Chicago thumbs nose at courts with anti-gun ordinances

Chicago, long a city in the grip of anti-firearms politicians like former Mayor William Daley, has again had its hands slapped by a federal court. Still, the Windy City, now headed by former Clintonista, Rahm Emanuel, is unlikely to change its ways without further challenges by firearms-rights groups and citizens who desire only to be able to defend themselves with a firearm if they so choose.

The first legal blow dealt Chicago was just last year ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the city’s long-standing ban on private ownership of firearms. Since that decision (known as McDonald v. City of Chicago) was handed down, anti-firearms politicians have openly thwarted the decision and tried every trick in the book to avoid complying with the High Court; including a ban on gun ranges within city limits. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling, and enjoined the city from enforcing the gun-range ban.

The appellate court noted that such a ban constitutes “a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.”

The circuit court opinion slammed the anti-gun ordinance passed by the city’s Board of Alderman in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago. The law required that all residents of the city must have training, including an hour of live instruction. The court wrote that “[t]his was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.” The appeals court panel added, “The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits.”

City leaders, including Emanuel, apparently saw the writing on the wall, and passed new regulations that purported to allow gun ranges in the city before the decision by the Seventh Circuit was announced. This move, however, was a cynical ploy to keep the city’s law-abiding citizens disarmed. The regulations make it virtually impossible to construct or manage a gun range in the city. Such establishments, for example, as noted by the Chicago Times, “could be built only in areas of Chicago zoned for manufacturing and would have to be more than 1,000 feet away from residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals.”

Moreover, as the Washington Times recently pointed out, the latest ordinance requires “so many bureaucratic approvals, fees and requirements that nobody could possibly run a successful operation meeting the conditions.”

While anti-firearms advocates may cheer Chicago’s continued efforts to thwart directives from the highest courts in the land, law-abiding citizens of the Windy City continue to suffer, by being victimized daily by criminals who have no trouble finding guns on the black market.

It is high time for the courts to start imposing sanctions directly on the politicians themselves who are abusing their oaths of office to uphold the law and the Constitution, and who are in open contempt of the federal courts.

by Bob Barr — The Barr Code

120 comments Add your comment

Joe B Virginia

July 28th, 2011
9:36 am

Owning and carrying a firearm is an exercise of both freedom and responsibility. Thanks to legal canceled carry in Virginia, our crime rate is much lower that it is in Maryland and Washington D.C. Simply – criminals go to where the chances of them robbing an armed victim is minimal.

Most thinking people come to the inevitable conclusion that criminals and politicians are the only ones who prefer and unarmed populace.

Joe B Virginia

July 28th, 2011
9:44 am

Owning and carrying a firearm is an exercise of both freedom and responsibility. Thanks to legal concealed carry in Virginia, our crime rate is much lower than it is in nearby Maryland and Washington D.C. Quite simply – criminals prefer to go to where the chances of them robbing an armed victim is minimal.
Most thinking people come to the inevitable conclusion that criminals and politicians are the only two classes of people who prefer an unarmed populace.

prosehooter

July 28th, 2011
10:09 am

Maybe a few citizens should file a class action suit against the city. The only thing governments understand is getting hit in the wallet. A 100 million dollar judgment would get everybody’s attention.

ron

July 28th, 2011
10:44 am

Love the 2 comments by Marko and hsn and a bunch of others, it really shows how clueless you are. A bomb is a weapon of mass destruction it is not an “arm’ as you both have tried to argue in your comments above. Taken into consideration of when the constituition was written and how the second amendment states “”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I certainly would like to see someone carrying around his or her “A” bomb. The second amendment is provided for citizens to be called up as militia and to protect ones property and person. You can try to put your own spin on what “arms” means, but those things have already been decided by judges who are much more intelligent then a lot of the people posting here.
In Norway, one man just scarred a lot of people in that country for the rest of there lives by killing people and children to “make a point”. I want you to use your brain now when I ask you this; This extremist attacked an island camp for youths KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THERE WOULD BE NOBODY ON THAT ISLAND THAT WOULD BE ABLE TOO SHOOT BACK AT HIM! If the laws were different in Norway where law abiding citizens could obtain and carry firearms for their protection or the protection of children, do you really think this individual would have attacked that camp? I doubt it. I certainly don’t think there would be the number of dead that there is if anyone on that island were themselves armed. Criminals, and mentally ill people attack individuals who are weaker and that they know cannot fight back. When was the last time you heard of a police station being attacked? or an NRA function or building for that matter.

Greg Camp

July 28th, 2011
11:38 am

caslosgvv at 8:47,

I’m well aware that fighting A-10s and Abrams tanks cannot be done with a handgun or the like. Various insurgencies have done the job with IEDs, though. In addition, movements like that use other techniques of asymetrical warfare–attacking softer targets, for example. In no sense am I advocating attacking our military or starting a revolution. In our history, our military has been subordinated to the civilian leadership and, with a few exceptions, has served with honor to protect our rights. I’m not crazy or deluded to recognize that this present blessing could change, even though it’s highly unlikely to do so.

As for the notion of guns as phallic symbols, can we please allow Freud to fade from our discourse? I have no doubt that some gun owners use their firearms as substitute masculinity, just as some car owners or stock holders or office holders do, but your remarks are the equivalent to saying that because my neighbor who belongs to race X is a slob, all members of race X are slobs. I would appreciate you not making judgements about my character or mental state until you know me. Isn’t that supposed to be one of the lessons of the civil rights movement?

Greg Camp

July 28th, 2011
12:07 pm

Tory II, Illinois,

The Second Amendment isn’t about crew-served weapons or warships. As I wrote above, “arms” refers only to the personal weapons that a gentleman possessed in the period. It certainly does apply to military rifles, as a flintlock Kentucky was state of the art at the time, but it doesn’t mean artillery or nukes.

Jefferson

July 28th, 2011
12:10 pm

Fear drives one to arm, good thing its legal.

Jim Biggie

July 28th, 2011
1:05 pm

Liberals will never just “get it” They believe killing unborn babies is a right, yet protecting ones family is not. 2012 is going to be a wake up for all American liberal constitution hating people. I although I disagree with 99.9% of liberal views, I fully support their right to voice and protest them. Unfortunately liberals do not believe non liberals are entitled to that same right and freedom. America’s shift to the right is going to change everything the left has done because of its radical approach. I have carried for 30 years in Illinois, I will continue regardless of the $1500 -$2000 it costs in fees and fines when I have been caught. I would rather be judged by 12 then be carried by 6.

DeanOGuns

July 28th, 2011
2:45 pm

Maybe Chicago and/or the state of Illinois will also proclaim the right to issue a First Amendment card. You can’t speak out against Chicago democrats unless you have a permit.

FWIW, recent SCOTUS rulings have said that the 2nd amendment applies to all, it cannot be restricted on a state-by-state basis. The 14th amendment protects us from states like Illinois and cities like Chicago. What do you want? Another civil war?

Who in the hell elected a Chicago democrat as president? Were you all stoned or something?

DeanOGuns

July 28th, 2011
2:48 pm

One more thing… whatever happened to punishing criminals? Quinn is setting them free as fast as he can. Better yet, we could offer Chicago to Wisconsin, but Wisconsin wouldn’t want that corrupt POS.

Joe B Virginia

July 28th, 2011
3:27 pm

Those who say the 2nd Amendment is outdated or only applies to those who belong to a militia are the unfortunate products of our failed public education system. Not to say they shouldn’t have strived towards self improvement later on.

Penn and Teller have a funny and yet educational clip posted on YouTube that explains the 2nd Amendment so that even public education dropouts can comprehend it.

Voice

July 28th, 2011
5:54 pm

DeanOGuns

Pat Quinn is laughed at all over the midwest. Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin all laugh because Quinn and his commie cronnies are sending business elsewhere. Caterpillar already threatened to move south.

John E. Reif

July 28th, 2011
7:08 pm

Hello Greg Camp,

I do have a Florida Concealed and Carry Permit and will be taking class in Ohio for the Utah Concealed and Carry Permit. I teach the Personal Protection in the Home through the NRA. With this class students may apply for Concealed and Carry Permit where it applies. It would be nice to see Illinois get on board with the Concealed and Carry Permit. Thanks

John E. Reif

July 28th, 2011
7:16 pm

Hello Jim Biggie,

I beleive how you do about Concealed and Carry. I still follow the law in Illinois on how I carry my pistols. It will just take me a minute longer to load and fire theml. Good luck. Just be careful.

John E. Reif
Carrollton, Illinois

John E. Reif

July 28th, 2011
7:23 pm

Hello Joe B. Virginia

Only people who break the law with a Pistol do not have a Concealed and Carry Permit. They feed on those who do not have a weapon to protect themselves. With a Concealed and Carry Permit the bad guys will think twice about trying to rob or hurt you. The police response time is what people need to be thinking about. Good Luck

John E. Reif
Carrollton, Illinois

Warm Springs, Georgia

July 28th, 2011
8:18 pm

The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

Earnán

July 28th, 2011
9:45 pm

When some :nice little fellow” pulls a nuke out of his backside we’ll take your silly nonsense seriously.

The Second Amendment is about weapons. The right to KEEP them and the right to BEAR them.

So while there may not be an “unrestricted” right there sure as hell is a RIGHT to do a lot more in the way of KEEPING and BEARING than gun-fearing victim-disarming liberals such as yourself are able to stomach.

Starting with no registration: registration serves no purpose other than to facilitate the sort of bans that the Supreme Court has ruled unConstitutional.

No bans on guns because they’re scary-looking or “military-style”—those are precisely the sort of “militia” weapons that are protected by the Second Amendment.

No more bans on concealed carry by ordinary citizens—40 states already agree on this, but Illinois continues to disarm the honest and decent while ignoring those who use guns to commit real crimes against innocent people.

ray3221

July 29th, 2011
12:07 am

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you morons not understand? What a bunch of libtard nonsense.I don’t want a nuclear bomb idiots but I do want what has always been legal in this nation left alone.First it was the “Saturday Night Special” (take the handguns away( then the assault rifles ( there goes our semi automatic firearms) Next? the “sniper rifle”? Our hunting rifles.The urban idots crying for gun control are always those that know the least.I swear if I hear one more urban libtard say clip (it’s not a clip it’s called a magazine) or assault rifle (an assault rifle is a slect fire machinegun already regulated by the US government) So sick of the anti-gun morons out there trampling all over my 2nd Amendment rights.

John

July 29th, 2011
1:33 pm

I really need to clarify some of the comments on our constitution.

The constitution DOES NOT grant any rights, such as free speech, right to bear arms, religious rights ETC.

Those rights were determined by our forefathers to be inalienable (God given) rights, and as such are granted to everyone just for being human. What the constitution does is attempt to protect those rights.
And yes self defense is one of those rights.

Bob Johnson

July 29th, 2011
6:42 pm

The second amendment does not grant a right. It simply states that a right that was always in existence shall not be infringed. You anti-gun people have the mentality of a grape.