Chicago looses 2nd Amendment fight again

[Vonz90]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... hed-courts

[JustinR]

What needs to happen is the politicians originating and voting for things that infringe upon Constitutional rights need to be held personally responsible for their actions, as if they had committed a crime. A law gets overturned by the legislature? No big deal. A law gets ruled un-Constitutional? Then you can kiss your lawmaker pension and benefits goodbye and look forward to a jail cell. I don't know what else could possibly get these damn politician's attention, except for torches and rifles. [/rant]

[Langenator]

I wonder if you could construe enacting a law that fails to pass Constitutional muster as Denial of Rights Under Color of Law.

[Netpackrat]

I have to agree with the point the article was getting to... They aren't really losing if they can keep it tied up in court indefinitely. Absent contempt charges or some other penalty, I don't see anything really changing.

[Termite]

Remove qualified immunity from public officials who clearly and deliberately do such things, and the incidences will decrease substantially.

[Precision]

Remove qualified immunity from public officials who clearly and deliberately do such things, and the incidences will decrease substantially.

This is the most eloquent answer, especially as qualified immunity has little legal bearing except precedent.

[randy]

Interesting comment from Sebastian at the PA Gun Blog:

What really pleases me is that the judges took note that the zoning rules allowed law enforcement ranges on any commercial property, and the city notes those ranges operated safely. They looked at that and balked at how that argument wouldn’t apply somehow to civilian shooting ranges. In a small way, they looked at police exemptions and called bullshit on it. This is what I think courts should do. If they are exempting the cops, something is fishy.

And if more were needed, the City concedes (as it must) that law-enforcement and private-security ranges operate in commercial districts throughout Chicago near schools, churches, parks, and stores; the City acknowledges that they operate quite safely in these locations. Common sense suggests that law-enforcement ranges probably do not attract many thieves, but the City’s theft-protection rationale for these zoning rules is so woefully unsupported that the distinction between law-enforcement and commercial ranges doesn’t carry much weight. The City doesn’t even try to argue that commercial ranges create greater fire or environ- mental risks than law-enforcement ranges.

H/T to Say Uncle

[Windy Wilson]

I wonder if you could construe enacting a law that fails to pass Constitutional muster as Denial of Rights Under Color of Law.

It would have to fail muster on its face, and lawyers are good at finding some argument that keeps it from meeting that test. Kosinski complained in I forget what case about how rights are interpreted broadly when the justices desire it, and narrowly when the justices don't.

If such a law were to be applied to the elected (the elect) you can bet they will insist that the law be clear and knowable in order for them to be found guilty -- the opposite of how they apply the law to the hoi polloi.

[George guy]

I wonder if you could construe enacting a law that fails to pass Constitutional muster as Denial of Rights Under Color of Law.

Conspiracy against constitutional rights might be a better fit.