FPC Files a Lawsuit Challenging Cook County’s Assault Weapons Ban

By
admin
-
14

From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Cook County, Illinois. Case documents in Viramontes v. Cook County, Il. can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The lawsuit begins by outlining the operation of Cook County’s unconstitutional ban, explaining that common, constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles are prohibited if they can accept a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition and have certain characteristics like a pistol grip, muzzle brake, or a barrel shroud. And while the ban has “very limited exemptions for certain persons,” it still does not “allow typical law-abiding citizens to keep and bear these common firearms.”

“The rifles at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that law-abiding people possess at home by the millions,” FPC’s complaint explains. “And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary.”

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of law holding the ordinance to be unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the ban, an award of nominal damages against the County of Cook, attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.

This case joins other FPC lawsuits challenging bans on common firearms, including its challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the laws, the first such victory in United States history, as well as a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” Massachusetts’ ban on common handguns, and dozens of others.

Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

FPC and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

  • A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta)

  • A challenge to California’s handgun roster, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)

  • A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)

  • A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)

  • A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)

  • A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)

  • A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)

  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)

  • A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)

  • A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)

  • A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)

  • A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)

  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC Law (FPCLaw.org), the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, lead the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

14 COMMENTS

  1. God bless FPC for trying, but it’s interesting to note that it lists 13 “challenges” to various state laws and ordinances but not one win. It’s not an expensive venture to file a suit, to continue one to a win is.

    A better approach, IMO, is to pursue actual legislation, not lawsuits.

    Lawsuits often result in worthless judgements that require additional suits to try to capitalize on the original “win” that is being ignored.

    No entity like the corrupt Cook Co (IL) elected bureaucracy will willingly comply with any decision negative to their directives.

    No lawsuit will affect them, individually, either criminally nor financially.

    They have nothing to lose if judgement is against their willful, un-Constitutional actions- they are using someone else’s money to pursue their own tyrranical aspirations.

    Again, thanks for trying, but I’ll put money on the actual outcomes of those listed 13 lawsuits that have been filed. A “win” does not translate into a positive change for the US Constitution.

    Sorry.

    • Ill. is only shall issue because of a court case. The court placed a time limit on them. Comply or become constitutional carry. Even the corrupt fascist left in Ill could not resist that. It ain’t perfect, but it was a win.

    • “…it’s interesting to note that it lists 13 “challenges” to various state laws and ordinances but not one win.”

      That’s how you get cases to the SCotUS, your appeal at the federal level has to fail. Only THEN can you petition the SCotUS to hear your case, like ‘Heller’ did.

      “A better approach, IMO, is to pursue actual legislation, not lawsuits.”

      When a state is run by Leftist Scum, 2A freedom laws are never brought up for consideration. That’s the power when your side runs the committees that vote to consider such laws…

    • As it applies here Assault Weapon comes from the kind of mindset the KKK military wing of the democRat Party used the N-Word to denigrate, trash and demonize people of color. The AR15 being Black sets people who have such a mindset off like some people seeing a Black American ignites their N-Word. Can I get an, “Amen?”

      But that is not the big problem. The big problem are the gun owners who enjoy courtroom drama so much they regurgitate meaningless talking points and wind up providing standing for an agenda that is rooted in racism and genocide and worshiped as something called Gun Control.

      Accusations in court are a two way street. Can anyone on this forum cite one court case where Gun Control was accused of anything evil? Dumbbell gun owners sit still and allow The Second Amendment to be accused about everything from A to Z. And while Gun Owners are distracted trying to patch up alphabet accusations Gun Control and all of its filth skates right on by with a sht grin on its face.

      For anyone to argue in a court for Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is to argue on the behalf of slave shacks, nooses, burning crosses, concentration camps. gas chambers, swastikas, racism, genocide and everything else that History Confirms rides along with Gun Control everywhere it has been and more important, “Everywhere it goes.” To ignore the Truth about such despicable courtroom clown shows is to condone it.

    • You’re wrong, but nonetheless FPC gets results! A combination of lawsuits AND legislation is in fact the most effective strategy. THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT BOTH FPC and GOA!

  2. good
    it’s a very fair point that a solid 10million+ ARs, and then the other similar rifles, are owned by law abiding folks, and are used in… less than 1% of all homicides?
    And I agree that it’s ridiculous that young people in some jurisdictions aren’t allowed to learn on one before they go into military service. Almost 10 years back, my friend’s son told me he was going into the Marines. I handed my friend, who i had shot with many times, an AR in m16a1 config, a few hundred rounds of ammo, a 22 bolt conversion, and another few hundred rounds of ammo. They knocked the dust off that rifle, bought even more ammo, and got him shooting thousands of rounds before he went off to boot camp.
    Every self-propelled sandbag should know how to operate a rifle long before they’re given the opportunity to get shot in a far off land.

    • I live in Cook county but not Chiraq. I have an AR. I have a boatload of 30 round magazines. All loaded. All legal. Duh…

  3. Magazines can be made for any weapon to hold more that 10 rounds, this wording is there to ban any semiauto rifle. Even rifles with integral magazines(clip fed), could be fitted with a larger mag.

    • What California requires for ARs configured as “assault weapons” is a “fixed magazine” not to exceed ten rounds. There is a separate statute that bans most ten+ mags.

  5. The first problem that this suit faces (and the second) is that the Seventh Circuit already held up an “assault weapons” ban by a northern Illinois suburb, and SCOTUS denied cert. That means that FPS will necessarily lose before the trial court and the court of appeals.

  6. Your article is awesome. I am really impressed with this article. The way you presented is both simple and easy to understand is also an impressive thing for me

Comments are closed.