7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5659
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

Postby ELB » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:30 pm

7th Circuit Court uses Ezell vs City of Chicago to school District Court and Chicago on 2nd Amendment and the meaning of Heller.

"Instant Analysis" here: http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7500

Good reading.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5659
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

Postby ELB » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:32 pm

Extract from the opinion. More good stuff at the link above.

The plaintiffs here challenge the City Council’s treatment of firing ranges. The Ordinance mandates one hour of range training as a prerequisite to lawful gun ownership, see CHI. MUN. CODE § 8‐20‐120, yet at the same time prohibits all firing ranges in the city, see id. § 8‐20‐080. The plaintiffs contend that the Second Amend‐ment protects the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use—including the right to practice marksmanship at a range—and the City’s total ban on firing ranges is unconstitutional. They add that the Ordinance severely burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self‐defense because it conditions possession on range training but simultaneously forbids range training everywhere in the city. Finally, they mount a First Amendment challenge to the Ordinance on the theory that range training is protected expression. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction, but the district court denied this request.

We reverse. The court’s decision turned on several legal errors. To be fair, the standards for evaluating Second Amendment claims are just emerging, and this type of litigation is quite new. Still, the judge’s decision reflects misunderstandings about the nature of the plaintiffs’ harm, the structure of this kind of constitutional claim, and the proper decision method for evaluating alleged infringements of Second Amendment rights. On the present record, the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the firing‐range ban. The harm to their Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages, their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Excaliber
Moderator
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: DFW Metro

Re: 7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

Postby Excaliber » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:52 pm

ELB wrote:Extract from the opinion. More good stuff at the link above.

The plaintiffs here challenge the City Council’s treatment of firing ranges. The Ordinance mandates one hour of range training as a prerequisite to lawful gun ownership, see CHI. MUN. CODE § 8‐20‐120, yet at the same time prohibits all firing ranges in the city, see id. § 8‐20‐080. The plaintiffs contend that the Second Amend‐ment protects the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use—including the right to practice marksmanship at a range—and the City’s total ban on firing ranges is unconstitutional. They add that the Ordinance severely burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self‐defense because it conditions possession on range training but simultaneously forbids range training everywhere in the city. Finally, they mount a First Amendment challenge to the Ordinance on the theory that range training is protected expression. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction, but the district court denied this request.

We reverse. The court’s decision turned on several legal errors. To be fair, the standards for evaluating Second Amendment claims are just emerging, and this type of litigation is quite new. Still, the judge’s decision reflects misunderstandings about the nature of the plaintiffs’ harm, the structure of this kind of constitutional claim, and the proper decision method for evaluating alleged infringements of Second Amendment rights. On the present record, the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the firing‐range ban. The harm to their Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages, their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.


It's refreshing to see a court decision that upholds the law instead of creating a new one.
Excaliber

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5659
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

Postby ELB » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:56 pm

I believe the actual legal effect is not to grant the injunction, but to give the plaintiffs a do-over and let them present their case. But the "do-over" comes with some very specific instructions to the District Court, so the final outcome should be positive.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5659
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

Postby ELB » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:41 pm

Annnnnnnnnnnnd....Chicago loses again.

Ezell II opinion: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/r ... 897637:S:0

I believe Judge Diane Sykes wrote the opinion, and she is on Trump's list of SCOTUS candidates. Trump has promised a nomination for Scalia's vacant seat within two weeks of inauguration, and William Pryor has already been seen at Trump Tower for an interview with The Donald. Be interesting to see if Sykes makes an appearance there.


Short course as I understand it: In Ezell I, Chicago required an hour of shooting instruction or practice to get a license to carry, then banned shooting ranges in the city. 7th Circuit said "NO."

Chicago went back to drawing board and came up with a bunch of regulations for opening a range the were so onerous as to make it impossible on a practical basis. The District Court struck down some and upheld some regs, and both sides appealed to the 7th Circuit.

The issues that made it to the 7th Circuit were two zoning requirements and a minimum age to enter the gun range requirement.

Gun ranges could only be placed in manufacturing districts as special use permits, and could not be within 100' of each other nor within 500' of residential districts, schools, churches, and a whole bunch of other things. The left only 2% of the city where a gun range could be placed, and they were not necessarily commercially viable locations.

The age requirement prevented anyone under the age of 18 from entering a gun range at all. For the children!

The district judge struck down the manufacturing district requirement, but upheld the 500' rule and the age rule.

The 7th Circuit struck down all three requirements.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: 7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

Postby KLB » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:06 am

Here's a detailed explanation of the case:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... de43fda419

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5659
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

Postby ELB » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:46 pm

One would almost get the impression that Chicago government doesn't really want to follow the law re: 2A

7th Circuit to lower court and to Chicago: Stop foot-dragging on our gun ranges decision
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


Return to “Federal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests