Federal judge rules Chicago ban on gun sales unconstitutional

Gun-With-Bullets

Photo credit: thelibertydoll.com

A federal judge ruled Monday that a Chicago ordinance banning the sale of firearms within city limits “goes too far” and declared it unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang rejected the city’s argument that banning gun sales by licensed dealers was a necessary step to reducing firearm violence, according to the Chicago Tribune.

“Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes the ordinance tries to serve,” Chang wrote.

The city approved the ordinance in 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an even stricter law prohibiting the possession of all firearms in the city. The measure also prohibited the transfer of firearms already in the hands of Chicagoans by private sale or even as a gift to family members. Ownership of firearms could only be transferred by inheritance.

According to the Tribune:

The ruling stems from a 2010 lawsuit filed by three residents and an association of Illinois firearms dealers.

The suit alleged the city’s revamped ordinance violates the right of Chicago residents to keep and bear arms under the 2nd and 14th Amendments….

The crux of Chang’s reasoning in his 35-page opinion was that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has little substance without the means to actually acquire weapons.

Although Chicago’s gun laws are among the strictest in the nation, they have arguably done little if anything to curb the high incidence of firearm-related crime the city has become known for, especially in its South Side neighborhoods.

As extreme as an outright ban on gun sales may seem, it’s not the most heavy-handed of Chicago’s tactics.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wrote letters to Bank of America and TD Bank a year ago, asking them to cut off any business dealings with gun manufacturers. He hoped to force the weapons companies into supporting restrictive gun control measures. At the time, Smith & Wesson had a $60 million line of credit with TD Bank, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. had a $25 million line of credit with Bank of America.

Emanuel, who left his post as President Obama’s chief of staff in late 2010 to run for mayor of Chicago, is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Comments

365 thoughts on “Federal judge rules Chicago ban on gun sales unconstitutional

  1. Joseph Kiesznoski says:

    No to any gun control, My family lived thru that once , And never again, They survived Auschwitz< And remember it well

  2. SoCalCop says:

    Justice Chang’s astute observation is a breath of fresh air. But, the Second Amendment right to bear arms has little substance without the means to actually carry weapons as well.

  3. Sniper's Blade - S.L. Rachford says:

    Great step for Justice! Free market helped gun owners and buyers.

  4. tom2 says:

    Prediction: Chicago will see gun sales skyrocket and a crime rate in free-fall. Hopefully, Chicagans will wake up and dump their oppressors next November.

    1. TIMedWork says:

      When everyone is armed, very few are attacked.

  5. Broke Obama says:

    Since when does a Chicago mayor have any right to go to banks and tell them to stop dealings with gun shops or anyone else for that matter . He should be sued . Its obvious he has way overstepped his duties . Smith and Wesson and Ruger should go after him .

    1. TIMedWork says:

      It is typical behavior of tyrants.
      When tyrants are in power we should expect it.
      When we see it, we know that tyrants are in power.

  6. john4637 says:

    Legal guns must go, they cannot be owned and used against illegal guns as a democrat is probably carrying the illegal gun!

    1. TIMedWork says:

      LOL. Sarcastic point taken!

  7. acers2 says:

    Judge Edmond Chang, you’re a jewel in a band of thieves. Watch your back. Thanks for upholding our Constitution.

  8. rfrichey says:

    Boone1, First of all thanks for your service. I was lucky in being born when I was (1941) in that I joined the army and was in and out by the time Viet Nam became a harsh reality for our brave service men. The government of today is not the government that I was born of and lived most of my life in. I hate that this regime is there and I detest the way they treat our vets. Don’t ever give up on your beliefs and keep a positive attitude towards you health. Good luck, and I will say a little prayer for you.

  9. older-woman says:

    I live in the northwest in a very (very!!) rural area on a farm. However, in town, the crime rate is zero. That’s right: zero. Hunting and gun ownership here are part of normal life. The recent newsletter from the public school carried the names of all of the high school students who had gotten their buck during hunting season, something I suspect you’d never see in a metro school newsletter. What I don’t understand is why a city like Chicago has the gun violence it has while here, guns are prolific — as are ads on gun handling classes and such — and yet there is zero crime. It cannot be as simple as larger population. And it cannot be as simple as “:the problem is guns.”

    From my vantage point, it seems that we humans look for the easiest way to fix problems without really doing the hard work of solving the real problem.

    I realize there are a lot of ranting people here. But I wonder if there are big city people here who have great ideas on why the culture in these cities creates such violent behavior versus here.

    1. Doug says:

      You are correct. It’s hard to bring down a deer in Chicago.

      1. older-woman says:

        lol — however, I meant in those metro areas near rural, where hunting still does occur. Point taken, though.

    2. ort says:

      I would imagine its because you don’t have inbred scumbags, i.e., gang bangers.

      1. older-woman says:

        ouch. While I’m a huntress, conservative and own five rifles and 2 revolvers, I truly would like to be part of the group that finds a solution so we can stop this darn discussion on taking our guns away. However, I think to do that we need to rise above the fray and work together to come up with a solution and then mobilize like hell to push it. Speaking poorly of any other humans just doesn’t help us get to that goal, hmm?

        1. ort says:

          If you lived in a major city that has said gang bangers, your tune would change.
          The only people I speak poorly of are those that go out of their way to break the law. Their rap sheets are probably multiple pages thick.
          I don’t have a rap sheet, do you? ‘Nuff said.

          1. older-woman says:

            I can understand your annoyance but I simply think that speaking with anger/hate doesn’t help gun owners achieve a resolution to the problem at hand — and I, for one, don’t want to live in a country where my guns are regulated, monitored, and possibly outlawed. It would make it difficult for me to continue living in a rural area. I just want us to focus on solutions…and then push like hell for them..

          2. ort says:

            No anger or hate here. Just speaking frankly.

  10. Will_Mat says:

    The only thing the ban would do, is to keep guns from law-abiding citizens, as criminals would still obtain them.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts