Update in Chicago Case

Dave Hardy provides a few links to the motion for summary judgment in the Chicago handgun case.  A few things pop out at me:

  1. They offer the possibility of using the privileges and immunities clause, which was gutted in the Slaughterhouse Cases.  If the court bites, we’d be re-blazing a trail long ago scorched by the Supreme Court.
  2. It appears Mr. Gura is attempting to chip away a bit at registration.  While they are not challenging Chicago’s registration requirements per se, they are challenging a few aspects of it.  Here’s an exerpt:

Whatever the value of registration, the requirement that guns be constantly re-registered burdens gun ownership but serves no useful purpose.  The city already mandates that registrants immediately notify police of any changes in their registration information, including loss or disposition of a gun or registration certificate.  Chicago Mun. Code § 8-20-140.  Moreover, “[a] state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).  The penalty for lapsed or improper registration rendering the subject firearm “unregisterable” is likewise unconstitutional.

One bite off the apple at a time is how we’ll win this.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. What Progress Looks Like
  2. Partial Win in DC Circuit
  3. SAF Chicago Case Update

9 thoughts on “Update in Chicago Case”

  1. I believe there are strict length restrictions to the pleadings that greatly affect how much you can include in a given lawsuit.

  2. Moreover, “[a] state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

    Oh I like where this is going. I would to see this little gem used in a place like Jersey. This is beautiful!

  3. Gura spoke about the Chicago case at the SAF/SCCC event in Washington. It was on CSPAN. John Lott has the link.

  4. Damn – the “charge for enjoyment…” language could rule out burdensome taxes on both guns and ammo, too…

  5. Isn’t the re-registration thing state law? I remember a couple of years ago that several people who lived outside Chicago had their guns confiscated because they had missed the re-registration deadline.

  7. I am SOOOOO glad to see the “Murdock” case cited, and cited this soon after “Heller.” Once you had a ruling that the 2nd protected a basic individual right, the use of “Murdock” was inevitable, due to its lack of equivocation. The State (meaning the government at any level) may NOT unduly burden the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. Yeah, they can charge normal sales tax on the purchase of a gun, ammo, reloading components, magazines, etc. – but they CAN’T charge anything above that rate. There should be NO fees ANYWHERE for the registration of a firearm – and once the revenue source dries up, you won’t see too many states or municipalities interested in registration.

  8. No, rightwingprof, the registration scheme is Chicago only and has no basis in IL state law, nor Cook County law for that matter though it has been proposed to cut and paste Chicago registration law and make it County-wide.

    Interestingly, as a matter of State law, if you use a firearm to defend yourself or family in your home and it is illegal to possess the firearm in your city/county you are protected from punishment.

  9. Won’t help you against federal charges, though.

    Another case where being a felon sucks. You can’t get a decent job, etc.

Comments are closed.