Ezell vs Chicago spin off suit

[NorCal Mtn Flyer]

Just happened across this, and realized it was connected to Ezell vs Chicago.
Hope its not a dupe...

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/jesus-duenas-wins-handgun-lawsuit-chicago-20110819

"Duenas was arrested and charged with failure to register a firearm. He says he didn't register it because he says he couldn't find certified gun ranges in Chicago or in the suburbs."


Doesn't this open another can of worms for Chicago?

[Anchors]

At least the judge dismissed charges. It says he's due back in court though because the city said he got the gun and then was charged with a crime?

How can he get in trouble for having a gun and committing a crime in which the charges were dismissed?

[Ubermcoupe]

Sounds like more evidence against "back door" legislature. Lawyer has it right "left over from the Daly admin..."

[dvcrsn]

I hope Chicago gets a major smackdown

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is very good, and here's why: Ultimately the courts will have to face the issue of licensing a fundamental right. This is relevant to Chicago, IL, DC, MA and others. We know that possessing a handgun in the home is a fundamental right. IF licensing that right ends up being okay, the courts will have to ask themselves if failure to have a license can really be a criminal (as opposed to a civil) offense.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Just happened across this, and realized it was connected to Ezell vs Chicago.
Hope its not a dupe...

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/jesus-duenas-wins-handgun-lawsuit-chicago-20110819

"Duenas was arrested and charged with failure to register a firearm. He says he didn't register it because he says he couldn't find certified gun ranges in Chicago or in the suburbs."


Doesn't this open another can of worms for Chicago?

I was astonished to see that the newscast was all about 'a little guy against the machine' instead of a 'how dare he have a gun' type of piece.

The times are indeed a changin'.


The Raisuli

[sholling]

This is very good, and here's why: Ultimately the courts will have to face the issue of licensing a fundamental right. This is relevant to Chicago, IL, DC, MA and others. We know that possessing a handgun in the home is a fundamental right. IF licensing that right ends up being okay, the courts will have to ask themselves if failure to have a license can really be a criminal (as opposed to a civil) offense.

While carry licensing may pass muster I think the courts are going to quickly need to get to the conclusion that licensing for mere possession is unacceptable. It's sort of like the 1st Amendment distinction between requiring a license before mounting a public protest and requiring a license to talk politics with your wife in your own home.

[hoffmang]

While carry licensing may pass muster I think the courts are going to quickly need to get to the conclusion that licensing for mere possession is unacceptable. It's sort of like the 1st Amendment distinction between requiring a license before mounting a public protest and requiring a license to talk politics with your wife in your own home.

This is the first place we would be able to attack licensing/registration. However, really simple licensing registration (HSC/DROS here) may be valid. Chicago's is about the opposite of really simple...

-Gene

[sholling]

This is the first place we would be able to attack licensing/registration. However, really simple licensing registration (HSC/DROS here) may be valid. Chicago's is about the opposite of really simple...

-Gene

I agree with you that DROS or an equivalent background check requirement to buy a weapon will stand up, at least as long as felons are denied 2nd Amendment rights which could be forever. However if we get genuine strict scrutiny where the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and narrowly tailor the the law to limit its intrusiveness then registration may eventually fall. It's pretty easy to show a compelling need to run background checks but it's harder to demonstrate a compelling need to know who has what guns other than an agenda to confiscate them later. It's way too soon to tackle now and it may be one of the very last nuts that we try to crack but once we have several years of strict scrutiny under our belts we should look at eliminating registration.

[ddestruel]

I agree with you that DROS or an equivalent background check requirement to buy a weapon will stand up, at least as long as felons are denied 2nd Amendment rights which could be forever. However if we get genuine strict scrutiny where the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and narrowly tailor the the law to limit its intrusiveness then registration may eventually fall. It's pretty easy to show a compelling need to run background checks but it's harder to demonstrate a compelling need to know who has what guns other than an agenda to confiscate them later. It's way too soon to tackle now and it may be one of the very last nuts that we try to crack but once we have several years of strict scrutiny under our belts we should look at eliminating registration.

Heres my random thought for the night:

I wonder if we will ever be able to challenge the relevance of the DROS vs Federal check system and how a state can restrict or regulate with a higher standard or can they even demonstrate that their higher standard is anything but equal and therefore an unnecessary additional burden. if firearms are federally protected via the federal constitution then couldn’t it be claimed that intrastate encumbrances are states regulating an interstate regulated and protected product and right. If the federal system is sufficient then the state shouldnt be allowed to set a higher bar via their own forced and more costly system or at least the consumer should be granted teh option to use either or.

CA was granted a special exemption to regulate emissions but federally set vehicle standards were the benchmark for the other 49 states, you don’t see Oregon regulating that all vehicles being sold in their state must be green (Oregon ducks) and pass the special Oregon inspection before they can be sold in there state. I can only hope over time through careful planning that we end up killing the DROS or CA’s meddling.

[Rossi357]

If you lived in the LA basin in the 60's you would have seen why they regulated omissons on cars. The smog was so bad you had to chew up the air before you could breath it.

[Dreaded Claymore]

I was astonished to see that the newscast was all about 'a little guy against the machine' instead of a 'how dare he have a gun' type of piece.

The times are indeed a changin'.

I agree, this is a significant difference from the usual tone.

If you lived in the LA basin in the 60's you would have seen why they regulated emissons on cars. The smog was so bad you had to chew up the air before you could breathe it.

See, that's why I'm an environmentalist. And the bolded comment made me laugh pretty hard.

[ddestruel]

If you lived in the LA basin in the 60's you would have seen why they regulated omissons on cars. The smog was so bad you had to chew up the air before you could breath it.

lets not forget that federally all vehicle emissions went into being phased in at that time ...... as well none of the factories or power plans were regulated back then which were also determined to be major contributors to the smog issues in the LA basin.


The catch here is CA was granted by congress the ability to regulate emissions on their own and so it has its own set of standards. yet allows federal vehilces with federal emissions systems to be brought into the state. no other state was granted that power..... so why then are states, in this case CA allowed to arbitrarily over regulate / restrict etc above and beyond what is federally set as the bench mark in this case on firearms. If an AR15 sold across state lines is legal federally how can a state not granted special powers by congress to regulate that product assume that they can. like pellet guns. With emissions federal vehicles have a benchmark to meet, states can require regular testing that it meets that standard, but those states can not forbid the sale or regulate the safety equipment or emissions above the level set by the feds.

lets not get distracted by the Why.... because the next arguement will be that CA's DROS is for the children.