New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit
- Thread starter milky7272
- Start date
- Status
Ah, here is the ordinance in pdf:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/images/blogimages/2010/07/02/1278097716-gun_ordinance.pdf
http://www.chicagoreader.com/images/blogimages/2010/07/02/1278097716-gun_ordinance.pdf
Sue the Mayor and Aldermen
The Mayor and city Alderman have their behinds hanging out in the breeze and don't seem to realize it. The media has several juicy quotes from aldermen who disagree with the court decision. Including this one...
IANAL, however it seems to me that a good civil rights lawyer could just about retire if he wins a lawsuit against the city for violating....
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs
For the city to declare that some portion of the Bill of Rights is excluded or limited on one's own property is an unlawful invasion of privacy, a "taking" of property (some portions may not be enjoyed as fully as others), and offensive to the constitutional principles of the country. By limiting the definition of "house" or "home" to just the dwelling unit, Chicago could, in theory, force residents to accept the quartering of a soldier in their garage.¹
What other rights may Chicago limit to only the dwelling unit?
* No warrant to search your garage or yards?
...if your "home" is only the dwelling unit according to Chicago, how does this affect the reading of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Not a word about yards, porches or garages which Chicago now defines as "different".
* Might Chicago consider a resident's angry discussion of city politics, in his own back yard, as "public speech" since it is not part of his "home"? Could he be prosecuted for "attempting to incite a riot" or "hate speech" when denegrating a public official while talking to his wife and/or child?
The City's actions are an offense against the Constitution and the citizens of Chicago. They show a wanton disregard for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and contempt of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I hope for swift action by the Federal courts in Benson. If we prevail and Chicago repeats this kind of stupidity, the citizens of Chicago should notify the State of Illinois and the officials in the City in a letter that says...
The elected officials of the City of Chicago having ignored state and federal constitutional laws, having unanimously conspired to deprive the people of their rights, having threatened those who insisted on exercising their rights with unlawful imprisonment and having ignored the will of the vast majority of citizens in the exercise of their rights, has defined itself as an unconstitutional oligarchy. Governments exist to protect the right of the people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to leave them defenseless and at the mercy of criminals. As such, the Citizens of Chicago, exercising the inalienable Right of the People to alter and abolish any government that is destructive of those ends, gives notice to the elected officials of Chicago that they have 24 hours to tender their resignations to the Governor of Illinois or face forcible eviction from office.
Such a notice, signed by several hundred Chicago residents might shake up the politics in Illinois for decades.
¹ USC Amdend 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...nothing about garages or outbuildings, Chicago could argue.
The Mayor and city Alderman have their behinds hanging out in the breeze and don't seem to realize it. The media has several juicy quotes from aldermen who disagree with the court decision. Including this one...
IANAL, however it seems to me that a good civil rights lawyer could just about retire if he wins a lawsuit against the city for violating....
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs
For the city to declare that some portion of the Bill of Rights is excluded or limited on one's own property is an unlawful invasion of privacy, a "taking" of property (some portions may not be enjoyed as fully as others), and offensive to the constitutional principles of the country. By limiting the definition of "house" or "home" to just the dwelling unit, Chicago could, in theory, force residents to accept the quartering of a soldier in their garage.¹
What other rights may Chicago limit to only the dwelling unit?
* No warrant to search your garage or yards?
...if your "home" is only the dwelling unit according to Chicago, how does this affect the reading of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Not a word about yards, porches or garages which Chicago now defines as "different".
* Might Chicago consider a resident's angry discussion of city politics, in his own back yard, as "public speech" since it is not part of his "home"? Could he be prosecuted for "attempting to incite a riot" or "hate speech" when denegrating a public official while talking to his wife and/or child?
The City's actions are an offense against the Constitution and the citizens of Chicago. They show a wanton disregard for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and contempt of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I hope for swift action by the Federal courts in Benson. If we prevail and Chicago repeats this kind of stupidity, the citizens of Chicago should notify the State of Illinois and the officials in the City in a letter that says...
The elected officials of the City of Chicago having ignored state and federal constitutional laws, having unanimously conspired to deprive the people of their rights, having threatened those who insisted on exercising their rights with unlawful imprisonment and having ignored the will of the vast majority of citizens in the exercise of their rights, has defined itself as an unconstitutional oligarchy. Governments exist to protect the right of the people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to leave them defenseless and at the mercy of criminals. As such, the Citizens of Chicago, exercising the inalienable Right of the People to alter and abolish any government that is destructive of those ends, gives notice to the elected officials of Chicago that they have 24 hours to tender their resignations to the Governor of Illinois or face forcible eviction from office.
Such a notice, signed by several hundred Chicago residents might shake up the politics in Illinois for decades.
¹ USC Amdend 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...nothing about garages or outbuildings, Chicago could argue.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Warning - keep this at a higher level. We don't do pure invective, or pictures with such.
Glenn
Glenn
mack59 said:
I think mack59 summed it up nicely; Daley has provided the most outrageous possible examples of a variety of gun control issues to challenge in the courts.
While the new lawsuit against the new Chicago laws will be interesting, I will focus more attention to Gura's new lawsuit in North Carolina (Bateman v Purdue). Bateman is important because it is based on carry outside the home ("The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry functional handguns in non-sensitive public places for purposes of self-defense") and covers ammunition ("prohibit the purchase, sale, and possession of firearms and ammunition, are unconstitutional in that they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights").
I don't see how anyone has his/her "backside in the breeze" as far as this is concerned. Politicians are generally indemnified from personal civil and criminal liability for their official acts, and the idea that the voters will actually vote out Daley and the other entrenched machine politicos is as laughable an idea as any ever constructed.
When it starts costing millions of dollars in taxpayer money to pay judgments, legal fees, and higher insurance premiums, the city will eventually tire of it. If a court issues an injunction that is broken, violators can be jailed, including the mayor of Chicago and it's entire board of aldermen. This last scenario is extremely unlikely but it demonstrates what can happen.
csmsss said:
Read Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law again.
I think it would be relatively easy to show in a court that the city's administration should know or reasonably know that most of their limitations would not pass constitutional muster. To wit;
● Limitations on only 1 functional gun in the home
● Unconstitutional limits on the exercise of a right (1 gun a month)
● Requirements that are impossible to meet without excessive burden (training)
● Excessive permit fees ($115) to register for Chicago
● Unconstitutional limit on the right to self defense (not in garages, porches, etc)
I'm surprised that the legal team advising Mayor Daley and the council hasn't publicly distanced themselves from this debacle. The easy comparsions are asking if the city could get away with ...
● allowing only 1 functional typewriter or word-processor in a home;
● limiting citizens to one "letter to the editor" per month;
● requiring them to pay $33.33 per year to go to church;
● prohibit citizens from posting political candidate signs on garages, porches, stairs, yards, etc.
● or requiring the accused to pay all travel expenses to confront witnesses.
Public statements and city council records can prove a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. Doing so under the guise of "public safety" knowing many of the "features" of the new law are likely to be struck down is a crime under section 242.
In most cases, when a public official violates your rights through common error "in good faith" (e.g. a new police officer on the scene starts asking you questions after you asked for a lawyer and quits when he is informed of that fact), they are personally immune from lawsuits. However, when a public official knowingly violates a person's rights (e.g. making drug and/or gun crime defendants pay for their own lawyers) that will "pierce" the veil of limited immunity and expose them to legal actions.
That's what I mean by having their rumps hanging out in the breeze.
mayor daley rewrites his gun ordinance..A right is now a privilege.
If you read this you will come to realize that the mayor of chicago has rewritten our constitution. Apparently the Second Amendment is now a privilege. You are required to get a so called permit to own a firearm. How many criminals do you think this will stop from obtaining a firearm? None. Do you think they will go through all this ?
For Immediate Release Contact: Office of News Affairs
July 12, 2010 312-745-6110
City of Chicago Outlines New Firearms Ordinance Procedures
The City of Chicago's new handgun ordinance goes into effect today and the Chicago Police
Department is prepared to implement the permit and registration requirements.
The process involves two steps, beginning with the application for a Chicago Firearms Permit
(CFP), which is required in order to legally register a firearm.
While the CFP application can be downloaded from the Chicago Police Department's website
at www.chicagopolice.org, it must be submitted in person at Chicago Police Headquarters,
located at 3510 S. Michigan.
Residents must possess the following information in order to complete the CPF application:
• A valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card issued by the State of Illinois
• Two identical passport-size photos taken in the last 30 days showing the person's full
face, head and shoulders
• A valid Driver’s License, or if the resident doesn't possess one, a letter from a licensed
optometrist or ophthalmologist attesting that the applicant meets the minimum vision
requirements to obtain an Illinois driver’s license
• A signed affidavit from a firearms instructor approved in the State of Illinois stating that
the applicant has completed a firearms safety and training course.
• A $100 application fee
All applicants must be at least 21 years old, or 18-20 years old with an eligible parents'
permission. Applicants cannot be convicted of any violent crime, have two or more offenses for
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or under state law have been convicted of
domestic violence. Additionally, they must be fingerprinted and submit to a background check.
Add One / New Ordinance
After obtaining a Chicago Firearms Permit, residents can purchase a firearm. Residents must
then register their firearm within 5 days with the Chicago Police Department.
Only one handgun can be registered in any 30-day period. The cost is a one-time $15 fee per
firearm, and the person will be required to file an annual report.
To register a firearm the owner must provide information on the type of weapon, the
manufacturer, the serial number, where it was obtained or purchased and where the weapon
will be located.
Individuals who owned firearms prior to today, including firearms that were not registered and
multiple handguns, must apply for a CFP within 90 days.
The application for registration certificates can also be downloaded from the Chicago Police
Department's website at www.chicagopolice.org and can be submitted by mail or in person at
Chicago Police Headquarters.
Certain types of weapons cannot be registered because they are ineligible or unsafe, such as
sawed-off shotguns, .50 caliber weapons, assault weapons and certain handguns. A list of
ineligible firearms will be posted on the Chicago Police Department's website.
Residents were also reminded that it is still illegal to possess a firearm on the streets of
Chicago, which includes bringing it to Chicago Police Department headquarters to register.
Residents who currently have registered firearms with the City can wait until their current
registration expires before re-registering, but they should apply now for the CFP.
Once a firearm is registered, residents are responsible for contacting police immediately if their
firearm is lost, stolen, destroyed, sold or if there is a change in any of the information on the
registration certificate.
Anyone supplying false information on the application is subject to fines and/or arrest, with
penalties up to $5,000 and 90 days in jail for a first offense.
The entire ordinance can be reviewed on the Chicago Police Department's
If you read this you will come to realize that the mayor of chicago has rewritten our constitution. Apparently the Second Amendment is now a privilege. You are required to get a so called permit to own a firearm. How many criminals do you think this will stop from obtaining a firearm? None. Do you think they will go through all this ?
For Immediate Release Contact: Office of News Affairs
July 12, 2010 312-745-6110
City of Chicago Outlines New Firearms Ordinance Procedures
The City of Chicago's new handgun ordinance goes into effect today and the Chicago Police
Department is prepared to implement the permit and registration requirements.
The process involves two steps, beginning with the application for a Chicago Firearms Permit
(CFP), which is required in order to legally register a firearm.
While the CFP application can be downloaded from the Chicago Police Department's website
at www.chicagopolice.org, it must be submitted in person at Chicago Police Headquarters,
located at 3510 S. Michigan.
Residents must possess the following information in order to complete the CPF application:
• A valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card issued by the State of Illinois
• Two identical passport-size photos taken in the last 30 days showing the person's full
face, head and shoulders
• A valid Driver’s License, or if the resident doesn't possess one, a letter from a licensed
optometrist or ophthalmologist attesting that the applicant meets the minimum vision
requirements to obtain an Illinois driver’s license
• A signed affidavit from a firearms instructor approved in the State of Illinois stating that
the applicant has completed a firearms safety and training course.
• A $100 application fee
All applicants must be at least 21 years old, or 18-20 years old with an eligible parents'
permission. Applicants cannot be convicted of any violent crime, have two or more offenses for
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or under state law have been convicted of
domestic violence. Additionally, they must be fingerprinted and submit to a background check.
Add One / New Ordinance
After obtaining a Chicago Firearms Permit, residents can purchase a firearm. Residents must
then register their firearm within 5 days with the Chicago Police Department.
Only one handgun can be registered in any 30-day period. The cost is a one-time $15 fee per
firearm, and the person will be required to file an annual report.
To register a firearm the owner must provide information on the type of weapon, the
manufacturer, the serial number, where it was obtained or purchased and where the weapon
will be located.
Individuals who owned firearms prior to today, including firearms that were not registered and
multiple handguns, must apply for a CFP within 90 days.
The application for registration certificates can also be downloaded from the Chicago Police
Department's website at www.chicagopolice.org and can be submitted by mail or in person at
Chicago Police Headquarters.
Certain types of weapons cannot be registered because they are ineligible or unsafe, such as
sawed-off shotguns, .50 caliber weapons, assault weapons and certain handguns. A list of
ineligible firearms will be posted on the Chicago Police Department's website.
Residents were also reminded that it is still illegal to possess a firearm on the streets of
Chicago, which includes bringing it to Chicago Police Department headquarters to register.
Residents who currently have registered firearms with the City can wait until their current
registration expires before re-registering, but they should apply now for the CFP.
Once a firearm is registered, residents are responsible for contacting police immediately if their
firearm is lost, stolen, destroyed, sold or if there is a change in any of the information on the
registration certificate.
Anyone supplying false information on the application is subject to fines and/or arrest, with
penalties up to $5,000 and 90 days in jail for a first offense.
The entire ordinance can be reviewed on the Chicago Police Department's
Last edited:
FreakGasolineFight
New member
That's horrifying.
You should look at the list, it has over 200 weapons on it and the Walther P22 is a forbidden gun. This thing is designed to help them in the case that some bad guy gets your gun and uses it. They then sue you for your negligence and you are the criminal. Also very "Big Brother"ish with the info. they will collect.I don't know about the other states but in OHIO I don't need the State's permission to buy a firearm and I can buy more than one per month.
I will never understand the Liberal Bias toward guns, They are scared to death of a tool while they protect the rights of the guys who misuse that tool.
I will never understand the Liberal Bias toward guns, They are scared to death of a tool while they protect the rights of the guys who misuse that tool.
What is truly a slap in the face is that the politician are exempt. They (Aldermans) are allowed to own or carry whatever hand gun they want.
I just love how politician write laws exempting themselves from the very laws they create. I guess they think they are better than us. We will see in the end.
I just love how politician write laws exempting themselves from the very laws they create. I guess they think they are better than us. We will see in the end.
maqueswell
New member
And when the crime rate decreases do you think the moronic mayor or local politicians give credit to the the individual protecting themselves against criminals?
Nope!
Nope!
This is a partial glimpse of the ordinance. Notice how it starts. It is very very very long. They limit everything. You can't even have a laser sight on your gun. No magazines over 10 rds. Gun must be kept in home only. You are not allowed to take it to the garage. Once you are registered. The police will know before they enter your home that you are a gun owner. If they find anything they considered contraband you will lose all your toys (even your freedom).
O R D I N A N C E
WHEREAS, A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in the United States there were 30,896 deaths from firearms in 2006, making firearms one of the top ten causes of death in the cou
WHEREAS, Annually, more than 100,000 people in our nation are shot or killed with a firearm, with more than 3,000 of these victims being children or teenagers; and
WHEREAS, The United States is one of the few remaining developed nations that places only a minimal restrictions on the sale or possession of firearms
WHEREAS, Firearm-related injuries and deaths are the cause of significant social and economic costs to the City and our communities and have a severe impact on our criminal justice and health care system
WHEREAS, In 2009, in the City there were 1,815 aggravated batteries with a firearm, of which 83 were shootings inside a residence, and there were 379 murders with a firearm, of which 34 were murders involving a firearm inside a home
WHEREAS, Between the beginning of this year and June, 15, 2010, there were 742 aggravated batteries with a firearm, of which 36 took place inside a residence, and 152 murders with a firearm, of which 19 were inside a residence; and
WHEREAS, Given the dangerous and deadly nature of handguns, in 1982 the City of Chicago enacted a ban on registering handguns as a method to protect public safety and the health and welfare of its residents
WHEREAS, In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in
m
WHEREAS, After the Heller decision,
WHEREAS, On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the McDonald case and ruled that the Second
WHEREAS, Although the State of Illinois has already enacted several laws to regulate the sale and possession of firearms, these laws are not sufficient to protect the City from the unique and heighten
“
O R D I N A N C E
WHEREAS, A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in the United States there were 30,896 deaths from firearms in 2006, making firearms one of the top ten causes of death in the cou
WHEREAS, Annually, more than 100,000 people in our nation are shot or killed with a firearm, with more than 3,000 of these victims being children or teenagers; and
WHEREAS, The United States is one of the few remaining developed nations that places only a minimal restrictions on the sale or possession of firearms
WHEREAS, Firearm-related injuries and deaths are the cause of significant social and economic costs to the City and our communities and have a severe impact on our criminal justice and health care system
WHEREAS, In 2009, in the City there were 1,815 aggravated batteries with a firearm, of which 83 were shootings inside a residence, and there were 379 murders with a firearm, of which 34 were murders involving a firearm inside a home
WHEREAS, Between the beginning of this year and June, 15, 2010, there were 742 aggravated batteries with a firearm, of which 36 took place inside a residence, and 152 murders with a firearm, of which 19 were inside a residence; and
WHEREAS, Given the dangerous and deadly nature of handguns, in 1982 the City of Chicago enacted a ban on registering handguns as a method to protect public safety and the health and welfare of its residents
WHEREAS, In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in
m
WHEREAS, After the Heller decision,
WHEREAS, On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the McDonald case and ruled that the Second
WHEREAS, Although the State of Illinois has already enacted several laws to regulate the sale and possession of firearms, these laws are not sufficient to protect the City from the unique and heighten
“
Last edited:
SimplySebastian
New member
Mayor Daley keeps setting Chicago up for lawsuit after lawsuit. This next one should be a dandy.
You are allowed to have only one functional gun in the home. So be very careful what you chose All of your other guns must be kept in a non-functioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable. If they come in and find the other firearms operable even if they are registered you will lose them!!!!!
All of your other guns must be kept in a non-functioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable. If they come in and find the other firearms operable even if they are registered you will lose them!!!!!Young.Gun.612
New member
Good God I'm so GLAD I don't live in Chicago!
How is it that Chicago politicians can think they're doing good, when there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary?
How is it that Chicago politicians can think they're doing good, when there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary?
- Status