Federal judge rules Chicago ban on gun sales unconstitutional


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.


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

  1. Black Eagle says:

    More guns in the hands of ordinary honest folk equals less crime. And educating children on responsible firearms use, as with NRA competition shooting, reduces accidents and encourages responsible attitudes. Loving one’s children also makes them less violent. Getting them out of Left-Wing schools also allows them to proceed towards competence and responsibility, thereby not taking up “take care of me Big Mama” attitude, or the “gangsta” dope-porn lifestyle that leads them into violence and crime. The way out of the turmoil is well known and marked, but only the criminal element today wants YOU to NOT own guns, or to be independent. Also be aware of the criminal element in urban police forces, who help bring in the drugs and protect the rackets. They don’t want you to have guns either. And Chicago is mob-run, for sure. Big Democrat Party mobsters over decades.

    1. older-woman says:

      Interesting response.. So the fix is…duplicating the edu we do in the rural areas, finding a way to improve parenting (tough?), acknowledging police criminal element and somehow finding a way to eliminate mobs. rough…

  2. JHorvathJr says:

    Ban gun users not gun seller.Focus on the problem with those gangsters so admired by todays youth because there’s no one else to admire. Jesse Sharpton Pbm Emmanuel Holder Breed-mare teen mamas Missing ‘daddies”. Get those kids some discipline and someone decent to admire. Too bad liberals ca’t do Commandments: ‘thou shalt not kill’ is a good idea.

    1. older-woman says:

      You mean ban the gun users who are using them violently, yes? For example, anyone who uses a gun in violence loses all rights for life, maybe? I could stand behind that, I think. Tougher is how to get those kids someone decent to admire. But that’s a great idea. I’m not sure we have kids here who admire any person in particular. It actually strikes me as odd that we have a zero crime rate, which I can prove via the state statistics online. Nothing in any category. It would be interesting to look at towns like ours and see what is working ..I know it’s a bit old-fashioned in town, e..g, children still ride bikes on streets and walk down the road to grab a tree branch and fish in the creek, lol. It’s rather Norman Rockwell’ish..

      1. ort says:

        You have to understand, laws don’t stop criminals from committing further crimes. Armed citizens do. A criminal doesn’t get a FOID card, or take gun safety classes, or obtain their weapons after a background check.

        1. older-woman says:

          Oh I understand that logic but the laws do give law enforcement and the judicial system the ability to impose penalties. That’s the power of laws, imho.

          But I truly think we all need to think harder on the solution — and then work like hell to make it happen before this anti-gun mania spreads across the country.

          1. ort says:

            A prime example is the death penalty. I am all for it. I know it doesn’t deter crime. However, I do know with 100% certainty that an executed criminal never commits another crime ever again. ; )

      2. JHorvathJr says:

        Yes, I meant criminal use of guns,

    2. Redbullisyummy says:

      You should adopt a child who doesn’t have parents and bring him up as an outstanding citizen. This would show your true commitment to discipline and you’d set a good example for others to follow.

      1. older-woman says:

        You know…that’s really not a bad idea… might be an element of a PR campaign…maybe you are onto something..

  3. mike88 says:

    If B O A and T D Bank had any intelligence, they would not only continue their Line of credit with the gun manufacturers, but they would increase their Line of Credit and cut off the line of credit that Rohm Emanual recommends they give a line to. If Rohm has any business dealings with BoA or T D Bank they should cut his line of credit off or any businesses he owns. perhaps they should cut off the line of credit to the nation he was born in, because it sure was not the U.S. This is one of the best d34ecisions a Judge could have made for Chicago, it is just too bad the Chief of Police and Rohm Emanual don’t take this approach to guns in the hands of private individuals. Chicago would be a lot safer because the criminals would not know who was or wasn’t armed, and the violence rate in Chicago would drop

  4. Redbullisyummy says:

    The Constitution wins again! Good job on this one. Now if we can only get all 50 states on board with gay marriage we’d be on track to true constitutional government.

    1. Richard Carew says:

      Marriage, especially gay marriage, is NOT a constitutional right. It is governed by each states laws, is the responsibility of each state, and if residents don’t like the laws of that state, they are free to move elsewhere. Simple as that. The Constitution and the Federal Government have absolutely no say in the matter.

      1. Redbullisyummy says:

        Sure it is. 14th amendment offers equal protection to all citizens. So if 2 gay men love each other then they should be able to marry in North Dakota just as easily as they can in California. Same thing with gun rights. If a man in Wyoming wants to carry a pistol more power to him, a man in Chicago should be able to do just the same.

        1. ort says:

          This ridiculous topic is NOT part of the conversation. Take t t the HuffPo gay boards. It’s not welcome here.
          Stick. To. The. Topic.

          1. Redbullisyummy says:

            Hey man I’m a staunch conservative just like you. I don’t think the government has any place in telling 2 adults who they can and can’t marry. We need to be consistent with our application of the laws and with what we expect from our elected officials. If they can tell you who you can and can’t marry what else are they going to want to tell you?

          2. ort says:

            I agree with what you said except for the gay marriage thing. Marriage has always been a man and a woman. God created marriage in Genesis. Jesus/God reiterated what was said in the New Testament. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. They cannot reproduce and their parts were not meant for the same sex. Simple anatomy and biology shows that.

          3. Redbullisyummy says:

            Yes but now we are using the bible to justify our acceptance of government intrusion into our love lives and that’s not right either. As conservatives we can’t pick and choose when laws should be applied to our liking. Either it is all ok or none of it is. I don’t want the government to trample on my rights to carry a gun and I don’t want the government to trample on the rights of 2 adults who love each other to get married. Otherwise the liberals can use the bible to take away our gun right by simply saying “thou shalt not kill”. Very slippery slope.

          4. ort says:

            I hear what you are saying, but I cannot forsake the Word of God and what it says. I just can’t.
            All that aside, pot is now being legalized in many states, the pedophiles are saying if homosexuals were born that way, so were they. They want to list pedophilia as an “orientation.” Where does it stop? The next thing will be bestiality, mark my words. This country is going to hell in a hand basket because we have forsaken God.

            And, technically, the Commandment is “thou shalt not murder”, which is different, and which we already have laws against.

            I really do understand your position, but I don’t think we will every fully agree.

          5. Redbullisyummy says:

            Liberals will say that they cannot forsake the word of god when it comes to thou shalt not murder and use that commandment to ban guns. Then they will talk about keeping the sabbath holy and work for workers rights to get weekends off. Once we start using the bible for legislation we will open the door for them to do the same. Maybe they’ve already started with obamacare. Using Jesus’ socialist approach to medicine. Just giving it away for free.

        2. Richard Carew says:

          You need to read the XIV amendment again. It does not cover marriage or protection. It covers peoples rights to due process. In section 2 it covers how the representatives will be apportioned. In section 3 it covers what the rules are for citizens to become senators. In section 4 it covers the validity of the public debt. In section 5, it covers how congress has the power over each state to enforce through legislation, the provisions of article XIV.

          Should i type it out word for word for you? I have the unedited version, not the scalped and reworded version they teach in schools these days.

          1. Redbullisyummy says:

            Why are you so hell bent on denying 2 gay men who passionately love each other the ability to marry? As conservatives we need to keep the government out of our lives and out of our bedrooms!

          2. Richard Carew says:

            Guess the moderators didn’t like my response, so it wasn’t published. Must be part of the gay rights group or something. I’ll try again….
            What I said was, it’s none of the feds business. It’s a state issue. Learn to comprehend what you read. If you have a hankering to love on another man, have at it. Keep it out of the federal level, tying up congress and the senate with issues they have no say over, and wasting my tax dollars. Quit trying to make people believe it’s about your happiness, when it’s really about the tax breaks you hope to receive. If you want to love up on another man and it’s outlawed in your state, than move to a state that allows it. It’s not a federal issue, it’s a state issue. No constitutional amendment has any say so about marriage. Simple as that.

  5. pevans1 says:

    Oh my God! What will DEAR LEADER say?

  6. gian2012 says:

    Anti gun laws never do anything to curb crime as they are enacted against citizens who’ve committed no crime. Former felons are unable to obtain firearms legally so they do so illegally thus bypassing anti gun laws. You prosecute the criminal not harass the law abiding. Like everything else,politicians having their heads up their asses do everything backasswards.

    1. Jim says:

      Of course they do. Every country that brought in good gun control reduced gun deaths. Thats the facts. Quit making stuff up.Its dishonest.

      1. Jerry says:

        Actually pinkie Jim crime has dropped in all 36 states that have open carry laws. Crime is highest in DC and Chitcago and NYC and places where gun laws are the strictest. You are one lying loser bastard scum.

        1. Jim says:

          Crime? who is talking about crime? We are talking about people being killed by guns. idiot.

          1. Jerry says:

            And killing people is not a crime. What do you think I was referring too. You are also one technical jerk. I hope you act like that when you face God.
            And you still have not denounced the most murders of all you pro abortionist liberal scum.

          2. Jim says:

            Abortion? How would I know if a woman had an abortion if I wasn’t monitoring her vagina.? I prefer if the government didn’t monitor women’s vaginas. But that’s just me.

          3. Jerry says:

            Who said anything about monitoring a vagina. You lose again. You cannot denounce abortion so you are for it. You aid and abet more murders than all guns put together. May God condemn you real soon.

          4. Jim says:

            Hold it jerry…tell me how you would know if a woman had an abortion if you weren’t monitoring her?

          5. Jerry says:

            The original point was about abortion in general. May God condemn you for your intentional distortions.

          6. Jim says:

            So i take it you have no answer. I will answer for you. The only way to know if a woman has an abortion is to invade her privacy. Government monitoring of women. There is no other way. Myself I value freedom.

          7. Jerry says:

            Go to hell. You will not answer the question. You are for abortion. I can see it and so can God.

      2. older-woman says:

        Read my post below — where I live is zero crime rate and we have more guns here than any city, I’m quite sure.

        1. Jim says:

          Your area may have low crime rate but your laws make it easy for criminals to have guns. Even though you don’t live in sandy hook..how is it that your humanity is defined by geographical location? Very shallow individual.

          1. older-woman says:

            Actually, I could not/would not live here without guns. In rural areas, our guns are our tools. 911 is not a practical option — there is only one half-time police officer taking care of many, many miles of area and travelling on gravel or dirt/mud roads is slow going. Protecting livestock often requires more than guard animals and fencing and that is recognized through our predator laws.

            That said, Sandy Hook is a beyond sad situation but look at the person who committed the crime. He had mental health issues, as is evidenced in others with similar violent rages. This shallow person (shallow waters can run deep, you know) believes we should be spending considerable dollars and energy on finding the real solution to the problem — and that includes addressing our mental health system which dramatically changed decades ago. Banning guns is an easy fix but it does not solve the problem.

            I grew up in a time when the violence that exists today did not occur at the same level or scale and yet the laws were laxer and guns were even more prevalent.

            A look at our historical past and comparison with our present may reveal what is actually the problem.
            But that takes work and study and a commitment to truly understanding.

          2. Jim says:

            Your comment is a well thought out intelligent comment. Perhaps we aren’t so far apart. I am a canadian gun owner. I very much agree with the right to have firearms. The problem is the easy access to firearms that you have and we don’t. It is a very strict procedure to get a firearms license in Canada.But i accept that for the safety of everyone. Now I can buy all the guns I like. We have strict regulations on how we have to store them.
            Consider this.
            The Sandy Hook mother of the shooter from what we are told was a law abiding citizen. Had she lived in Canada and followed the law her guns would have been locked away unavailable to her son.

            Just give it some thought.

          3. Josef Roesler says:

            My guns are locked up in my house, available to no one but me. Why do I need the government to tell me I have to lock them up again inside my house? Your arguments make no sense. So my guns are locked up inside a $150,000 safe with locks all over the place, you think making me buy a $500 safe will make them safer? Ludicrous. Government meddling.

          4. Jim says:

            The same reason that you have to get driver testing even if you know how to drive. The laws are not for responsible people they are for the irresponsible people.

          5. Josef Roesler says:

            Driving is a privilege, not a right. Stop being a sheep.

            And since you are such a slave to your “facts,” why don’t you want to ban cars since they kill 1000% more people every year than guns?


          6. Jim says:

            You have a “right” to have a well regulated militia..do you honestly think the founding fathers would have wanted the militia regulated but not the guns? Like warren berger your former conservative supreme court justice said.

            “This is the worst fraud comitted on the American people”

            Roberts court is a joke. The world knows it..scalia is an idiot that thinks the devil is hiding around the corner. Nut cases.

          7. Josef Roesler says:

            They wanted a well regulated militia that was on par with that of the government. You can’t fight a tyrannical government in the 21st century with muskets.

            Your opinion of our supreme court is irrelevant.

          8. Jim says:

            No. They wanted a well regulated militia because there was no standing army. Thats why they needed it. Why in hell does a Canadian know more about your history than you do?

          9. Josef Roesler says:

            You don’t. The militia was to prevent another dickhead like King george and Osama from oppressing the people.

          10. Jim says:

            They militia according to the founding fathers was to “suppress rebellion and ward off foreign invaders”

          11. Josef Roesler says:

            Sure thing.

          12. Josef Roesler says:

            Sandy Hook was one incident. and it was also perpetrated by a criminal who obtained his guns illegally. and he didn’t use any of the guns the government is currently trying to ban. Hypocrites.

          13. Jim says:

            Sandy Hook is one of many incidents. The reason for sandy hook is your lack of gun control.

          14. Josef Roesler says:

            No, actually, it’s one of few. The reason for Sandy Hook is because a loon escaped his cage.

          15. Jim says:

            In canada it could not have happened because of our gun laws. Thats just the facts.

            From everything we know the Sandy hook mother of the shooter was a law abiding gun owner. In canada following the law means having your guns locked away. She would have followed the law making the guns unavailable to her mentally ill son.

          16. Josef Roesler says:

            You didn’t answer me why you think I should have to have my guns locked away when they are already locked away.

            And nobody in America gives a crap about your third world tyrrany that you are brainwashed into loving.

          17. Jim says:

            Canada is far advanced of America in many ways. You should visit.

          18. Josef Roesler says:

            Right, that’s why you won’t answer the question.

            Why you are not capable of realizing because you are a serf in a kingdom is that your government has taken away your God given right to protection and turned it into a privilege that you MIGHT be allowed to have if you act right.

            In America, this God given right is still a right and we don’t need slaves pontificating on something they will never understand.

          19. Jim says:

            Tell that to my mossberg 12 guage with ssg’s.

          20. 45JD44 says:

            Jim do you mean to tell me, that a “peace loving” Canadian would think of doing harm or threatening another with a 12 gauge and ssg’s? Jimbo you are a hypocrite and a liar…

          21. Jim says:

            Not at all. i would sooner a good fisfight. Something satisfying about punching a right wing nut case in the face.

          22. 45JD44 says:

            You seem to be a violent person Jim. Perhaps you should re-think gun ownership. Lets hope that there are not too many gun owners like you in Canada.

          23. Jim says:

            keep trying

          24. 45JD44 says:

            Jim I don’t have to keep trying. Every one of your arguments have been shot out of the water with every one you debated on here. So now jimbo, I have no more time to waste on you, because, well… you are a jackass and you are wrong on all counts. So now you can go back to whacking off your boyfriend, or what ever it is you canucks do for entertainment.

          25. Jim says:

            Too bad I kicked your Butt. Denial is precisely why you are a right winger. Nothing gets through. The facts are america has more gun deaths than any other civilized nation. All you crap is just that. Crap.

          26. 45JD44 says:

            Jimbo. With a trigger happy attitude like you have you should not be allowed to own a firearm.

          27. Jim says:

            Why ? I am not trigger happy. Just disputing your claim we areslaves. As much as I know you wish slavery was still legal.

          28. Josef Roesler says:

            Sure, you got them after they deemed you worthy of protecting yourself. And if they feel like it, they’ll take them away again as well.

            And why SSG? That’s almost birdshot. They won’t let you have buckshot?

          29. Jim says:

            My guns are locked away. i don’t need them for protection unless I go to the yukon( bears). I don’t live in a violent shithole. I live in a peaceful country. Oh and I do have 000 3 in magnum buckshot as well.

          30. Josef Roesler says:

            My guns are not locked away, they are scattered all over the place for easy access. In case I wanna shoot something.
            What’s with that steady rise in violent crime? You living in a shithole?

          31. Jim says:

            I understand. Your country is a violent shithole.

          32. Josef Roesler says:

            Yeah, sure it is. That doesn’t explain the link.

  7. Bob A says:

    An Illinois judge that the liberals haven’t gotten to.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts