by When it rains, it pours. At least that is the way it must seem if you are Hizzoner Mayor Richard Daley. On the heels of Benson et al v. Chicago – the lawsuit the NRA and the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers is bringing – comes another case, Second Amendment Arms et al v. Chicago.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times and court filings, Joseph Franzese, owner of Second Amendment Arms, and Robert Zieman have filed suit in the US District Court against the City of Chicago, Mayor Daley, and other Chicago officials. Second Amendment Arms is seeking to open guns stores in Lincoln Park and on Michigan Avenue while Mr. Zieman is seeking restitution for handguns confiscated under the 1982 handgun ban ordinance. Second Amendment Arms has filed applications for both of these stores with the City Clerk’s Office.
Franzese wants to open “boutique” type gun stores in Lincoln Park and on Michigan Avenue downtown, according to his lawyer Walter Maksym, one of Drew Peterson’s lawyers in his pending murder case.
“It’s not going to have firearms [on display] or bullets [for sale], and you’ll have to have an FOID card to get in,” Maksym said. “There would be a secure area and after you look at some videos, you can pick out a gun you are interested in and a security guard will bring it in to view.”
Maksym noted you would need an FOID card to see and handle and guns. You would then order the gun and come back to get it later after a background check is conducted.
Here is where it gets interesting. Not only is Mr. Zieman seeking restitution for his confiscated handguns but he indicates that he will seek class action status for the lawsuit as well as restitution on behalf of all other Chicago gun owners who had handguns confiscated under the old law.
The lawsuit is being brought under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution as well as relevant sections of the Illinois Constitution.
You can read the full complaint here.
UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune ran a story today on the Second Amendment Arms lawsuit. Various law professors and other lawyers are quoted concluding that the new law may not be “bullet proof”.
