Breaking: Federal judge strikes down Chicago’s ban on handgun sales

posted at 7:21 pm on January 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Fun fact: The judge, Edmond Chang, is an Obama appointee.

Courts have been slapping Chicago around on guns for years now. In 2010, after issuing the landmark Heller decision finding an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court followed up by striking down Chicago’s gun ban. The issue in that case was whether the right to bear arms was so fundamental that it should also shield citizens from state bans just as it shielded Heller from a ban in the federal District of Columbia. Answer: Yep. So Chicago went back to the drawing board, redrafting its ordinance to allow lawful possession of guns inside the home but banning gun sales inside the city. Was that enough to evade Heller?

Nope:

U.S. District Court Judge Edmond E. Chang wrote in a 35-page opinion that “Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms . . .”

City of Chicago attorneys argued that it needed to ban the sale of handguns within the city because it wanted to restrict criminals’ access to licensed dealers; restrict gun acquisition in the illegal market; and eliminate gun shops, which are dangerous in themselves and cannot be properly regulated.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit — a combination of Chicago residents and an association of Illinois firearms retailers — argued that if they have the right to have a handgun within city limits — as courts have ruled — then they have a right to buy one within the city.

That argument carried the day with the judge.

The city argued that pushing gun sales outside of Chicago would make things harder for gang members. Chang’s surprising reply:

ec1

Sensible, which is precisely why it’s surprising coming from an Obama appointee on this issue. Elsewhere the city argued that banning gun sales would help reduce gun crime. Chang’s even more surprising reply: The cops have other means of doing that, like, say … stop-and-frisk.

c2c3

How this guy made it onto O’s judicial shortlist, I’ll never know. Maybe there’s a “three cheers for late-term abortion” opinion lurking somewhere in his background. This opinion’s part of a general trend against Chicago gun laws, though, and not all of it is coming from the courts. A few months ago the state legislature made Illinois the last state in the country to legalize concealed carry, forcing Chicago to re-write its gun ordinance yet again to accommodate the practice. The same law also made the city end its registry of gun owners. Now it’ll have to allow sales, per Chang’s opinion. We’ll see what happens to crime stats next year, but three years after the SCOTUS decision that invalidated Chicago’s gun ban, the city posted its lowest homicide rate since the mid-60s. Hmmmm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Holder must be furious at this judge.

commodore on January 6, 2014 at 7:25 PM

In Crook County of all places… and Barky will have a tough time playing the race card against his own selection named Chang.

Maybe Judge Chang has dealt with enough of Obama’s sons etc. to realize the 2nd Amendment is important to him, too.

viking01 on January 6, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Watch the crime rates drop in ChiTown.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Can they still get ammo..?

d1carter on January 6, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Here’s a fun fact, the number of murders, in Chicago, in 1929, was less than it was in 2009. Another fun fact, it was legal to buy a Thompson sub-machine gun, in 1929, and it’s not now. I’m sure, if you really dug into it, there would be many more fun facts, but those are 2 that struck me. I thought about searching them out when I found out you could actually by a Thompson sub-machine gun over the counter in 1929, and they also had the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929, which should have given the rate a jump.

bflat879 on January 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Piers Morgan already has his panties in a twist.

myiq2xu on January 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Holder must be furious at this judge.

commodore on January 6, 2014 at 7:25 PM

You’re pretty fast there…

NMRN123 on January 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Could this guy be Obama’s Judge Souter???

bflat879 on January 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Yes!

A win for the Commonsense Civil right of Self-defense!!!!

NMRN123 on January 6, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Chang is a white Hispa…uh…white Asian.

Bishop on January 6, 2014 at 7:33 PM

How this guy made it onto O’s judicial shortlist, I’ll never know.

Cause with the current make up of the supremes everything else looks bad on a resume.

Could this guy be Obama’s Judge Souter???

bflat879 on January 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM

No. next question.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Holder must be furious at this judge.

commodore on January 6, 2014 at 7:25 PM

You’re pretty fast there…

NMRN123 on January 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Nicely played. :-)

crrr6 on January 6, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Yes, you can POSSESS a printing press within the city of Chicago, but your CAN’T SELL NEWSPAPERS you print on it.

What do you mean that’s a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Socratease on January 6, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Chang is a white Hispa…uh…white Asian.

Bishop on January 6, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Gotta say that with more Revrum Wrong venom… dats a hhhhhhwhite Asian!

viking01 on January 6, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Here’s a fun fact, the number of murders, in Chicago, in 1929, was less than it was in 2009.

But what’s the per-capita murder rate for those two years?

Socratease on January 6, 2014 at 7:41 PM

How this guy made it onto O’s judicial shortlist, I’ll never know.

Yeah, how on earth did somebody named Edmond Chang make it to the short list by a liberal Democrat who values race and gender over ability and competence.

I’m not saying Judge Chang isn’t competent but it is little wonder why he made the short list. And it isn’t because he went to the University of Michigan.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Would love to have seen Rahm’s reaction to this when he found out.

Murphy9 on January 6, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Holder must be furious at this judge.
commodore on January 6, 2014 at 7:25 PM

You’re pretty fast there…

NMRN123 on January 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Nicely played. :-)

crrr6 on January 6, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Waitaminnitt… Isn’t crr6 the same guy that called Fast and Furious a phony scandal…?

PointnClick on January 6, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Holder must be furious at this judge.

commodore on January 6, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Yeah but Obama is madder.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Would love to have seen Rahm’s reaction to this when he found out.

Murphy9 on January 6, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Somebody’s getting a dead fish!

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Waitaminnitt… Isn’t crr6 the same guy that called Fast and Furious a phony scandal…?

PointnClick on January 6, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Look closely a the number of “r”‘s

bernzright777 on January 6, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Oh geez this means that non-nonpartisan will make an appearance.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

This judge can look forward to a big, fat tax audit.

Philly on January 6, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Nicely played. :-)

crrr6 on January 6, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Waitaminnitt… Isn’t crr6 the same guy that called Fast and Furious a phony scandal…?

PointnClick on January 6, 2014 at 7:45 PM

…extra ‘r’….this one is cool… and has working brain cells

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Sensible, which is precisely why it’s surprising coming from an Obama appointee on this issue.

It’ll be a cold day in Hell Chicago when an Obama appointee does something sensible.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Oh geez this means that non-nonpartisan will make an appearance.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I heard he froze to the tree / fire hydrant.

viking01 on January 6, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Fun fact: The judge, Edmond Chang, is an Obama appointee.
=========================================================

AP,..I’m Shocked,

and this was the warning I talked about,
back to when Elana Kagan, the “Social Activist”
would carry out Hopeys dreams for years to come,
in the SCJOTUS role!!!

canopfor on January 6, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Next step, light-bulbs.

aquaviva on January 6, 2014 at 8:10 PM

How this guy made it onto O’s judicial shortlist, I’ll never know

…even blind squirrels can find a nut?

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Choom Chang!

jukin3 on January 6, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Maybe there’s a “three cheers for late-term abortion”
====================================================

OOPS!!

Texas abortion bill
4h

3-judge panel expresses skepticism over arguments that new Texas abortion law creates ‘undue burden’ on women seeking procedure – @HoustonChron
read more on chron.com
========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on January 6, 2014 at 8:12 PM

I heard he froze to the tree / fire hydrant.chicken viking01 on January 6, 2014 at 8:09 PM

wolly4321 on January 6, 2014 at 8:14 PM

holy cow….

who’da thunk it…

cmsinaz on January 6, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Bishop on January 6, 2014 at 7:33 PM

heh

cmsinaz on January 6, 2014 at 8:17 PM

3-judge panel expresses skepticism over arguments that new Texas abortion law creates ‘undue burden’ on women seeking procedure – @HoustonChron
read more on chron.com
========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on January 6, 2014 at 8:12 PM

abortion rights advocates say that a new Texas abortion law creates an “undue burden” on women attempting to obtain the procedure…forcing women there to travel hundreds of miles.

“You know how long that takes in Texas at 75 miles an hour?” asked Justice Edith Jones. “That’s a particularly flat highway.”

Heh…

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Second look at Obama court appointees? //

Bitter Clinger on January 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Obama: The judge acted stupidly.

TXUS on January 6, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Obama: The judge acted stupidly.

TXUS on January 6, 2014 at 8:29 PM

TXUS:Lol:)

canopfor on January 6, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Here’s a fun fact, the number of murders, in Chicago, in 1929, was less than it was in 2009. Another fun fact, it was legal to buy a Thompson sub-machine gun, in 1929, and it’s not now. I’m sure, if you really dug into it, there would be many more fun facts, but those are 2 that struck me. I thought about searching them out when I found out you could actually by a Thompson sub-machine gun over the counter in 1929, and they also had the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929, which should have given the rate a jump.

bflat879 on January 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Were police as militarized then as they are today with the Thompson sub-machine gun being widely available? That would be an interesting Fun Fact.

My guess is no, no they were not.

Punchenko on January 6, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Watch Chicago Democrats run on substantially reduced crime rates after a widely publicized string concealed-carry, self-defense shootings thinning the herd of bad guys.

BuckeyeSam on January 6, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Wear Pajamas.

Drink Hot Chocolate.

Call this Activist Judge an Idiot.

hugs,

nonpartisan

Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Here’s a fun fact, the number of murders, in Chicago, in 1929, was less than it was in 2009. Another fun fact, it was legal to buy a Thompson sub-machine gun, in 1929, and it’s not now. I’m sure, if you really dug into it, there would be many more fun facts, but those are 2 that struck me. I thought about searching them out when I found out you could actually by a Thompson sub-machine gun over the counter in 1929, and they also had the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929, which should have given the rate a jump.

bflat879 on January 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM

The “Tommy Gun”‘s use by gangsters is largely a myth, anyway.

When John T. Thompson formed the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in 1920, he had Colt make the actual component sets for the guns, because he had no actual facilities; AO was a patent holding entity.

Colt built 10,000 Model 1921 component sets, and in 1927-29 built a further 8,000 Model 1928 sets. (The difference between the two is mainly the patent dates stamped on the receivers.)

When World War Two erupted a decade later (1939), and the French and British Purchasing Commissions came calling, Colt was delighted to sell them the remaining stock. About 16,500 sets.

Yes, only about 1,500 “Tommy Guns” were sold in two decades.

And most went to law enforcement or the military. The Marine Corps used Thompsons in Nicaragua in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Several foreign armies used them as well, notably the Bolivians in the Gran Chaco War (1932-39). They saw service in the Spanish Civil War, too, mostly in the hands of Republican volunteers financed by, among others, the Rockefellers (due to the other side being backed by Il Duce and Herr Schickelgruber).

Contrary to the movies, “G-Men” rarely used Thompsons, for the simple reason that prior to 1925, agents of the Bureau of Investigation (it wasn’t the “Federal” bureau until then) weren’t even allowed to carry sidearms. Most Thompsons in law enforcement hands belonged to either state police, local departments, or prison guard units.

As for criminals, Al Capone’s mob used one Thompson and two shotguns in the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, because they had a total of two Tommy Guns altogether. They were “Snorky’s” personal property, kept in a hidden closet in his mother’s house in Cicero- and acquired from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. (Yes, money changed hands under the table.)

John Dillinger had two Thompsons, as well. He stole them in his (in)famous “gun made from a bar of soap” jailbreak. He never actually used them in a crime.

The Barker gang, notably Ma Barker, never had any Thompsons, period. Neither did Bonnie & Clyde. (Never mind the movie with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.)They all used Browning Automatic Rifles, which they acquired by stealing them from military armories. Clyde Barrow chopped the barrels off his BARs just ahead of the end of the gas cylinder, and cut four inches off the shoulder stock. Mainly because he was only 5’4″ tall, and the “stock” BAR was just too big for him to handle.

The Thompson used by “Pretty Boy” Floyd in the “Kansas City Massacre”? Stolen from the Kansas City, MO, police department.

As for Clarence “Machine Gun” Kelly, he never even had one. The monicker was made up by his wife. And Kelly’s one “successful” crime, a kidnapping, landed him in prison for life after a criminal career lasting about five months. (His life would make a great movie- but it would have to be written by somebody like Woody Allen.)

Speaking of movies, the single biggest non-”authority” user of the Thompson prior to World War Two was… Warner Brothers Film Studios, Inc. They bought forty Model 1921s in 1928, to make “gangster” movies with. In early Vitagraph sound gangster films, if you look close at a Tommy Gun being fired, it has the military-pattern blank-firing adapter clamped to the Cutts Compensator on the muzzle; it wasn’t until later that they figure out how to make an effective bore restrictor that fit inside the barrel.

Oh, and the famous magazine ad showing a cowboy shooting up rustlers with a Tommy Gun? That was an attempt to convince the buying public that the Thompson was actually worth the $300 it cost in 1926.

People still didn’t buy them. Not when a good bolt-action or lever-action rifle cost about forty bucks.

The Thompson was, and is, an effective weapon out to about 200 yards. (I speak from personal experience with the arm.) But its “criminal history” has been overblown, both by Hollywood and politicians with an ax to grind.

Simply put, most Thompsons spent the Roaring Twenties in Auto-Ordnance’s warehouse. They wouldn’t see action until Germany invaded Poland.

cheers

eon

eon on January 6, 2014 at 8:55 PM

eon on January 6, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Very interesting. Thanks.

CDeb on January 6, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Holder must be furious at this judge.
commodore on January 6, 2014 at 7:25 PM

You’re pretty fast there…

NMRN123 on January 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Oh you guys and your silly names for scandals.

Nutstuyu on January 6, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Watch the crime rates drop in ChiTown.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2014 at 7:28 PM

That depends. Did the judge tell people where they might purchase ammo?

oldleprechaun on January 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM

When the courts forced Chicago to allow citizens to have guns in their homes the city came back with a list of restrictions that was so ridiculous that the issue had to go back to the courts again, which slapped them around some more.

Chicago is going to do the same to this ruling.

They are purposefully going to put restrictions on the right to buy and sell guns such as a mandatory 100 million insurance policy for any gun store, hours only between noon and 1:00 PM, must keep inventory locked up at night behind a certified bank vault door, and other nonsense. They attempted to zone the court ordered firing ranges so that they would only fit into ZERO areas in the city. That got slapped down also. They are going to do the same with the gun stores. They don’t care about the courts, or spending the taxpayers monies on going back again and again and losing.

JackBurtonJr on January 6, 2014 at 10:43 PM

Here’s a fun fact, the number of murders, in Chicago, in 1929, was less than it was in 2009. Another fun fact, it was legal to buy a Thompson sub-machine gun, in 1929, and it’s not now. I’m sure, if you really dug into it, there would be many more fun facts, but those are 2 that struck me. I thought about searching them out when I found out you could actually by a Thompson sub-machine gun over the counter in 1929, and they also had the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929, which should have given the rate a jump.

bflat879 on January 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM</

Years ago I saw a famous newspaper ad from the 20′s for a Thompson. It showed a man with a smoking Thompson on his front porch facing a pile of dead men and horses in his front yard under the slogan “The perfect weapon to protect hearth and home.” Now that’s marketing.

Fred 2 on January 7, 2014 at 2:05 AM

You might think that Chicago wants to keep criminals in business while the citizens cower in fear. Now whom would that serve?

njcommuter on January 7, 2014 at 7:32 AM

Just because he was an Obama appointee does not mean he is mush brained.

No judge wants to be reversed on appeal.

The Supreme Court seems to have spoken on the issue and he is applying it.

He seemed to apply something greater than Rational basis since the case was about, in part, denying citizens the legal right to buy firearms within the city.

Rational basis means if the government can come up with some “rational” reason for a statute, it should be considered constitional. On that basis, the City should have prevailed.

Under Strict scrutiny, the law is considered unconstitutional and it is the government’s burden to prove that it is constitutional — that the law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly construed to achieve that interest. It is often applied where fundamental rights are to be restricted.

Since the right to possess firearms by citizens was at least partially at issue, one can see why the judge was much more strict about the law and his reasoning than he might otherwise have been.

Russ808 on January 7, 2014 at 8:01 PM