Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Chicago Ban On Gun Laser-Sights

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Laser sights for guns are not protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, a federal judge ruled on July 22, upholding the city of Chicago’s ban on the sights.

Firearms are effective weapons without laser sights attached “and thus a laser sight ‘is not a weapon protected by the Second Amendment’” but is instead an accessory unnecessary to operate firearms, U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras said, quoting a ruling in a separate case.

The organization Second Amendment Arms launched a legal challenge in 2010 against Chicago’s ban, which was imposed in 1999. The group said the laser sight ban violated the Second Amendment rights of its members and other law-abiding citizens.

Judge Kocoras said he analyzed the ban in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2022 that found governments that impose gun regulations must show the regulations are consistent with America’s historical tradition of gun restrictions.

Before looking at the history of restrictions, though, the decision guided courts to first decide whether the Second Amendment covers conduct restricted by a challenged regulation. The conduct must involve items “properly characterized as arms.”

Plaintiffs had argued that the laser sights are covered by the Second Amendment. The sights “are protected by the Second Amendment, as a modern version of something that has been a part of safe firearm usage for hundreds of years, i.e., firearm sights,” they said in a brief.

Chicago officials had told the court that “laser sights are not ‘arms’ within the meaning of the plain text of the Second Amendment, but are, rather, mere firearm accessories.”

Judge Kocoras said the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of showing laser sights are protected by the amendment. That included a failure to differentiate them from silencers, which were previously ruled to fall outside the amendment’s protection.

“Laser sights are neither firearms themselves nor necessary to the operation of a firearm, and are merely unprotected firearm accessories,” the judge said.

The ruling also dismissed attempts from Second Amendment Arms and others to obtain damages from an ordinance that banned many sales of firearms in Chicago until a judge declared it in violation of the Constitution in 2014.

The ruling came on the same day that Chicago announced it was dismissing a lawsuit it had brought against gun manufacturer Glock in March.

The suit had said the company was improperly selling firearms that could easily be converted into machine guns.

The notice of voluntary dismissal, filed with the federal court in northern Illinois, did not explain why the city was dropping the case.