Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumChicago pays NRA $150,000.00
Check may be viewed here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Gowder-Check3.pdf
Story here: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/11/illinois-federal-court-upholds-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-and-awards-the-nra-$125,000-in-attorneys-fees.aspx
The NRAs motion for attorneys fees in the case of Gowder v. Chicago was granted following a successful NRA motion for summary judgment. The Gowder case challenged the constitutionality of a Chicago ordinance that banned people with certain non-violent misdemeanor convictions from possessing firearms in their homes for self-defense. Mr. Gowder had a misdemeanor conviction for "unlawful use of a weapon" (simply having a handgun on his person outside his own home). When Mr. Gowder wanted to possess a firearm in his home and sought a firearm permit (as is required by the Chicago ordinance), his application was denied. Even though his misdemeanor record did not prevent Mr. Gowder from obtaining a Firearm Owners Identification card, Mr. Gowder could not obtain the firearms permit necessary to possess a firearm in his own home because the law prohibited permits from being issued to anyone convicted of "an unlawful use of a weapon that is a firearm," even if it was just a misdemeanor conviction.
In its June ruling on the summary judgment motion, the Court held that the "Chicago Firearm Ordinance does not provide a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, in that it does not define the term unlawful use of a weapon. It appears that the City of Chicago merely borrowed from an Illinois criminal statute the term unlawful use of a weapon, which sounds extremely serious on its face, but in reality can include simple unlawful possession."
Although the Court was not required to consider whether the ordinance violated the Second Amendment (because it already determined that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague), the Court nonetheless considered the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of District of Columbia v. Heller (which declared that a ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment) and McDonald v. Chicago (which declared that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States), and held that the Chicago ordinance violated the Second Amendment as well.
According to the Court, the firearm ordinance did "not differentiate between those who have been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor, or between those who have been convicted of a violent or non-violent crime, and thus the denial of a [firearm permit] does not find valid foothold in statutory history." The effect of the ordinance "is to forever strip certain persons residing in Chicago of their constitutional right to protect themselves in their own homes, including, for example, a person convicted forty years ago of simply possessing a firearm (and not unlawfully using it against another)."
After evaluating the ordinance under a text, history, and tradition analysis, as well as a under the more conventional tests of strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny, the Court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional under any legal standard of review.
Chicago got spanked again over guns.
Another win for gun owner's rights. And a Happy Thanksgiving for the NRA's lawyers.
That kind of ruins Mikey's dream of a "one gun strike, no matter how small, and you are out".
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Yay!
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)stop being so stupid and follow the Constitution, they wouldn't be paying out money to the NRA. Put the blame where it lies, at the feet of the Chicago politicians w/Rahm at the head of the table.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Then maybe you are unfamiliar with his background, his reputation for fairness and following the law, and his appoval by both Democrats and Republicans.
Der-Yeghiayan was born in Aleppo, Syria to Armenian parents and raised in Beirut, Lebanon. He received his B.A. in political science from Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri in 1975, and his J.D. from the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire in 1978. He began his legal career as an Honor Law Graduate under the United States Attorney General's Honors Program. He served in various capacities with the Justice Department's Chicago District of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), with jurisdiction over the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, including as a trial attorney from 1978 to 1982, district counsel from 1982 to 2000, and acting district director from 1986 to 1987.
For twenty consecutive years from 1981 to 2000, Der-Yeghiayan received Outstanding Performance Ratings as a U.S. Justice Department Attorney from different Attorneys General of the United States. In 1986, he received the Frank J. McGarr Award of the Federal Bar Association as the Outstanding Federal Government Attorney in Chicago. In 1998, he received the District Counsel of the Year Award from the Commissioner of the INS and Attorney General Janet Reno.
In 2000, Der-Yeghiayan was appointed, under the Clinton administration, an immigration judge in the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on March 5, 2003, for the district court seat vacated by Marvin E. Aspen, and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on July 14, 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Der-Yeghiayan
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)with their gun laws so they stop funneling tax payer money to the NRA through unconstitutional laws and other general gun control stupidity. One day they will get the message.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)After getting their ass kicked in court twice and already forking over $400,000 in fines and fees last year, they might figure out that a SCOTUS ruling means what it says. The Appellate court told the city attorneys to "stop trying to be too cute by half" in their ruling.
But Chicago and DC insist on giving money to the GOP leaning NRA.
I guess they keep getting encouragement to fight the NRA from assholes that don't pay Chicago property taxes.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Maybe we should cut that out.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)When is Chigaco going to get it's shit together and start following the Constitution? Everytime the city has enacted these draconian gun laws, they get spanked in court and then have to pay out money that could be better used to help fight crime.
ileus
(15,396 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,354 posts)150 grand? That's not even the kickback from one lousy construction contract. They'll make that up without breaking a sweat.
Chicago pols will laugh this one off.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)imposed on any one of their more prestigious, corrupt Councillors/politicians will cover the cost.
Money wise... the city isn't any worse off than it already is... it's the boot-fucking/slap-in-the-face/wake-up-call/win-loss column that's gratifying = priceless.
jody
(26,624 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and hoping for a better result?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)It is worth EVERY penny if it saved one life.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)It's not the law abiding thats doing the shooting, it's the gangs shooting each other over the drug trade and turf with civilians caught in the middle.
Criminals will always be able to acquire guns, the only people affected by gun control laws are the law abiding.
Happy Thanksgiving and hope your family is well.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)....but I have to believe even if you disagree that someone's life was.
I also disagree that the only people affected by gun control are law abiding. Criminals do get caught in the net. In addition, law abiding people, in my opinion, benefit as much as some are inconvenienced.
Best wishes to you and your family this and every Thanksgiving as well.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and pointless, its also expensive.
Maybe we can just let people be free for a change.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)NRA is too full of crap, in my opinion. If it's not about guns, SAF has zero to say about it. Only reason NRA is getting involved in lawsuits in the first place is 'cause they kept getting embarrassed by SAF's ability to actually accomplish their goals, while NRA prefers to scream and point at the restrictive states, telling their members "THIS WILL BE YOU, IF YOU DON'T GIVE US MONEY!"
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,480 posts)...for the pro-rights side.