Chicago gun ban tossed

The US District Court of Appeals for Northern District of Illinois struck down Chicago’s gun ban. Legalese here, or a plain English  analysis here. They said:

The ban covers federally licensed firearms dealers; even validly licensed dealers cannot sell firearms in Chicago. The ban covers gifts amongst family members; only through inheritance can someone transfer a firearm to a family member. Chicago does all this in the name of reducing gun violence. That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens. The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm,although that acquisition right is far from absolute: there are many long-standing restrictions on who may acquire firearms (for examples, felons and the mentally ill have long been banned) and there are many restrictions on the sales of arms (for example, licensing requirements for commercial sales). But Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve. For the specific reasons explained later in this opinion, the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.


1 thought on “Chicago gun ban tossed

  1. “That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens.”


    The courts say that police (an arm of government) are not required to protect any individual, and cannot be held to account if they fail – or don’t even try.
    The law (Posse Comitatus Act) limits the the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

    Exactly how going to protect citizens? With more LAWS?

    I could get behind it if the statement read: “That is one of the fundamental duties of government: not to attack, harrass, or intrude on the lives of its citizens.”

Comments are closed.