Post Heller Chicago Suit
Judge upholds Chicago’s handgun ban:
A federal judge today upheld Chicago’s 1982 handgun ban as Mayor Daley disclosed plans to strengthen it by following Washington D.C.’s lead.
In a 5-to-4 decision in June, the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. handgun ban on grounds that the Second Amendment establishes the right to own a handgun for personal self-defense.
Hours later, the National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed lawsuits seeking to overturn handgun bans in Chicago, Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park. Wilmette and Morton Grove subsequently repealed their handgun bans. Chicago held fast.
Today, U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur rewarded the city for hanging tough, rejecting a pair of lawsuits challenging Chicago’s handgun freeze.
The Daley administration was pleased, but “not surprised” by the decision. City attorneys are well aware that the fight goes on.
“We believe this decision will ultimately end up in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle.
Well, that is the plan. David Hardy doesn’t seem to be too surprised:
Even assuming the judge wasn’t part of the local machine, the Circuit Court, which is over his head, ruled the other way in the original Morton Grove case, and he can’t overrule them. But you have to raise the issue in front of him, anyway, in order to get the right to appeal.
And the judge isn’t too confident in the ruling standing:
Todd Vandermyde, Illinois legislative liaison for the NRA, called today’s ruling a temporary victory for the city.
“It was expected. We went to court knowing it’s going to take a higher court’s ruling. As Judge Shadur enumerated in his decision, he’s still bound by the precedent set by the 7th Circuit [Court of Appeals]. He wasn’t going to stick his neck out on an issue that the 7th Circuit hasn’t changed its mind on,” he said.
“City taxpayers are going to pay more money in legal fees for a fight they will ultimately lose. The city is only postponing the inevitable. They won this round. But if this thing goes to the Supreme Court, we will prevail. The court laid out a very compelling case with a lot of foundation for an individual’s right to bear arms,” said Vandermyde.
In his ruling, Shadur appeared to caution the city that its victory might be short-lived.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Yes, that’s an accurate explantion of what happens in federal courts for any Constitutional case. The lower judges ignore the constitution 95% of the time, knowing 99% of folks cannot afford to appeal. It costs $100,000 per normal lawsuit just at the local district court level, with perhaps $1-million to argue at the Supreme Court level.
Unless a person is pro se without a lawyer, and is home-schooled on winning in court, with a winning record in lower courts and appeals in other cases.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I fail to get excited over such things, given that DC still has refused to honor the Heller ruling.
What’s the point?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The positive I take from it is that – eventually – the lawyers on our side are going to get paid. The more money they make, the more money they can spend to help the cause. At least the citizens of Illinois are getting something good for their tax dollars.
In a way, we gunnies should thank Chicago for not only helping to further our cause, but also for ‘donating’ money to the NRA. 🙂
December 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Weer’d Beard: In a situation like D.C., the point is to get the government to violate court directions to the point where the court orders them to Do The Right Thing, after which violations are contempt of court (I’m in this case assuming they won’t fold) or perhaps even a special master is appointed to supervise the government.
Judges don’t like their will being thwarted so that moves things into a different domain but the courts have to assume good will until a party demonstrates otherwise.
This dance happens all the time and if you compare our fight to the civil rights one of the last century we’re at a point somewhere before Brown v. Board of Education. E.g. there was a case that merely enforced “separate but equal” on the University of Missouri, but it had little or no actual effect, or at least plaintiff was nowhere to be found when the case was finally decided in his favor. But it was “a good first step”.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Yet more proof that America is no longer a nation under the Rule of Law.
Riots and chaos to follow soon…
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
I would say, comparing this to the civil rights struggles of the last century, that we are more accurately just past “Brown v Board of Education,” since that decision, while a landmark, was by no means the end of segregation. Segregated schools, movie theaters, restaurants, etc. persisted in both the South and the North for at least a decade afterward.
“Heller” was our “Brown,” but the struggle will continue for many years, and to drag that metaphor out just a bit longer, having B. Hussein Obama as President will be equivalent to what a George C. Wallace Presidency would have meant to civil rights.