On July 30th, 2023, I attended a multi-day annual street fair in Chicago called Wicker Park Fest, held on Milwaukee Avenue in the Wicker Park neighborhood. In previous years, I've always questioned the presence of "No Firearms" signs at each entrance, indicating compliance with Illinostate law 430 ILCS 66/65.

Even before the landmark 2nd Amendment case known as Bruen, I found the concept of labeling a Chicago public street as a "special venue" for such restrictions highly suspect. The event gates off areas containing businesses and residences, restricting access to them. While I can understand a public park being temporarily designated for such purposes, or perhaps an event like the Burning Man Festival in the Black Rock Desert, which restricts firearms on public land during their private event, applying these restrictions to a public street that services residential and commercial traffic seems questionable.

Similar cases have been filed in New Jersey and California to "special venue" and in particular 2A "special venue" issues. In New Jersey and California the initial rulings (NJ perhaps final) were 2nd Amendment favorable however I think upon appeal in Califonia 2A unfavorable but... It is California.

Upon entering the events in this writeup, I was required to submit to a search of my person and belongings by event security. I contested but was told it was mandatory.

Then, on August 11th, although I don't recall if a 430 ILCS 66/65 sign was posted, I was denied entry through the Market Days fair on North Halsted in Boystown because I was carrying alcohol. The alcohol was not open; I was simply lawfully transporting it to a friend's place within the sectioned-off area. Similar incidents have occurred in previous years at Wicker Park Fest, where I was denied entry and passage for lawfully carrying alcohol.

I believe these actions violated my 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendment rights.

Although somewhat familiar with filing federal civil rights lawsuits, I wondered if there was a more streamlined way to involve perhaps the DOJ. After some research, I found a form issued by the Northern Illinois District (Federal), filled it out, and sent it to the Court Clerk around August 1st, 2023. I may have sent in two forms: one for the Wicker Park Fest violations and another for Market Days, though my memory is a bit hazy.

Surprisingly, I received a prompt response from the court [link]. I was asked to fill out a civil cover sheet and write my complaint in compliance with Twombly and Iqbal by September 6th, 2023. However, due to my attendance at Burning Man and extensive travel in September and October, I didn't manage to address this correspondence in time. Some of the dates on the court's correspondence and my recollection are a bit unclear, but ultimately, the case was dismissed without prejudice under file number 1:23-cv-05693, with the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin assigned to the case. I wasn't really ready to take this case on for a number of reasons at the time but fully intended to get back to it. I was hoping by issuing that approved form I would perhaps trigger some internal mechanisms perhaps turning the case into perhaps the DOJ vs. the City/State. I'm ready now and just need to organize my thoughts and get the paperwork prepared and submitted. In reality, I have perhaps three pending lawsuits but as of writing this article waiting on a case called the United States v. Rahimi to be ruled on by SCOTUS as it could impact my arguments. Between issues stated in this article, events related to Rahimi, and having been denied my questionably constitutional FOID card in the past I have a lot to say and standing on 2nd Amendment issues.

Related to this case my claims are as follows:

Second Amendment Claims

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. This right was affirmed in the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), where the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Furthermore, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) extended this protection against state and local governments, not just federal

In the context of the Wicker Park Fest and similar events, the application of the Second Amendment becomes complex when considering the regulation of firearms in public spaces. The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) clarified that the Second Amendment also protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense

However, the Court also acknowledged that certain sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, could lawfully prohibit firearms. Public streets as used for Chicago street fairs are not “sensitive places” therefore invoking 430ILCS66/65 is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.

Fourth Amendment Claims

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The key issue in the context of event security searches is whether these actions can be considered state actions. Private security personnel conducting searches at public events do not directly implicate Fourth Amendment protections unless they are acting as agents of the state. The Supreme Court has established that the Fourth Amendment applies only to government actions, not to private parties.

The event organizers and staff were acting in cooperation with the City of Chicago for this event and were clearly denying access to public streets under such actions.

Fourteenth Amendment Claims

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This clause applies to state actions and does not directly address actions by private entities unless they are performing traditional state functions or are heavily involved with the state.

In the context of access to public streets during events, the city's permitting process for events on public streets effectively delegates a traditional state function to private event organizers, thereby making them state actors for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary

I think I'll write a letter to the City and the applicable street fair organizations prior to filing the lawsuit to see what resolution I can come up with out of court however I believe something still needs to be filed in particular to set the City of Chicago and for record so this cannot keep happening. I don't really want to have the organizers of Wicker Park Fest and Market Days need to bear any significant (if any) expense but this really sits on the City of Chicago for letting this type of situation even occur. The issue is if I don't call out the fair organizations as defendants the City of Chicago is going to point at them saying "They did it, not us". Perhaps I will wait for that to amend the complaint to include those parties but just somehow give a warning I'll do so if they try throwing the event organizers under the bus to just get the case dismissed without addressing the errors. This needs to be addressed or it will keep on happening uncorrected.

HS,

Kenneth William Mayle