Three Chicago residents have signed on to a federal lawsuit challenging Cook County’s assault weapons ban, claiming the ordinance is unconstitutional.
On Aug. 27, plaintiffs Cutberto Viramontes, Rubi Joyal and Christopher Kaya, all of Chicago, together with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, filed their complaint in Chicago federal court.
The complaint takes aim at the ban Cook County has had in place since at least 2006 on the possession, sale and transfer of so-called “assault rifles.” The ordinance, known as the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban, was later revised in 2013.
According to the complaint, the ordinance prohibits the ownership of “any semiautomatic rifle with a capacity to accept a magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” if it also has any number of other defining characteristics, including the ability to folded or telescoped for ease of transport, a pistol grip, or any other feature that can be used as a “protruding grip” for the user to hold the weapon with their “non-trigger hand.”
The ban applies to a long list of rifles commonly sold elsewhere in the U.S., including Armalite’s AR-15 and other similar weapons.
First time violators of the ordinance can face a $10,000 fine and 6 months in prison, according to the complaint.
The complaint asserts the county’s assault weapons ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
According to the lawsuit, the weapons that are banned under the ordinance are used in only a fraction of crimes and murders committed with firearms in the U.S.
The complaint asserts, however, the weapons banned by Cook County’s ordinance are actually ideal for personal self defense, particularly against home invasions, as they are designed to make it easier for people of “smaller stature, including, of course, many women” to wield in self-defense situations, while also minimizing the risk of accidental injury to bystanders who are not the intended target.
According to the complaint, the ammunition used by the AR-style weapons are designed to slow down tremendously upon contacting a surface, reducing the chance of a ricochet or a secondary impact.
Further, the complaint notes such weapons are not “machine guns,” and can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger.
The folding and telescoping stocks on such weapons also make them easier to safely store “in accessible spaces,” according to the complaint.
And detachable magazines further increase the weapon’s safety, the complaint asserts.
“The rifles at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that law-abiding people possess at home by the millions,” the complaint said.
“… When seconds count, and the police are minutes or hours away, if they come at all … the People have a constitutional right to make use of common firearms for effective self-defense and not to be disarmed by the enactment and enforcement of the Ordinance.”
The complaint seeks a court order barring the county from enforcing its ordinance, and ultimately, striking down the ordinance as unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Christian D. Ambler, of the firm of Stone & Johnson, of Chicago, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom, of the firm of Cooper & Kirk, of Washington, D.C.