Judge: Chicago's ban on gun sales unconstitutional
CHICAGO (AP) — A federal judge on Monday overturned Chicago's ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city's ordinances aimed at reducing gun violence are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it's also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.
The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's long-standing gun ban. And last year, Illinois legislators were forced by a federal appeals court to adopt a law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons in Illinois, the only state that still banned the practice. The resulting state law largely stripped city and officials of surrounding Cook County of their authority to regulate guns, which especially irked officials in Chicago, where residents had to apply for concealed-carry permits through the police chief.
National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang's decision, saying the fact a federal judge appointed by President Barack Obama "ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago's ordinances really are."
Roderick Drew, a spokesman for Chicago's law department, did not immediately return telephone calls for comment.
Chang's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers and three Chicago residents. The judge noted Chicago's ban covers not only federally licensed firearms dealers, but also gifts among family members, all in the name of reducing gun violence.
Chang wrote that the nation's third-largest city "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."...
Read more here: