Cook County Court Rules Chicago Has No Jurisdiction to Sue Indiana Retailer for Guns Used to Commit Crimes in the City

Cities with significant violent crime problems seem to be able to devote far more resources to going after lawful gun owners, retailers, and manufacturers than they are toward arresting and jailing violent recidivist felons. You might think a city with a persistent crime problem — one like, say, Chicago — would use as much of its time and money to incarcerate the relatively few criminals who comprise the majority of their violent crime problem.

You’d be wrong.

Instead of fingering the gang members and other felons who go in and out of its revolving door justice system faster than Al’s Beef can dish out sandwiches, Chicago’s politicians would rather spend time (and get headlines) rail against the alleged “iron pipeline” of guns that come in via surrounding states with less restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. States like Indiana.

While blaming Indiana’s allegedly lax gun laws for Chicago’s problems, the city’s famously inept and corrupt pols never seem to notice (or refuse to acknowledge) that Indiana’s violent crime rate, even in a city like Indianapolis, is a small fraction of that in ChiTown. Go figure.

Anyway, that blame-the-other-guy ethos was the motivation behind a lawsuit the city of Chicago filed in 2001 against Westforth Sports, a Gary, Indiana gun retailer. Never mind the fact that selling guns is one of the most highly regulated retail trades in American business and that Westforth complies with all of the applicable laws involved. Chicago claimed that the Indiana gun seller “engaged in a pattern of illegal sales that has resulted in the flow of hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal firearms into the City of Chicago” where bad people then used them to do bad things.

But a funny thing happened on the way to another great sound bite for the city’s attorneys and the new mayor. Yesterday a Cook County Circuit Court Judge found that the city has no jurisdiction to sue Westforth Sports.

Circuit Court Judge Clare J. Quish wrote the following . . .

[T]he City’s claims alleged in its complaint relate solely to the actions of straw purchasers, Indiana residents who purchase guns from Westforth in Indiana. These claims to not arise out of or relate to the contacts Westforth has with Illinois (direct sales to Illinois residents either over the counter or through Illinois FFLs). There is no affiliation or connection between Westforth and the straw purchasers and Illinois sufficient to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Westforth. “When there is no connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless regardless of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.”

In other words, the city of Chicago can’t sue Westforth because if doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Indiana retailer. And that, of course, was well before ever getting to the thorny, not insignificant issue of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Here’s a press release from Westforth’s attorneys . . .

In another victory for firearms retailers everywhere, on May 25, 2023, the Ohio law firm of BraumǀRudd obtained an order in the case of City of Chicago v. Westforth Sports, Inc. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. – Case No. 2021CH01987) dismissing the claims against its client, Westforth Sports, for lack of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state retailer. 

The City of Chicago sued the Indiana firearms retailer claiming that it sold handguns in Indiana that were alleged to have somehow later been transported by third parties into Illinois and used to cause unspecified harm in the City of Chicago. After written jurisdictional discovery, depositions, and a full hearing on the matter, however, the Court properly found that Constitutional due process does not allow an out-of-state firearms retailer to be hauled into court in Illinois unless the claims arise out of or relate to the defendant’s own contacts with the state. 

This dismissal along with a similar ruling obtained by the attorneys at BraumǀRudd in the State of New York in the case of Williams v. Beemiller constitute two of the most significant jurisdictional rulings in favor of firearms industry members facing anti-gun governments and activists trying to gain an improper “home field advantage” in litigation.

BraumǀRudd’s attorneys represent members of the firearms industry across the country and internationally. In addition to consulting and regulatory work, its litigation practice seeks to protect and defend our industry against attacks from all sides. The firm is pleased to have done so successfully once again.