Would this gun ordinance pass constitutional muster?

BenBurch

Gatekeeper of The Left
BenBurch
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
37,538
Location
The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Hypothetical (not that I think its a good idea);

So, suppose Chicago lost its handgun ban ordinance.

What if the City, while prohibiting no weapons, ordered that all weapons in the City of Chicago that were not exempt under the earlier ordinance be entirely painted a particular shade of hot pink?

Would this pass muster?
 
God, I hope not!

I'd hate to have to walk around with a gaudy sidearm...
 
Hah! Not a bad idea for an experiment. I doubt you'd get much support from either side for it, though.
 
BenBurch said:
Hypothetical (not that I think its a good idea);

So, suppose Chicago lost its handgun ban ordinance.

What if the City, while prohibiting no weapons, ordered that all weapons in the City of Chicago that were not exempt under the earlier ordinance be entirely painted a particular shade of hot pink?

Would this pass muster?
Click to expand...

It would have as much constitutionality as requiring everyone in the city limits of Chicago to speak in pig latin (or a donald duck voice) if they want to exercise their first amendment rights.

Enumerated rights fall under the strict_scrutinyWP standard of review.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
Click to expand...

ETA: that's assuming, of course, that the SC rules that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Hypothetical (not that I think its a good idea);

So, suppose Chicago lost its handgun ban ordinance.

What if the City, while prohibiting no weapons, ordered that all weapons in the City of Chicago that were not exempt under the earlier ordinance be entirely painted a particular shade of hot pink?

Would this pass muster?
Click to expand...

What would your penalty be for having a non-pink gun? Would it be a felony to have a blue gun, or just a traffic type ticket? Go to jail? Property confiscated?

And you do know that they sell hot pink guns, don't you? My daughter wants one when she is of the proper age.

http://http://www.badgirlsguns.com/category/2580-Pink_Girls_Guns.aspx
 
More than anything, such a law could be challenged for effectiveness. That is, the reason for it would be concern for public safety. You'd be hard pressed, I think, to prove that this law would improve the public safety at all.
 
Charter Arms Pink Lady DAO

Left-handed, colors of the Hart Foundation, and it has the added coolness of being the company who made Son of Sam's gun. Not only would I carry a Chicago Pink, the gun box would play this every time I opened it:



:cool:
 
BenBurch said:
Well, effectiveness; Gang-bangers would NEVER have a pink gun. Not EVER. So any you find with a non-pink gun you can arrest at once.
Click to expand...


You could be onto something. Of course, now they'll look more like toys so it's likely the death toll among children will rise... but the silver lining is an older clientele at Molly's when I want a Ron Bennington I've Got My Own Cupcake.
 
BenBurch said:
Hypothetical (not that I think its a good idea);

So, suppose Chicago lost its handgun ban ordinance.

What if the City, while prohibiting no weapons, ordered that all weapons in the City of Chicago that were not exempt under the earlier ordinance be entirely painted a particular shade of hot pink?

Would this pass muster?
Click to expand...
It would probably only fly as far as an ordinance requiring you to wear a pink tutu in order to worship freely.

In other words, probably about a foot and a half, assuming it's a very windy day.
 
BenBurch said:
Hypothetical (not that I think its a good idea);

So, suppose Chicago lost its handgun ban ordinance.

What if the City, while prohibiting no weapons, ordered that all weapons in the City of Chicago that were not exempt under the earlier ordinance be entirely painted a particular shade of hot pink?

Would this pass muster?
Click to expand...
I don't see a painted firearm working well, or safely...
 
BenBurch said:
Hypothetical (not that I think its a good idea);

So, suppose Chicago lost its handgun ban ordinance.

What if the City, while prohibiting no weapons, ordered that all weapons in the City of Chicago that were not exempt under the earlier ordinance be entirely painted a particular shade of hot pink?

Would this pass muster?
Click to expand...

Bad idea. It would make guns look like toys. I have no idea if it would be constitutional, and I suspect we'll never find out.
 
Freddy said:
Bad idea. It would make guns look like toys. I have no idea if it would be constitutional, and I suspect we'll never find out.
Click to expand...

Oh, it is, I am just trying to explore the limits of limits.

Does non-prohibition mean non-modification?

You CAN prohibit whole classes of bullets; Can you limit the number of grains of propellant in rounds? How low?

You CAN prohibit laser sights and night vision sights; Can you prohibit optical sights of any sort?

You CAN require that a FOID be carried while you possess the weapon; Can you print them on 8x10 plastic pages with grommets and require that they be worn around the neck in plain view?

Could you, for example, while not prohibiting weapons of any sort, require that they be modified to have a safety that requires 90 pounds of force to operate?

Because you absolutely know that something not far from one of the above will be tried.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Oh, it is, I am just trying to explore the limits of limits.

Does non-prohibition mean non-modification?

You CAN prohibit whole classes of bullets; Can you limit the number of grains of propellant in rounds? How low?

You CAN prohibit laser sights and night vision sights; Can you prohibit optical sights of any sort?

You CAN require that a FOID be carried while you possess the weapon; Can you print them on 8x10 plastic pages with grommets and require that they be worn around the neck in plain view?

Could you, for example, while not prohibiting weapons of any sort, require that they be modified to have a safety that requires 90 pounds of force to operate?

Because you absolutely know that something not far from one of the above will be tried.
Click to expand...

I bet the test would be the same as for abortion restrictions: you may not create undue burdens to the exercise of the right. I'm not sure whether the pink paint would count, but I suspect the 8 x 10 plastic sheet around the neck is right out. As with other things, the Courts will establish the limits over time by deciding individual cases.
 
Last edited:
They were discussing the implications of the SCOTUS case on NPR's Talk Of The Nation the other day.
A very broad decision, eliminating all "infringement", could have implications that would result in court battles for many years trying to sort out the sorts of things speculated above...
What would definition of "arms" be? There was some discussion as to whether items now classified as "destructive devices" might suddenly fall under this infringement blanket...

Should be interesting.
 
BenBurch said:
Hypothetical (not that I think its a good idea);

So, suppose Chicago lost its handgun ban ordinance.

What if the City, while prohibiting no weapons, ordered that all weapons in the City of Chicago that were not exempt under the earlier ordinance be entirely painted a particular shade of hot pink?

Would this pass muster?
Click to expand...


Given a number of tragedies of people (mostly children) with kiddie guns getting shot because they looked real, leading to all toy guns being bright colors, it's probably not the best idea...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom