Federal judge says Chicago’s gun laws unconstitutional
Pinto Nag sends us a link to NBC News which reports that a federal judge has struck down Chicago’s new gun laws are unconstitutional, you know, the new guns laws they wrote when the Supreme Court struck down their gun ban in 2010;
U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.
The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s long-standing gun ban. And last year, Illinois legislators were forced by a federal appeals court to adopt a law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons in Illinois, the only state that still banned the practice. The resulting state law largely stripped city and officials of surrounding Cook County of their authority to regulate guns, which especially irked officials in Chicago, where residents had to apply for concealed-carry permits through the police chief.
I know someone will stumble in here and try to make the case that we need to rescind the Second Amendment, or relegate us to 18th century weaponry. But, the Washington Times’ Emily Miller reports that Americans have voted with their wallets on the gun control debate;
The FBI reported that it performed an astounding 21,093,273 background checks for the year ending Dec. 31. In fact, eight of the top 10 highest weeks ever for National Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks were in 2013 (the other two were during Dec. 2012.)
The checks in 2013 were 8 percent higher than 2012. The one-year increase is significant because the year leading up to the presidential election also saw massive which firearm sales.
[…]
Smith & Wesson had net sales of $625 million in the fiscal year quarters that ended on Oct. 31, 2013. That is an impressive 25 percent increase over that same period in 2012.
Sturm, Ruger & Company reported net sales of $506 million for the first three quarters of 2013, which was a 45 percent increase over the corresponding period the previous year.
Freedom Group, which owns companies including Remington, DPMS and Bushmaster, reported that the first three quarters of 2013 had net sales of $1 billion, up 47 percent from the $677 in revenue for the same period in 2012.
Four of those 21,093,273 background checks were mine, by the way. I know, I’m a lightweight.
Category: Guns
The part of this I find amazing is the fact that Judge Chang was appointed by the current POTUS. I’m guessing he’s kinda a persona non grata at the White House now.
I personally hope Chicago appeals this. I’d love to see the principle that any blanket prohibition on sales/transfers infringes on the 2nd Amendment established by the SCOTUS.
So how many unconstitutional offenses need to occur before individuals in government are charged?
Apparently government has a monopoly on law breaking, but when even found in the wrong is allowed to continue, because, why not?
It’s almost to the point of it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, If you create laws you can just constantly deny certain rights because there is no punishment for doing so.
In Martinsburg, WV, last year, the local government offices had signs outside and inside their building that read, “No firearms permitted. By order of the sheriff.” Yeah, well, Martinsburg and the sheriff quickly learned that the sheriff had no authority to ban firearms from the building. The signs came down. So, with the new potential threat to the folks in the tax office, you might suppose that deputies were posted when the signs came down. Hell no. You see how that works? Unless challenged, the politicians will do what they damn well please. In this case, what sign would have stopped someone from doing harm if they intended to do it? None, of course. All the signs did was ensure that citizens who obeyed the signs could defend neither themselves nor anyone else if an irate tax victim went postal. (Oh, and it also meant that obedient folks had to walk back to their vehicles and use their trunk or glovebox as a lockbox after seeing the signs.)
One of the advantages of living in Maine is that you can sell your personal firearm to another individual without having to go through any government crap. Once you own it, it is simply a personal possession and, as long as you don’t sell it to anyone under age or knowingly sell it to someone prohibited from owning one, it’s yours to sell.
The only time you have to undergo a background check is if you are buying through an FFL holder. There’s no permits, licenses or registrations either. In fact, Maine is a shall issue state for CCW, and THAT is the only time you’ll need to obtain a license for a firearm.
So, the smart folks scan the classified ads and buy their weapons that way, with cash. The government, at any level, has no business knowing what type, or how many weapons you may or may not own.
So crossbows, swords, lances, war hammers, and pikes are okay, too?
AW1 – that’s as it should be…. how you choose to sell off your private property is no business of the government.
Ex-PH2: yeah, they’re “okay”. But in terms of stopping an assailant, a .45 ACP or .44 Magnum are much better than “okay”. (smile)
I finally accounted for one of those background checks again this year. I used to buy guns all the time. Then I bought a house, met a girl, got married, had a kid… Finally scraped together the cash for a Hi-Point carbine just before New Years. Damn, it felt good to be back!