7th Circuit thumps Chicago Anti-Gun-Range Law

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

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

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.
elb
____________
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a militia, ..." D.C v. Heller, Majority Opinion.
"Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." D.C. v Heller, Dissenting Opinion.
ELB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3132
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.
elb
____________
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a militia, ..." D.C v. Heller, Majority Opinion.
"Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." D.C. v Heller, Dissenting Opinion.
ELB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

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
Excaliber
Moderator
 
Posts: 4453
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: Houston Metro

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.
elb
____________
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a militia, ..." D.C v. Heller, Majority Opinion.
"Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." D.C. v Heller, Dissenting Opinion.
ELB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin


Return to Federal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest