Ruling may bolster city gun suit (IL)

Josey1

Ruling may bolster city gun suit

June 13, 2002

BY FRANK MAIN CRIME REPORTER

Attorneys for Mayor Daley urged the state appeals court Wednesday to review an Ohio legal decision they think bodes well for a lawsuit Chicago and Cook County filed against the gun industry in 1998.

The Ohio Supreme Court reinstated a lawsuit Cincinnati filed against gun makers to recoup the cost of gun-related violence. Chicago's $433 million suit had accused the gun industry of creating a "public nuisance," the same legal strategy in the Cincinnati case.

Both cities seek to recover the cost of hospitalization, police protection and prosecution stemming from gun violence.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Cincinnati presented enough evidence to pursue the claims in its lawsuit. The case was ordered back to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

Chicago's suit was dismissed in Cook County Circuit Court. The city appealed and awaits a decision.

"We are very pleased with this decision," Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the Chicago Law Department, said of the ruling. "This is the first state supreme court to rule in favor of our position."

Hoyle said the city filed a motion Wednesday to bring the Ohio decision to the attention of the Illinois appeals court, but said it is not binding on the Chicago case.

In December, the Illinois appeals court ruled the families of slain Chicago police officer Michael Ceriale and four others killed in gun violence could move forward with their public-nuisance suit against the firearms industry, which the city also hailed as a favorable development.

James Dorr, an attorney who represents gun makers, said the Ohio ruling would make manufacturers of other legal products more liable.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gun13.html







"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Court upholds Ferndale gun ban


By Jennifer Brooks / The Detroit News


FERNDALE -- An Oakland Circuit judge has upheld Ferndale's right to ban concealed weapons from its library, recreation center and other city-owned property.
Ferndale's 7-month-old ordinance withstood a legal challenge by the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners. The advocacy group claimed Michigan's concealed weapons law allows permitted guns to be carried anywhere except the places specifically prohibited by statute -- schools, churches, day-care centers, hospitals, casinos, bars and sporting venues.
Judge John J. McDonald ruled Wednesday that the ban on handguns on city property is constitutional and is merely an extension of the state law. Ferndale officials passed the ordinance in November after a large number of concealed weapons permits were filed in Oakland County.
The state passed the concealed weapons permit law on July 1, 2001. Over the next six months, Oakland County issued more than 6,000 permit applications.
"No one came forward with a good reason why people should have loaded weapons in libraries full of children, or at youth centers where our young people go to enjoy recreational activities, or at city council meetings where arguments have gotten very heated on occasion," City Manager Thomas Barwin said.
Barwin said other communities have been waiting for the outcome of Ferndale's court challenge before moving ahead with similar gun bans. Novi officials debated a similar concealed weapons ban in February and was threatened with a lawsuit by the coalition.
Officials with gun owners coalition did not return telephone calls Wednesday.

You can reach Jennifer Brooks at (248) 647-8825 or jbrooks@detnews.com. http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/0206/13/d01-513656.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Felon Argues Possession of Gun Can't Be Criminalized
Thursday, June 13, 2002


BY DAN HARRIE
(c) 2002, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

A convicted felon who argued that the Utah Constitution gives him the right to possess -- but not use -- a gun seemed to elicit skepticism Wednesday from Utah Court of Appeals judges.
Wade L. Willis is asking the court to overturn his conviction on a felony charge of firearms possession by a restricted person. He claims the statute outlawing gun ownership by felons violates the Constitution's broad guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.
The Constitution recognizes the Legislature's limited authority to regulate firearms, by "defining the lawful use of arms." But "use" is different than mere "possession," argued Willis' attorney Margaret Lindsay.
"Mere possession of a firearm cannot be criminalized," Lindsay said in oral arguments Wednesday before the three-judge panel.
Willis is a nonviolent felon who was found to be in possession of a stolen gun, which was stashed in the bedroom closet of his Orem home. He was on probation at the time for a conviction of evading a police officer -- his only previous felony conviction.
Fourth District Judge Gary Stott last year rejected Willis' claim that the gun charge was unconstitutional, and Willis pleaded guilty on condition that he could appeal to a higher court.
Assistant Attorney General Brett DelPorto encouraged the appeals court to follow the lower court example in rejecting the challenge.
Striking down the law would lead to results "contrary to common sense," said DelPorto. "There is no way they [state lawmakers] wanted to give felons the right to possess or use firearms."
In written briefs, the state attorney took the felon gun-possession rights argument to its illogical conclusion.
"Perhaps even prison inmates could claim a right to possess guns," he wrote. "In short, a would-be gunman could not be legally penalized or even confronted until he actually began to 'use' the gun, by which point the damage would be done."
The appeals judges took the case under advisement and gave no indication how they would rule, but Judges Norman Jackson and William Thorne sharply questioned the premise that felons have a constitutional right to possess guns.
"Would it be different if the gun was lying next to him in the car when he was pulled over?" asked Thorne. "And when he carries it into the 7-Eleven, he still can't be prohibited? He can't be prohibited until he points it at the clerk?"
Lindsay conceded that recognizing felon gun rights could raise some sticky issues.
"There may be a question whether carrying a gun into a 7-Eleven constitutes a lawful purpose," she said. "But here we're talking about a gun in a closet in a bedroom."
Jackson pointed out, however, that Willis is arguing the felony possession ban is unconstitutional "on its face" and thus would be void in all factual scenarios.
Lindsay stuck with the argument that the Constitution's gun-rights grant is fairly sweeping.
"I may not agree with it, I may not like it. But the plain language is unambiguous and it says what it says," said Lindsay.
"Hey, I don't believe courts should be required to have gun lockers," she added, in a critique of the current feud between the state Legislature and the judiciary.
Judges have rejected a legislative mandate to provide gun lockers, saying it hinders security at courthouses.
But Lindsay said the Constitution "does not allow infringement of the individual right to possess a firearm."
dharrie@sltrib.com


http://www.sltrib.com/06132002/utah/745059.htm




"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Ehrlich Caught in Middle of Gun Debate
Questions Raised About Brady Group Ads Targeting GOP Candidate for Md. Governor
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 13, 2002; Page B05


Unlike Michigan Democrat John D. Dingell, Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. doesn't hunt or even own a gun. Unlike Georgia Republican Robert L. Barr Jr., Ehrlich has not introduced gun legislation. And unlike Texas Republican Ron Paul, Ehrlich has not put the rights of gun owners at the top of his agenda.

Nevertheless, the nation's leading advocates of gun control last week bypassed these more obvious targets and aimed their first attack ad of the political season at Ehrlich, a Republican candidate for governor of Maryland. In the opening salvo of a planned $250,000 campaign, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence bought drive-time radio spots denouncing Ehrlich as an "extremist."

An examination of that charge shows that Ehrlich is guilty mainly of disagreeing with the Brady Campaign on a fundamental point: Throughout his legislative career in Annapolis and on Capitol Hill, Ehrlich has consistently opposed gun-control policies that prevent law-abiding people from owning any gun they choose.

Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign and a former Democratic congressman from Maryland, calls that "an extremist view" and Ehrlich a "strong ally" of the National Rifle Association, which has given him nearly $25,000 since 1995.

But Maryland gun owners from both parties say Ehrlich is not among their staunchest advocates. He has voted for background checks for gun purchases, for example. He does not support the right to carry concealed weapons, the law in Virginia. And he refused a plea from constituents to back repeal of the federal Brady Law, which created computerized background checks.

While the NRA gave Ehrlich an A rating ("solidly pro-gun") in 2000, the more conservative Gun Owners of America gave him a C rating ("leans our way: occasionally"). And he's still remembered in Carroll County for chastising the local GOP for raffling off a handgun.

"Bobby is more of a constitutionalist than a pro-gun person. He believes in the right to keep and bear arms," said Joe Burns Jr., a gun owner and raffle organizer. "But with the Brady Campaign, if you do not believe in basically a total gun ban, then you're an extremist."

Ehrlich says that outside the Washington suburbs and Baltimore, "my views are mainstream. . . . In rural areas, there's not a fear of guns. It's part of the culture."

A suburban Baltimore resident, Ehrlich is not steeped in that culture himself.

"My wife wouldn't let me own a gun," he said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "I don't shoot; I play golf."

Ehrlich said he developed his philosophy on guns during eight years in Annapolis, where he served on the House Judiciary Committee. Then, as now, that committee was a combative mixture of liberals from Montgomery County and Baltimore and rural conservatives.

"Disliking guns is a legitimate viewpoint," Ehrlich said. "But it boils basically down to the legal perspective: Is gun ownership an individual right or a collective right? I believe the U.S. Constitution grants that right to the individual."

Ehrlich said he does not believe gun control aimed at the general population is an effective way to stop gun violence. Instead, Ehrlich advocates a Virginia program called Project Exile that punishes gun crimes with mandatory prison time.

The Brady Campaign supports Project Exile, as does the NRA. Otherwise the two groups have vastly different views of Ehrlich's record, starting with his opposition to a Maryland bill to ban so-called Saturday night specials in 1988.

The Brady Campaign's radio ad said Ehrlich "led the gun lobby's fight" against the bill. Ehrlich said he merely voted against it, and a colleague on the Judiciary Committee confirmed his recollection.

"He wasn't a leader. I was as much a leader, if not more, than Bobby Ehrlich was -- because I come from gun country," said Del. Kevin Kelly, an Allegany County Democrat.

According to the Brady Campaign, Ehrlich's "extremist record" also includes four votes in Congress:

O In 1996, Ehrlich voted to repeal the so-called "assault weapons" ban, which prohibits the importation, manufacture and sale of weapons that gun control advocates argued were disproportionately used by drug traffickers and other criminals. The repeal effort failed.

O In 1999, Ehrlich voted to weaken a proposal to require clients at gun shows to submit to background checks. The original bill, which died, would have required the checks to be completed within 72 hours, the same deadline as for other gun sales. Ehrlich voted for an amendment that would have set the gun show deadline at 24 hours, saying a quicker check is necessary because most gun shows last only two days.

O In 2001, Ehrlich opposed an effort to force the Justice Department to keep computer records on gun purchases for at least 90 days, saying "there's no reason" to keep records after the sales are approved.

The Brady Campaign and federal law enforcement officials argue that the records must be maintained to audit the system's performance. Last month, the General Accounting Office found that records between one and 90 days old were used to retrieve firearms from more than 100 people over a three-month period whose purchases should not have been approved.

O This year, Ehrlich voted to amend the campaign-finance bill to exempt "communications pertaining to the Second Amendment of the Constitution." The amendment failed.

The Brady Campaign's charges could be devastating as Ehrlich prepares to face the likely Democratic nominee, Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Maryland has some of the nation's stiffest gun-control laws, and polls show that half of voters would favor an outright ban on handguns.

Barnes -- Gov. Parris N. Glendening's choice for comptroller in 1998 and a personal friend of Townsend's -- is well aware of the advantage for her if Ehrlich is tarred as a gun fanatic. Barnes denies coordinating his attack with the Townsend campaign. Townsend's communications director, Michael Morrill, said the campaign has "no relationship at all" with Barnes.

Barnes said the Brady Campaign targeted Ehrlich because "he is so far out of whack with the Maryland voter on this issue."

"He's 100 percent wrong. And every time she's had an opportunity, she's been on our side," Barnes said. "To me, it's almost inconceivable that he can be elected governor with this record."


c 2002 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41571-2002Jun12.html



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Edited by - Josey1 on 06/14/2002 06:21:18