Gowder v. City of Chicago
923 F. Supp. 2d 1110
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Gowder was convicted in Illinois for unlawful use of a weapon (simple firearm possession) under 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(10) and received probation; the conviction was later treated as a misdemeanor after Illinois decisions struck down the Safe Neighborhood Act; Cook County reduced Gowder’s conviction to a misdemeanor in 2003 under Lindsey.
- Chicago requires a Chicago Firearm Permit to possess firearms in the home; Gowder applied for the permit in 2010 and was denied under Section 8-20-110(b)(3)(iii).
- Section (b)(3)(iii) bars permit approval if the applicant has been convicted of unlawful use of a firearm in any jurisdiction.
- Gowder challenged the ordinance in a federal action seeking judicial review (Count I), and declaratory relief that the ordinance is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution (Count II) and the Illinois Constitution (Count III); he moved for summary judgment on all counts.
- An amicus brief was filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association; the court granted Gowder’s summary judgment, invalidating Section (b)(3)(iii) as void for vagueness and unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- The court also concluded the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief should bar the City from denying Gowder’s permit based on his misdemeanor conviction, and moot the Illinois Constitution counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section (b)(3)(iii) is void for vagueness. | Gowder argues “unlawful use of a weapon” is undefined and unclear. | Chicago asserts the statute’s meaning is clear and should be enforceable. | Yes; Section (b)(3)(iii) is void for vagueness. |
| Whether Chicago’s ordinance violates the Second Amendment. | Gowder contends the permit ban on non-violent misdemeanants infringes the right to keep and bear arms in the home. | Chicago contends the ordinance passes constitutional muster. | Yes; it violates the Second Amendment under text/history/tradition and fails strict scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes core Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (S. Ct. 2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (text/history/tradition approach; strict scrutiny standard where applicable)
- Skoien v. United States, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (limits on misdemeanants; discusses violent vs non-violent distinctions)
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness/overbreadth framework for regulation)
- Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) (void-for-vagueness rationale for arrest/enforcement standards)
- United States v. Lim, 444 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2006) (vagueness standard for criminal statutes)
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (relationship between violence and firearm restrictions)