“It’s pre-empted by state law. The state law presides over concealed carry firearms. And whether the city of Chicago likes it or not, that’s the law of the land.” Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson in Aldermen to vote on gun-free ordinance for restaurants that serve alcohol [at abclocal.go.com]
We are living in a time where politicians (which is what these folks are, not law makers) feel unencumbered by boundaries such as the constitution or other laws.
Pearson is right, the state law is intended to prevent this sort of regulation but Burke and his minions act like it doesn’t exist.
Chicago Ald. Ed Burke got the Finance Committee he runs to endorse a ban on concealed weapons..
And he is one of few alderman to have 24 hr city supplied armed guards and a concealed permit for his safety. How about the rest of us?????????????
It would be interesting if citizens would pass state-level resolutions, bypassing state legislators, requiring that all public officials (non-LEO) with security details and concealed carry permits be identified and easily available to the public. Now…that would be fun.
Well what they are doing, if you didn’t read the article, is making putting a “gun free zone” sign in your restaurant window a REQUIREMENT in order to get a liquor license.
The City of Chicago isn’t saying this is a “gun regulation” which the state of IL does have pre-emption on, but a “licensing” issue which the state does not.
There’s a good chance they’ll get away with it, the way politics in IL state works – Chicago is the tail that wags the dog.
They’ll get way with it until it’s challenged in the courts. But that will be some time; as no one has a concealed carry permit yet so no one has standing to challenge the law. And then the wheels of justice will grind slowly.
This is how battles are fought.
Chicago Tribune article:
When asked about threats from gun rights groups to sue the city if Burke’s law passes, Burke, who is an attorney, responded: “Everybody sues today in America. That’s what lawyers are for.”
And since the legal challenge to this ordinance would be based on state law, the ISRA will be forced to challenge this in state court in Cook County where the judges are almost all politically backed by the Chicago Democrat machine. (Prior, successful challenges to Chicago gun laws have occurred in federal court.). Although this should be viewed as a clear violation of the preemption provision in the new concealed carry law, it is no slam dunk that a local judge will rule that way.
A PERFECT example of: No matter how carefully you write the contract or the law some slick lawyer will find a way to get around its intent. If they get away with this how long until they require these signs before ANYONE who wants a business license in the city needs to post a sign?
How long until they make the sign a requirement on every taxi cab in order to keep your permit?
One need only read Gulag Archipelago to see that America is now the new Soviet Union with just a hint of window dressing.
PS the Left never stands on it’s history of failures but always screams “Forward to the Future!”
Actually – if it were me, I would go for injunctive relief in federal court(think Ezell case) b/c Chicago is treating this like a licensing requirement. It is a taking. It violates the second amendment. It violates due process under 14th. It is arbitrary and capricious as state law provides a requirement for 51% alcohol already.
BTW – the SAF should send a picture of the check Chicago wrote for atty fees in the Ezell case to the local media. Given the budget problems there . . . Well, it will make for interesting coverage. I presume only the Fox affiliate will run such a story
All part of the Progressive led Ideological ‘cleansing’
Ed Burke the Chicago alderman proposing the restriction to law abiding citizens, has been allowed for the 30 years he has been an alderman to carry a concealed hand gun anywhere in the state. He carries everyday. Elite democrat scum.
Unfortunately, they’ll probably get away with it.
Licensing of business is strictly a “free market” thing in many states, including Illinois. What that means is that since municipalities, counties and so on need business to occur within their boundaries (as without them their tax base would be very narrow indeed) they are expected to provide a reasonably friendly climate in which to do business.
However, just as a business may reserve the right to refuse service to individuals for pretty much any reason, the local governments reserve the right to refuse service to business.
It’s left entirely up to local government to set licensing policy, the unwritten assumption being that if it’s too Kafkaesque business will simply not occur within their boundaries.
Thus, should they choose to mandate that a clothing store, eatery or whatever ban firearms as a condition of obtaining or renewing their license to operate, the AHJ are within their rights. The assumption is that the local government will be reasonable for fear of killing its tax base.
The expectation that they will not sh¡t on those carrying firearms lest they p¡ss off the business community is akin to the tired old right-wing arguement that a free maket should be the final arbiter of predatory monopoly, pollution et cetera — i.e. a steaming pile o’ bravo sierra.
Free markets don’t always work to the best advantage of J.Q.P.
You twisted yourself into quite a few logical knots to turn this into a free market capitalism discussion. I think many would contend that local licensing of businesses is the antithesis of free market capitalism and would bemoan that the extensive regulation of businesses by localities and states has created an unnecessary “public market.”
Not at all.
I just pointing out that many states’ statutes permit municipal licensing laws to be a Bizzaro World version of free market capitalism — which in this case works to the advantage of the Chicago Disarmament Machine.
Bizarro World certainly does accurately describe what is going on here in Chicago.
In most states,the preemption law takes precedence over local laws,also most states licensing laws are passed by the state who has authority to determine how they should be enforced.I see another lawsuit coming for Chicago to pay for when they loose,but that is okay it is just taxpayer money,they will just raise taxes if need be!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.
Chicago never had a ban on handguns; they simply refused to allow you to register them, and required registration for legal ownership. This is the very definition of a “de-facto” ban, which was declared unconstitutional. So yes, technically, this is a licensing law and not a firearms law. It has precisely the same effect, however, of infringing not only on gun owners who carry but also on business owners. So should they be silly enough to pass such a thing, they will simply waste everyone’s time and money unsuccessfully defending it in court.
I do not have an acceptably derogatory word to describe such elitist, controlling, jack-booted, sons of $@#&!s. Ugh, now I’m angry again.
Stories like this make me happy i live in southern kentucky
Comments are closed.