...In Chicago, unless your gun was purchased before the ban went into effect in 1982, it is illegal to possess a handgun within city limits. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt from the ban. While other firearms can be registered, under current law, handguns cannot be registered and are considered illegal....But gun rights advocates hope to change that. The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit with just that purpose in mind at 9:15 a.m.
"We want to overturn this ban. It's pretty onerous. It takes the right of self-defense away from every Chicago citizen," said Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.
The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Illinois State Sen. Kirk Dillard said at least one-third of the households in his hometown, Hinsdale, have guns, one of the highest percentages in the state. He hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying, "I think the ruling today is good news. The criminals have guns, but law-abiding citizens should not have their rights jeopardized."...
SAF is involved also (Second Amendment Foundation.)
...In addition to SAF and ISRA, plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.
“Our goal,� Gura said “is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago’s handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.�...
It kind of got pushed to the background in all likelihood from the day being dedicated to coverage of DC, SCOTUS, NRA, Brady, and such, but according to Fox this morning the cases filed in Chicagistan were likely calculated (soooprize, soooprize, sooprize) and expected by the opposition.
Because the SCOTUS Opinion was directly issued to the DC Ban in the case of Heller. Federal cannot set or change State laws. Other laws that are already in effect to the contrary must be challenged and will now be defeated at the lower court level.
No State Lawmakers in their right mind will ever create a law that infringes the individual right of the 2nd amendment again.
That is of course except for the DC Mayor.......
Alan - ANYTHING I write is MY OPINION only. Certified Curmudgeon - But, my German Shepherd loves me!
NRA-Life, USN '65-'69 & '73-'79: RM1 1911's RULE!
Target1911 wrote:Why is it that they must file a law suit in each city. Why is it that the Heller court ruling not a Nation Wide ruling?
Aside from any other reason, it will have to be challenged in other cities simply because the leadership in those cities won't do the right thing, unless the courts force it upon them.
Yes, I forgot to mention that the option exists in these Cities to "Pony Up" & "Bite the Bullet" and rescind their now clearly illegal laws that infringe on the 2nd amendment RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS as stated in the SCOTUS opinion.
Unfortunately, I kinda doubt that many will do that without wasting taxpayers money going to court with a loosing position.
Alan - ANYTHING I write is MY OPINION only. Certified Curmudgeon - But, my German Shepherd loves me!
NRA-Life, USN '65-'69 & '73-'79: RM1 1911's RULE!
Rokyudai wrote:It kind of got pushed to the background in all likelihood from the day being dedicated to coverage of DC, SCOTUS, NRA, Brady, and such, but according to Fox this morning the cases filed in Chicagistan were likely calculated (soooprize, soooprize, sooprize) and expected by the opposition.
To have filed about 3 minutes after the decision (about 10:12 Eastern) it would have been prepared long before and someone was WAITING at the Court House for word from the Hight Court. The report has the filing at 9:15 Central (in Chicago).
Pretty much when we were sending our first News and Forum messages SOMEONE put the papers on the clerks desk at the same moment.
AEA wrote:Other laws that are already in effect to the contrary must be challenged and will now be defeated at the lower court level.
You sure about that? It looked like the decision deliberately avoided the issue of incorporation.
Correct, but Scalia clearly telegraphed how the incorporation issue would most likely be handled by the majority. Further, the repeated reference to the core right of "self-defense" as being intertwined with the Second Amendment is a further indication that the Second Amendment would be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.
Chas.
Heller, Fn 23 wrote:23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation,
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did
not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by
our later cases.
