BREAKING NEWS: Lyons, Illinois, one of the three municipalities sued, passed an ordinance on October 27 that addresses many of the issues raised in the lawsuit. Accordingly, Lyons will be dropped from the litigation.
According to the Chicago Tribune:
Effective immediately, the gun shop will have to keep electronic records of anyone who purchases more than one firearm within a 12-month period. All records and documents, including completed forms, must be turned over to local law enforcement within 48 hours if the gun shop dealer determines that the potential buyer is not a "valid or lawful" purchaser.
In addition, the law requires the shop to maintain a digital "do not sell" list of people who purchased a gun that was later traced to a crime. Each gun shop employee must hold a valid firearms owner's identification card. And the shop must audit all inventory and report any loss or discrepancy to the village within 48 hours of discovery.
The ordinance also requires local law enforcement, with the help of the Cook County sheriff's office, to conduct two inspections a year at the gun shop, in addition to the annual inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The gun shop also will be required to install sufficient exterior lighting, surveillance cameras, cameras reporting the point of sale and alarm systems.
The ordinance, however, goes beyond what was sought in the lawsuit, officials said.
"This is about being practical and proactive to prevent the sale of guns to the wrong people," said Lyons Mayor Christopher Getty. "The village stands firmly behind our gun shop. We believe they are great operators, but at the same time we did feel more regulation was required."
...
Getty said the village was careful not to do anything that would put the longtime family-owned gun shop out of business. He said Midwest was receptive to village officials as they crafted the ordinance.
BACKGROUND (from
Do Lax Gun Laws Violate A Community's Civil Rights?, published on July 18, 2015.)
Three villages neighboring the City of Chicago are being sued by Chicago residents for having gun laws that are too lax.
Nearly 20 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Chicago come from gun shops in those three (and a fourth in nearby Gary, Indiana). The complaint alleges that most of these guns "were diverted to illegal traffickers either through straw purchases, theft or secondary transfers."
[T]he defendants Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood have lax or insufficient “methods of administration” in licensing or regulating gun dealers, and they fail to use [the methods] recommended by the City of Chicago, so as to ensure that guns purchased at stores in their jurisdictions do not end in possession of illegal users and minors and gang members. [That failure] has a disparate and terrible impact on African Americans who live in neighborhoods afflicted by such illegal gun use and who are in reasonable apprehension of their safety. It also increases the economic and racial isolation of these neighborhoods.
Can a civil rights case change gun laws? Follow me ...
Disclaimer. Nothing in this diary constitutes legal advice and it is not to be acted upon as legal advice. Civil and criminal law are specialties. If you need advice on these matters, get it from a professional skilled in the law of your state.
Comments are welcome, even argumentative ones that are civil and advance understanding of the issues the lawsuit raises.
|
How did this case begin?
A year ago (May 2014), the City of Chicago released its report, “Tracing the Guns: The Impact of Illegal Guns on Violence in Chicago.” It listed measures adopted by the City of Chicago and recommended them for neighboring municipalities:
1. Require the same background checks for gun store employees as for gun purchasers, before they handle guns and sell them to customers,
2. Instal common anti-theft measures such as lighting, surveillance cameras and alarm systems,
3. Train employees to recognize signs of straw purchasing (guns bought by one person for others),
4. Refuse to sell to customers identified as having purchased guns found at crime scenes,
5. Conduct regular inspections - monthly or quarterly - to detect thefts and illegal trafficking,
6. Use video cameras to record the point-of-sale, to discourage gun trafficking and buyers who use false ID's,
7. Revoke licenses of dealers who willfully fail to comply.
Who is suing in this case? What do they want?
The Plaintiffs are four African Americans who live on the west and south sides of Chicago, Father Michael Pfleger, a Catholic priest known for community activism, and members of a coalition that includes families who have suffered gun violence. They seek a court order to require the villages of Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood to enact the recommended measures and engage in more vigorous on-site monitoring of gun stores in their jurisdiction.
The complaint Plaintiffs filed in Cook County court on July 7, 2015, is here. In essence, it alleges that:
- Guns from those stores have been recovered "not randomly throughout the City of Chicago but overwhelmingly in parts where African Americans like the individual plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff [Coalition] are living."
- The "victims of these crimes in which the guns from these stores are used illegally are overwhelmingly African American."
- "[C]ontinued use of lax methods in licensing their dealers has a racially disparate and terrible effect on the communities ... and has the effect of discriminating against plaintiffs because of race."
Their underlying theory of the case is ... Civil Rights?
Plaintiffs ground their lawsuit on Section 5 (a)(2) of the Illinois Civil Rights Act:
Sec. 5. Discrimination prohibited.
(a) No unit of State, county, or local government in Illinois shall:
...
(2) utilize criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or gender.
(b) Any party aggrieved by conduct that violates subsection (a) may bring a civil lawsuit, in a federal district court or State circuit court, against the offending unit of government.
The Response
According to the Chicago Sun-Times:
Steven Elrod, the attorney for Lincolnwood, said the village wasn’t served with the lawsuit, but he said he read a news release issued by [Plaintiffs] Pfleger and Hood about it.
“While we certainly appreciate the concerns that they raise, we cannot see any conceivable basis for liability on the part of the village of Lincolnwood,” Elrod said.
No formal answer is due in this case until next month, but gun rights activists are speaking up. "Absurd and frivolous" was the reaction of one gun group, which went on:
The apparent goal of the suit is to harass these communities until they pass Chicago style ordinances that make it impossible for gun shops to do business within these suburbs. Its [sic] very plain to see that the [Federally licensed dealers] in Lyons, Riverdale, and Lincolnwood are complying with federal and state laws to the letter, despite onerous regulations imposed on FFLs and purchasers by the state of Illinois.
This bizarre civil rights lawsuit has no merit, and should immediately be dismissed with prejudice by the judge who receives this case.
The Gun Righters expressed no concern whatever that so many guns were making their way into the hands of gun criminals. And, they presented no specifics why limiting gun sales to law-abiding citizens would make it "impossible for gun shops to do business." While it is true that no gun shops are yet licensed in the City of Chicago, it's unlikely that is due solely to these seven measures.
First Thoughts
This lawsuit is a creative application of civil rights law. And the requested relief is bold - to compel governmental bodies to enact particular laws or regulations; to take legislative action that no other law, state or Federal, requires them to do.
But the measures Plaintiffs seek are not far out. Indeed, they are common sense. For example ... Thefts from gun stores should trouble everyone. Surveillance cameras record point-of-sale areas in many retail stores. Repeat sales to those identified as channeling crime guns cannot be justified by ignorance of who they are. No one can reasonably approve of straw purchases of guns, sales that circumvent the loose provisions of existing Federal and state gun control laws.
This promises to be hotly contested litigation if the villages choose to fight rather than resolve it reasonably. Gun rights advocates are sure to view the case as deeply threatening to their cause.
The gun industry can be expected to argue - as it does in other contexts, such as the Federal protection shield it got against lawsuits - that the acts of gun criminals are independent of anything the stores can do, that people with guns select targets of opportunity which just happen to be in largely black neighborhoods in nearby Chicago. Another common argument is that gun control measures just don't work. The Plaintiffs have that base covered. From the City of Chicago's report:
New York City entered a court settlement to assign a monitor to implement these safety measures at twenty dealers that had been the top sources of guns recovered in New York City crimes, and the supply of crime guns from these stores dropped by 85 percent.
If this lawsuit goes to trial, that City of Chicago study (despite being well documented statistically) may not be sufficient to justify the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs seek - commanding governmental bodies to act in particular ways. That is a blessing in disguise. As specific evidence comes out, gun dealers (who were not sued) and the villages will not welcome publicity about lax gun-selling practices.
As for the Second Amendment, it will surely be raised, loud and strong. But it should not obstruct this lawsuit because there is a presumption that explicitly favors regulating commercial gun sales. Here's J. Scalia in his opinion for the Court in the seminal gun case of DC v Heller (underlining added):
... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (fn 26)
26/ We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
One
prominent resident of Chicago is speaking out on gun violence:
As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.
The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the Supreme Court's application of the Second Amendment.
To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream.
|