Arms v. City of Chicago
135 F. Supp. 3d 743
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are gun owners and retailers challenging Chicago’s 2010 and 2014 firearm ordinances, asserting violations of the Second, First, and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- After McDonald required states to follow Heller’s Second Amendment analysis, Chicago replaced a 1982 handgun ban with a 2010 ordinance and then revised it again in 2014 following litigation.
- The 2014 Ordinance includes: (a) zoning limits restricting where firearms retailers may locate (500-foot school/park buffer; limits to certain commercial/downtown zones with special-use permit requirements), (b) a ban on displaying firearms/ammunition in store windows, (c) prohibitions on sale/possession of laser-sighting devices, and (d) (previously) registration and fee requirements (some now repealed).
- Procedurally: defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint; the Court resolved standing and Rule 12(b)(6) deficiencies for multiple counts, dismissing several claims without prejudice and permitting others to proceed.
- Key outcomes: Second Amendment Arms may proceed with an as-applied damages claim tied to the 2010 ordinance; facial and many as-applied challenges to the 2014 zoning and other provisions were dismissed for failure to plausibly plead injury or to overcome the presumption that commercial-sale regulations are lawful; First Amendment challenge to the window-display ban was dismissed on the pleadings; laser-sight ban and certain storage-rule challenges survived in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zoning restrictions limiting locations of gun retailers (2014 Ordinance) | Restrictions effectively ban or unjustifiably burden sale of firearms, impairing buyers’ and sellers’ Second Amendment rights | Zoning is a presumptively valid regulation of commercial sale of arms; plaintiffs must plausibly allege that restrictions impair the right to acquire firearms | Dismissed for failure to plead plausible injury/impact; Second Amendment Arms lacks a facial challenge surviving except limited as-applied claim to 2010 ordinance for damages (other zoning claims dismissed) |
| Window-display ban on firearms and ammunition (MCC § 4-144-790(g)) | Ban deprives dealers and customers of First Amendment commercial-speech rights | City asserts substantial public-safety interest (preventing theft of displayed guns) and that ban directly advances and is narrowly tailored under Central Hudson | Plaintiffs had standing; Court dismissed First Amendment challenge on pleading—City’s stated interest and ordinance history justify the restriction at motion-to-dismiss stage |
| Monetary damages for lost business based on 2010 ordinance (Second Amendment Arms, Franzese) | Business lost license applications/fees and seeks damages for being prevented from opening stores under the 2010 ban | Defendants argue Second Amendment protects individuals not corporations; also dispute causation/ability to recover | Second Amendment Arms may pursue damages as-applied re 2010 ordinance; court permits corporate damages claim (analogizing First/Fourth Amendment corporate protections) |
| Laser-sighting-device ban (MCC § 8-20-060) | Laser sights are modern analogues of historically protected sighting devices; ban infringes Second Amendment right to acquire accessories necessary for firearm proficiency | Devices were not in common use at founding; may fall outside Second Amendment protection under historical test | Plaintiffs stated a claim for injunctive relief; survives pleading stage (merits left for later) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense and noted regulations on commercial sale are presumptively lawful)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated the Second Amendment against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognized associational/retailer standing and set out historical-analysis framework for Second Amendment challenges)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: legal conclusions not accepted; plausibility required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (four-part test for commercial speech regulation)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) (pre-enforcement facial challenges to licensing schemes that vest unbridled discretion are permitted)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (where another amendment supplies explicit protection, substantive due process claim is not the correct vehicle)