Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Chicago taxpayers backstop Oak Park's anti-freedom agenda

No "economic downturn" in Chicago, I guess, if the taxpayers don't mind being put on tap for this:

Chicago shields OP from NRA legal costs

The village board unanimously adopted a resolution Monday, accepting the City of Chicago's offer to protect Oak Park from legal costs created by the National Rifle Association.

The NRA is suing, attempting to overturn village's 24-year ban on handguns. Chicago and Oak Park are teaming up to fight the lawsuit. In the event the NRA wins, the city is offering to indemnify the village against having to reimburse the gun group's legal expenses.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the NRA's lawsuit against Chicago and Oak Park, Dec. 18. However, the gun group immediately appealed the ruling, hoping to prevail in a higher court.

The law firm of Mayer Brown is representing Oak Park, pro bono, in the case.
I take some exception to the "legal costs created by the National Rifle Association" wording--if Oak Park (well, now it would be Chicago, apparently) loses, and liberty wins, I would argue that Chicago and Oak Park created the legal costs, by fighting to keep unconstitutional laws in place.

That wording, though, should probably just be dismissed as typical "Authorized Journalist" editorializing posing as news--perhaps without the author even realizing that's what it is.

My real point is that Chicago taxpayers will now be on the hook for not only Chicago's share of the costs, but Oak Park's as well. Even worse, some of the people on whose behalf the lawsuits were filed in the first place are Chicago gun owners (and Chicago taxpayers), who are being forced to provide financial backing against their own interests.

By the way, some in the gun rights advocacy movement seem to see this case as something of a slam-dunk. I certainly hope they're right.

One more point. Is it too much to ask that those who claim to be covering this lawsuit acknowledge that the NRA isn't carrying the load all by itself?


Smershagent said...

Good post.

No, actually it's an excellent one.

This $hit really grinds my gears.

When Chicago loses, Daley should have to pay out of his own pocket.

Anonymous said...

I am absoulutely amazed that any judge could find grounds to dismiss this suit. Even a bought judge can't just say "I took their money, so I can violate the law in their interests. Anything else would be dishonest."

Evidently, he can.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Thanks, Smersh, although I basically just added some commentary to a story a mutual friend of ours turned up.

SA, by my (admittedly far from complete) understanding, the judge basically ruled that deciding the incorporation issue was beyond his authority. For all I know of law, that may be correct.

I can certainly respect a judge being circumspect with the exercise of the power of his position, even if I would prefer that he rule in what I think is the obviously correct direction.

tom said...

My parents LIVE in Oak Park. My dad is on our side in this. He's spoken with the village board and they weren't too concerned either way about this issue because they have a lot of liberal anti-gun Pro-Bono attorneys that have been working on these cases for them for YEARS anyway.

Northwestern, Loyola, UIC, and U of C profs with their heads in the wrong place on the issue.

Just thought you'd be curious to know that. The VIllage President spoke directly to my dad that "gun rights people can sue us as much as they want because we have good pro bono attorneys so it doesn't cost the village anything" when my dad confronted him about wasting village resources.

This is just a continuation of that theme. Utter lack of local fiscal regards and responsibilities has been part of the Village mantra since day one.

Anonymous said...

Their lawyers may be pro bono, but Alan Gura is not. SAF/ISRA probably pays him minimally (if it is working like Heller/Parker did). The loser of a civil rights case pays 2x the winner's legal fees typically. DC is on tap for millions.

I guess since the cases are combined, even if Oak Park ditches Chicago would still be on the hook for paying the lawyers for the McDonald suit (Gura, et. al.) as well as the lawyers for the NRA suit.

tom said...


My father is more disturbed by the whole self-righteous non-nonchalant attitude than anything else in his dealings with them.

That and the fact he has to keep his handguns at my home in Texas.