The Oldest Second Amendment Lawsuit Ends, With A Loss

Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago (1:10-cv-04257)

For many years, I thought my California Open Carry lawsuit, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al., was still the oldest Second Amendment lawsuit still standing. However, I discovered the case of Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago, which was filed around a year and four months before I filed my lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2010, and lost in the district court on July 23, 2024. I checked to see if an appeal was filed; there wasn’t. The deadline to file a notice of appeal was thirty days after the final judgment. It is now too late to file a notice of appeal. No notice of appeal means the final judgment is exactly that—final. The Plaintiffs will not be able to challenge the Chicago law again.

The Plaintiffs never filed an appeal during the fourteen years and fourteen days of litigation. Since they have not filed an appeal of the final judgment, the district court decision is binding only on the plaintiffs and does not establish a precedent.

The Plaintiffs’ original Complaint contained many claims. By the time of final judgment, the district court proceedings had dwindled down to two issues. The first was whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to “nominal damages.” The district court held that they were not.

The second issue was whether or not laser sights are arms protected by the Second Amendment. Succinctly, the eighty-six-year-old district court Judge Charles P. Kocoras (appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980) held, “We agree with Defendants that laser sights are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment and are rather firearm accessories.”

You can read all about it here at this CourtListener link.

Fortunately for the Plaintiffs, the district court judge did not require the Plaintiffs to pay attorney fees or costs of the suit.

I won’t be so lucky when Federal District Court Judge Sunshine Sykes enters judgment in favor of the State of California in my California Open Carry lawsuit. The only question is whether she will award costs prior to my technical win by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals two years ago, which vacated the final judgment of the district court of May 1, 2014, and vacated that judgment in full. The State of California only asked for costs of suit in its motion for summary judgment, but that doesn’t mean Judge Sykes won’t award attorney fees as well.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals policy is that the government is not entitled to attorney fees or costs of suit in civil rights lawsuits such as mine because to award them against a Plaintiff who loses would have a chilling effect on the filing of such lawsuits by individuals. After all, the Federal Courts like to maintain the illusion that the Federal Courts are welcome to individuals seeking to vindicate their rights.

But we live in Woke times, and I have a Woke judge assigned to my lawsuit (two Woke judges, counting the magistrate judge). Judge Sykes is angling for an appointment to the Court of Appeals by a President Harris. What better way to beef up her resume than by making an example of the first and only person to ever file a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of California’s bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns?