Lawsuit Seeking Tougher Gun Regulations Dismissed
In recent years, many local gun regulations, including gun
dealer regulations, have been subjected to legal challenges arguing that the
regulations were too stringent to comply with the requirements of the Second
Amendment. Recently, a Cook County Circuit Court considered a lawsuit arguing
the opposite position - that two villages’ gun dealer regulations were not
strong enough to stem the tide of illegal guns in to a neighboring city.
In Coalition for Safe Chicago Communities v. Village of
Riverdale, 15 CH 10390, a community organization filed a lawsuit against the
Villages of Riverdale and Lincolnwood, arguing that the villages violated the
Illinois Civil Rights Act by failing to adequately license or regulate firearms
dealers. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the village's failure to
adequately regulate these dealers has a disparate impact on African-Americans
living in the City of Chicago because these residents are disproportionately affected
by crime involving firearms sold within these two villages. Plaintiffs sought a
mandatory injunction requiring the villages to adopt gun regulations
recommended by a recent report from the City of Chicago to reduce the flow of
illegal firearms in to the city.
The court dismissed the case, however, finding that the
community organization lacked standing in the case. The complaint failed to
allege any of the individual plaintiffs suffered a distinct and palpable injury
as a result of the village’s firearm regulations. Plaintiffs also failed to
quantify the economic interest or economic loss attributable to the village’s
regulations. While plaintiffs alleged that the firearms purchased or obtained
in the villages afflicted a disproportionate level of gun violence in the city,
the court concluded this “generalized grievance” was not enough to grant
plaintiffs standing. The court found that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not
fairly traceable to the villages’ gun regulations, and adoption of plaintiffs’
requested regulations is not likely to redress plaintiffs’ alleged injury.
The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim under the Illinois Civil Rights Act. First, the plaintiffs improperly
relied on the villages’ alleged lack of regulations, and as a result failed to
allege the required “identifiable, facially-neutral policy or practice” or
“criteria or methods of administration.” Additionally, plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege the villages’ regulations resulted in the disproportionate
level of gun violence in plaintiffs’ neighborhoods, and subjected the
plaintiffs to discrimination.
While plaintiffs were unsuccessful in this lawsuit, local
governments may face more legal challenges to their firearms regulations in the
years to come, from litigants contending the regulations are too strict, and
from others contending the regulations are not strict enough.
Authored by Daniel J. Bolin, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment