“Gowder sued, and today a federal district court (Gowder v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2012)) held that the law violated Gowder’s Second Amendment rights. While the Supreme Court has held that felons may be barred from possessing guns, and the Seventh Circuit held the same about people who have violent misdemeanor convictions, the district court held that nonviolent misdemeanants with convictions for nonviolent gun possession offenses do not permanently lose their Second Amendment rights. I think this is likely correct, and will likely be upheld on appeal (though that’s always hard to tell).” – Eugene Volokh on yet another gun control-related loss in the courts for the city of Chicago.
“Seventh Circuit held the same about people who have violent misdemeanor convictions”
Really? I dont recall anything about violent misdemeanors other than domestic battery on my FOID application 2 or 3 years ago.
The 7th Circuit covers three states, not just Illinois. Also, this case involved a specific Chicago ordnance covering handgun possession in the home, not the state law that’s reflected on the FOID. Chicago is doing everything it possible can to undermine McDonald. What a bunch of sleazy pricks.
I skimmed the opinion earlier this morning and found it just a bit shocking. First, the judge declared the provision that disbarred Gowder was void for vagueness. Then the court went on to rule on the constitutionality of the law and held that it violated 2A.
That’s not what judges are supposed to do. Once the law is tossed on other grounds, it no longer exists and further inquiries should stop. That’s what’s meant by judicial restraint, which I favor even if the ultimate holding is pro-2A. Without judicial restraint, every unelected judge becomes a superlegislature. I had hoped that we were done with the Earl Warren system of justice, but perhaps not.
The ordinance that the judge struck down disbars from gun ownership anyone with a misdemeanor conviction that involves the unlawful “use” of a gun, even if nonviolent. According to the judge, the word “use” is unclear. Well, it wasn’t unclear based on the examples the judge gave.
IMO, the opinion is probably wrong on the vagueness issue and probably correct on the 2A issue. All I can say is, the judge must be an NRA guy.
As for Gowder, he must have a charmed life. He was busted in the mid-1990s for felony gun possession, but after conviction the law was tossed by the Illinois Supreme Court as unconstitutional and his conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. So, this is the second time he’s been blessed by a court ruling based on Con Law. Most people could go through ten lifetimes and never have one Con Law case.
Amazing.
May I never be as “lucky” as this fellow.
Can I get an “Amen.”
Comments are closed.