire Atlanta metropolitan area. But one little-known fact about Kennesaw, Georgia, population 30,000, is that heads of household living in the town are required by law to own at least one firearm."

I used to know one of their former mayors.  I told him that was pretty cool.  He said, "Nah, we pretty much took turns being mayor."

http://www.naturalnews.com/038895_gun_ownership_Georgia_safety.html

synergize's picture

If they want to stop crime then forget prison - murderers are killed 1 week after conviction.  And do it publicly.

Voila!  Crime rates drop!

FeralSerf's picture

For an example, see how well this has worked in Canada.

El Vaquero's picture

Excellent idea!  We'll just tell the families of those who were innocent, wrongly convicted and then executed that it was all for the greater good!  I'm sure they'll understand. 

False Confessions

In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.

These cases show that confessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but are sometimes motivated by external influences.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

And look up the Reid Technique.  I do simply do not trust our government to get it right when it comes to taking away something that can never be given back and cannot even be compensated for.  It's not that I don't think that child rapists and the like don't deserve to die, they do, but a lot of innocent people would die. 

Duke of Earl's picture

+1

You beat me to it.  Don't forget the motivation shift for a speedy trial this would create.  So much for appeals, it's pointless to prove true innocence when the primary suspect is already dead...

 

PrecipiceWatching's picture

Hmmmm.   Let's see,

Execution 1 week, or 25 YEARS after conviction.

Which is more insane?

We need something in between, but I think MUCH more toward the 1 week interval.

pods's picture

Just remember, this is power that you are giving THE STATE.

And they are REALLY good at killing people.

pods

PrecipiceWatching's picture

I'm not giving them anything.

The "State" (actually, mostly the individual states themselves), already have the power to execute properly convicted criminals. 

We are just discussing the reasonable time frame to carry out sentence here. 

Arguing against Capital Punishment is another argument.

El Vaquero's picture

Actually, the arguments that I gave apply just as well to both banning capital punishment, as well as increasing the time frame between conviction and execution.  Just knowing cops' propensity to lie on the stand would be more than enough to make me much more comfortable handing down a life sentence instead of death, were it up to me in a capital case. 

Payable on Death's picture

I gave up support for the death penalty when I realized my opposition to government is much based upon its incompetence and corruption. Why would the government be competent and trustworthy with capital punisment and not much else?

El Vaquero's picture

Yup.  My DA is retarded and there have been cases of DAs pursuing serious charges against individuals even though the DA knew that the individuals were innocent.  Police perjure them selves with a shocking regularity, and even when they don't a lot of them are not smart enough to conduct a proper investigation. 

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

I hear you.  I have been against death penalty since I came to the conclusion that meting out death is far more responsibility than gubmint is capable of responsibly handling

chemystical's picture

Juxtapose the "executed man who was later found to be innocent" with this:

Rates of recidivism...WHOSE NEXT VICTIMS ARE EQUALLY INNOCENT are more numerous than your poster child.

Where's the greater good: saving innocent lives or saving innocent lives?

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

  • Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
  • These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
  • 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
  • The rate of recidivism amongst the executed is a whopping zero.  Can we at least stop releasing these fucks?????????????

    Overfed's picture

    That would have to be balanced by SEVERE penalties for any prosecutor who convicts an innocent person.

    X_mloclaM's picture

    perfection.great.

    You get the reds, explaining, tongue-in-cheek, what the guy above you said, who has 25 greens.

     

    ZH becoming filled with fucking straight morons?

    Rafferty's picture

    You get 8 downs for stating the blindingly obvious.  Go figure......

    NotApplicable's picture

    Worse than that, it's not even logical. I mean, whoever heard of a self-banning thug?

    Chuck Walla's picture

    If gun control worked, Chicago would look more like Mayberry than Mad Max.

    Mayor Tiny Dancer must have turned a very attractive shade of purple.

    FORWARD SOVIET!

    A Nanny Moose's picture

    IOW, they would ban government. So when do we get started?

    Manthong's picture

    OMG..  whatever will they do when the crime and murder rate plummets?

    ACP's picture

    Sounds like time for a focus group.

    So Mr. Mayor, if crime drops, maybe we can start paying people to commit more crimes to keep the anti-gun narrative going...

    Dr. Engali's picture

    You don't seriously believe that Rahm will adhere to this ruling do you? The gun grabbers will just ignore this.

    metastar's picture

    There are no illegal guns. There is only illegal confiscation.

    El Vaquero's picture

    Well, as long as the system is still standing, and people aren't rolling the mothafuckin' guillotines, the only thing left to do is to sue the motherfuckers into the ground.  Start running their coffers dry even faster than the retards are doing so themselves, then ask "How are you going to pay those pensions when you're bankrupt, assholes?"  Fighting these lawsuits gets expensive, and at some point, with Chicago blatently ignoring what the courts say, people will be able to show a compelling government interest in awarding punative damages when cases involving damages arise. 

    Ranger_Will's picture

    "Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    -John Adams, Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798

    Winston Smith 2009's picture

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

    Redundant. One can be highly moral without being religious. And one can be highly immoral when driven by religion.

    fallout11's picture

    True. Further, John Adams (coauthor of the Declaration of Independence, btw) was also the author and signator of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), ratified unimously by the US Senate containing many of the founding fathers of this country, which states categorically: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,...."

    kralizec's picture

    Got that right.  These Nazi's never give up their fascist dreams.

    My guess is they go the excessive cost route, place massive taxes etc on guns and ammo and related products...make it impossible to buy or sell in their environment.

    Dinero D. Profit's picture

    (pssssst!  Lean closer to the monitor so I can whisper.)

    When the SHTF, ammo smugglers are going to make a million! --that is, if they know how to smuggle.

    Crash Overide's picture

    "OMG..  whatever will they do when the crime and murder rate plummets?"

     

    They will loose potential profit in the privite prison system.

    chubbar's picture

    Amazing how many politicians and anti-gunners don't seem to understand the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Do we really need to go back and figure out what the meaning of "is, is"?

    El Vaquero's picture

    I don't know why Clinton went with that defense.  He's from Arkansas.  If it's not in the family, it's not sex, pure and simple. 

    pods's picture

    In some places, Eatin ain't cheatin!

    pods

    DCFusor's picture

    The libs obviously didn't read John Lott's well-researched book, "More guns, less crime".  He was just a sociologist at the time, no particular axe to grind, and doesn't even like the fame he now has, since the NRA found out about it.

    It's too damn dangerous to mug grannie if she might pull out a .45 and dot your eyes.

    Bush didn't want to sign the "must issue" concealed carry law in TX when he was governor there, but he did it, and crime went down.  It's a pattern everywhere it's been tried.

    Hit on a CCW person, you die.  No extended 3 hots and a cot while you fool with the legal system.  Bam, dead, right now.  Even dumb-ass criminals figure this out.  The ones that don't at least aren't recidivist.

    PrecipiceWatching's picture

    Lott's work is a seminal work on this subject, thus it is verboten, shunned and ignored among statists and "progressives".

    Same treatment as "The Bell Curve", another exhaustively researched work, that came to a number of politically incorrect conclusions. 

    Sadly, the thesis of both books would achieve a fair number on down votes here on "Fight Club"

     

    Temporalist's picture

    I think you think The Bell Curve states something it doesn't.  Here is a direct quote:

    "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."

    PrecipiceWatching's picture

    I think you need to read the entire work, including the copious illustrative material, rather than tossing out a single sentence.

    MieleBauknecht's picture

    selling guns to idiots simply results in 1000x more deaths than in countries where its regulated.