SKS owner prevails in Chicago "Assault Weapon" case

[burf]

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- In a case supported by the NRA, David Lawson, who had previously been a plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago, challenged the decision by the City of Chicago not to allow him to register two normal SKS rifles with fixed ten-round magazines.

Although the rifles do not meet Chicago’s definition of an “assault weapon,” Chicago refused registration because they were “convertible” into “assault weapons.”

snip (Here's the good part!)

At the hearing, Mr. Lawson and his counsel presented the SKS rifles for examination by the court, but the two “expert witnesses” for the City, both police officers, refused to even touch them.


The judge ruled in favor of Mr. Lawson and ordered the rifles to be accepted for registration.

I wonder how much this cost the taxpayers of Chicago.

Link http://www.ammoland.com/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Text of the decision and some comments

http://chicagohandgun.org/2011/08/lawson-v-chicago-victory/

[Hoyt]

3. Thought I'd seen this on about 4 other threads since August. Hope he's enjoying life with his guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. I hadn't...thought the decision was just recently announced.

Apparently CPD is still not allowing SKS rifles to be registered. Even the state of CA is not that stupid.

I have a couple of them, one is often in the scabbard on the ATV when I head into kitty territory. With the original stock, its not a bad introductory semi auto rifle for women, though some prefer the M-1 Carbine.

[Hoyt]

10. Don't care what you carry in kitty country -- sks and one strapped to your leg needs to stay there

though, not in public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. I carry because of the neighborhood kittys and other critters

Always concealed when out and about, shoulder holster if I am riding. We have already discussed why.

[ileus]

16. So you're saying this guy carries his SKS's in public?

Or does he just live in Chicago and want to keep them in his home like any collector of fine firearms?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. A good thing IMO

The two CPD bubbas who testified were not experts on the rifle but the procedures. Not clear they even know how to load or operate one.

[burf]

6. That was my guess too.

Much like Laurel and Hardy in the piano moving business.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Would have been amusing if one of the was declared an expert and then could not demonstrate it

Most people have never seen a stripper clip and had no idea how to load a firearm using it. Most try to remove the magazine on an SKS.

[Euromutt]

14. As I recall, that's exactly what happened

Ah, yes, here we are:

6. The City witness, Officer Biggins, contends that the subject rifles have the capability of accepting a detachable magazine with a flick of a sharp object or a bullet without structural changes to the weapon. Officer Biggins testified that "the process" does not allow him to demonstrate this potential alteration to the subject weapons.

As I pointed out back in August, I own an SKS (a Yugoslav M59/66, to be specific) and I know that to remove the SKS's fixed magazine, you have to almost completely disassemble the rifle, up to and including removing the trigger group. As I also remarked, I'd like to see Officer Biggins charged with perjury, either for knowingly making an utterly false claim about the SKS, or for falsely claiming any degree of expertise concerning the weapon.

[DissedByBush]

15. Would have been hilarious

It's like the Enfield, which has an easily detachable ten-round magazine, but it's meant to feed by stripper clip and the magazine is designed to be removable only for cleaning.

In fact, slapping in a loaded magazine will usually pop the top bullet out of it. Completely impractical to use that way.

[-..__...]

8. Or, they simply didn't come prepared...

and bring along a 30 round magazine and any associated tools to demonstrate the process: E-Z as 1...2...3...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPQYBn98HNE&feature=fvst

My suspicion is that the City and PD took a dive in this case.

With Daley out of the picture, they can afford to bend a little/be more flexible with their current gun control laws.

More to the point, they can't afford to continue even more appeals and litigation only to be slapped down in court.

It's also possible they don't want to be the ones to provide the test case on the conditionality of "Assault Weapons" bans before the Supreme Court.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I would bet they did not know. It was pointed out they were not armorers

and a lot of cops are not particularly firearms literate.

The "it could be modified" meme was pretty much demolished in the proceedings and is already covered under the existing law.

I cannot see the city willingly taking a dive in court. They could have much easily reversed themselves administratively and saved cost and embarrassment.

[-..__...]

13. I view anything that involves the City of Chicago with a degree of suspicion...

there isn't much that I wouldn't put past them.

They could have much easily reversed themselves administratively and saved cost and embarrassment.

Government attorneys, AG's, DA's, are loath to ever admit that they could be wrong... not just Chicago, but anywhere.

They could have gracefully bowed out once their objection to have the firearms introduced as evidence was over ruled, but they didn't.

They could have easily found someone that was more knowledgeable, proficient and had more expertise with these particular firearms, but they didn't.

Rather than admit defeat, and save on potential further litigation, an easier way out would be to throw their "experts" under the bus/have them fall on their swords.

Better to look like the fool than seen as a quitter.

Something just doesn't ring right with the way they proceeded with this case.

Not that I have any objections to the outcome.

In the end the good guys won... again. B-)

[PavePusher]

11. Well, that's certainly odd.....

"At the hearing, Mr. Lawson and his counsel presented the SKS rifles for examination by the court, but the two “expert witnesses” for the City, both police officers, refused to even touch them."

I'm wondering if these two refused to look like fools for the city, or actually took a stand the only way they could against orders to lie under oath....

[ileus]

17. One small victory for freedom and civil rights....100's and 100's to go

[Remmah2]

18. Police as experts.

I've found police to be as much experts on firearms as they are on civil rights. I use a computer at work, does that make me a computer expert?

[Uncle Omar]

19. SKS Assault Rifles are for killing people

SKS Assault Rifles are for killing people. There is no place in society for such evil guns.

[Euromutt]

20. I do hope you were being sarcastic

The Simonov Semiautomatic Carbine and its variants are not "assault rifles"; they don't even meet the criteria for so-called "assault weapons." They are no more lethal than a century-old Remington Model 8 hunting rifle.

[ileus]

27. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh....scary 4ft long SKS's, SKS's are mean to people...

[SteveM]

28. Love to have one of those, but supplies are shrinking and in poor condition.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Hard to believe that you are that clueless. Stick around we will educate you

Here is your first lesson:

The SKS rifles under discussion in this thread are not assault weapons under any US law, never have been. They are comparable to other older hunting rifles including lever action 30-30s, (think cowboy rifles)

[Tejas]

22. SKS Assault Rifles are for killing home invaders.

FIFY

[AtheistCrusader]

23. An SKS isn't an assault rifle, or an assault weapon, by definition.

Try again.

[gejohnston]

24. really?

You have any idea how popular the thing is with US and Canadian hunters?

[-..__...]

25. Ahhh-Haaa...

I knew the folding bayonet had to be good for something else besides skewering pumpkins and watermelons!

[burf]

26. There was a reason for the use of the

quotation marks.