Chicago gun laws rolled back again: US judge strikes down ban on gun stores

Chicago's ban on gun stores and private gun sales 'goes too far,' a federal judge says, another legal blow to the gun-control policies the city has employed in an effort to reduce crime.

Seth Perlman/AP/File
Gun owners and supporters participate in an Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day rally at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, in this March 7, 2012 file photo.

Attempts by Chicago officials over the past four decades to limit the availability of guns on the city’s crime-ridden streets are being steadily eroded by federal judges. The latest blow came Monday when a federal judge said the city is violating the Constitution by banning gun stores and private gun sales.

“Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,” US District Judge Edmond Chang wrote. In other words, according to Northwestern University constitutional law professor Eugene Kontorovich, the constitutional right to own a gun in turn requires the right to buy a gun.

“At the same time,” Judge Chang continued, “the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes [of crime control] the ordinance tries to serve.”

The federal court ruling is a stinging one for city officials, including Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, who has vowed to continue the tough gun-control policies put into place by the previous Daley administration.

Moreover, Monday’s pro-gun-rights ruling reasserts Chicago’s role as a national cultural and legal battleground over the extent to which US society should be armed.

Into that debate go arguments about whether higher gun ownership rates lead to more gun deaths, as Chicago’s lawyers argued in federal court, or whether more guns in citizens’ hands actually means less crime in cities with high violent crime rates like the Windy City.

More practically for would-be Chicago gun owners, however, the ruling is an important part of a process in which lower federal courts are interpreting the Supreme Court’s gun rights decisions in Heller and MacDonald, where justices ruled that the Second Amendment protects the use of handguns for self-defense.

Chicago is the only city in the US that has managed to end run those rulings, in part by writing zoning laws (unconstitutionally, as it turned out) to keep shooting ranges out of the city limits, and by banning retail sales, which on Monday was also declared unconstitutional.

“Chicago was actually one of the outliers among American cities in terms of having a retail sales ban, and they fought very hard to keep it,” says Bob Cottrol, a law profesor and gun policy expert at George Washington University Law School, in D.C. “It’s one thing for the Supreme Court to have grand pronouncements about what the Constitution says, but once that’s done, as a practical matter, it doesn’t really get implemented [until] lower federal district courts say X is permissible and Y is [impermissible].”

In his 35-page ruling, Chang rejected the city’s core argument: that legal gun sales would flood the illegal market, and thus boost a crime and murder rate that hovers at the very top among major American cities.

Chicago recorded 503 murders in 2012, more than in any other US city, but the number of homicides dropped to 415 in 2013, a nearly 18 percent shift.

Chang, an Obama appointee, cited statistics as he pointed out that those committing gun crimes in Chicago are likely not getting their weapons from a licensed firearms dealer in the suburbs, as the city contended, but on the street.

In 2010, the Supreme Court heard two Chicago-related cases – McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago – that resulted in the court reaffirming that the Second Amendment has to apply in each state. Then in 2012, the US Court of Appeals found the city’s gun-range ban unconstitutional.

The NRA keeps “filing suits and filing suits to chip away laws and get to their ultimate goal of a complete armed citizenry,” Mark Walsh, the campaign director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, told the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday.

But other Second Amendment policy experts said that ultimately the city’s insistence on a ban versus tough regulations on retail sales suggested political, not crime-related, motivations for its efforts to keep legally procured guns out of the city.

“The problem in Chicago is not a hardware problem, it’s a cultural problem, and also a failure of law enforcement,” says Mr. Cottrol. The big question, he says, “is the extent to which this is a city that has egregiously failed to protect its population and uses guns as a scapegoat.”

For his part, Chang acknowledged that guns are a problem in Chicago, but disagreed with the legality of the city’s historical prescription to ban gun sales to non-criminal residents.

“The stark reality facing the city each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun,” the federal judge said. “But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: Certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”

Chang’s ruling, however, isn’t a total loss for the city, which is considering an appeal, as he left the door open for the city to regulate in any way “short of the complete ban.”

On Sunday Illinois became the last state to allow civilians to carry concealed weapons with a permit, although police retain the authority to deny applications for the permits.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Chicago gun laws rolled back again: US judge strikes down ban on gun stores
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today