Chicago gun range ban struck down by US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

[slackmaster]

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9C0NWF4M.pdf

The arguments for striking the ban down are straightforward and logically compelling.

[eqfan592]

1. K&R nt

[X_Digger]

2. Wow, hell of a smack-down. "backlash", anyone? n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

3. How much more

Taxpayer money is Chicago going to spend in an attempt to strip constitutionally protected rights from their citizens?

[AzWorker]

4. Wow

.........simply wow.

[ileus]

5. The winds of change...

[DonP]

6. Looks like Rahm was just a little too slow ... just like the aldermen

They passed their new ordinance that allows Gun Ranges in the city earlier today, but with ridiculous restrictions.

But ... they'll still be writing the NRA and ISRA bigger checks for the legal fees and they'll have to rewrite their new laws anyway, because some of the restrictions have already been ruled unacceptable by the 7th circuit. I guess that makes the 7th circuit part of the big backlash.

How many more court slap downs will it take before they decide it might be easier and smarter to stop pissing away tax $ on these born to lose cases? At some point maybe these tin pot dictators will grasp the fact that the constitution isn't a quaint and archaic option in Chicago anymore. Save yourself some big bucks obey both the letter and the spirit of the ruling in MacDonald and stop playing cute games with the law.

It's almost like they were taking advice on how to lose the fight for more gun control from some posters here.

[oneshooter]

12. Could you post the Gun Range ordinance for us? n/t

[DonP]

17. When they finally publish it

When it finally gets published I'll try and find it.

All that's been available so far are excerpts along with the alderman's complaints and demands. One of them wants to insist that any ammunition purchased in the city must all be used at the range, for fear that "they'll buy some ammo, shoot 5 bullets and then sell the other 200 bullets on the street". Thanks heavens for well informed and bright public officials.

The big issue that the court of appeals focused on was for all their threats about how dangerous gun ranges were and how many fights broke out there (?) why weren't any of these happening at the current city run ranges for law enforcement or at any of the suburban ranges?

[DonP]

18. Here you go

But this was the one that the court just threw out yesterday and approved a TRO stopping the city for enforcing it.

Alan Gura already said the new law they rushed through to avoid this ruling (and failed at) is no better and they will continue with their court case against the city until Chicago finally joins the rest of the country on the 2nd amendment. At this rate Chicago is probably paying for Mr. Gura's 8th kid to go though Harvard and a new 80 foot sailing yacht to replace the little 50 footer that DC is paying for.

Reading the opinion it's a real slap in the face and kick in the ass to the idiot Daley and the City Council who rushed through the new laws the day after they lost MacDonald to be "too cute by half" as one of the circuit court judges referred to the new law.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59434669/Chicago-Range-Ordinance-07-11

[Atypical Liberal]

7. The tide keeps flowing our way. n/t

[damntexdem]

8. The stupid SCOTUS decision should never have happened.

On the other hand, even aside from it, even if Chicago's reasonable laws barring individual ownership had been left intact, a total ban on gun ranges seems overly restrictive.

[TPaine7]

9. What's stupid about the SCOTUS decision?

The people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended to protect RKBA against the states.

[lawodevolution]

10. civil rights are stupid, Huhh?

[beevul]

11. Your post...

Gives an entirely new meaning to "bitter clinger".

[spin]

13. Chicago had UNREASONABLE restrictions on ownership with their handgun ban ...

handguns are designed primarily as a defensive weapon and in the right caliber are a superb home defense weapon.

Shotguns, while also an excellent home defense weapon, have several disadvantages. The long barrel length makes them awkward to handle in a home. They are better suited for room defense. For example, you hear an odd noise in the middle of the night while you are in your bedroom and you fear an intruder. You call the police and crouch behind your bed with the shotgun pointed at the bedroom door. If some fool breaks your door down, you have an opportunity to be absolutely certain that he is an intruder before you shoot.

But playing Wyatt Earp and attempting to clear your house while armed with a shotgun can be a bad idea. The intruder hears you coming and when the barrel of your shotgun precedes you as you enter the room he is in, he grabs it and disarms you. Of course, this assumes that he is brave enough to stay in the house when he hears the distinctive sound of a round being racked into a shotgun.

A handgun is an excellent choice for a person in my particular situation. Playing Wyatt Earp is never the best idea for defense, but I have family in the house and I am the lightest sleeper. People are in and out of this big old home that was once a hotel at all hours of the day and night. It's rare that I hear a really strange noise that alerts me. Usually the only noise I grow concerned about is when one of our Boston Terriers sounds off when a stranger is at the door or enters.

I could grab my 12 gauge double barreled coach gun and wonder out to investigate the situation. The most probable result is that I would scare the shit out of one of my son in law or grandson's friends who had innocently came to visit at 2 am.



Instead I come out of my bedroom with my trusty S&W Model 642 snub nosed .38 caliber revolver in the front pocket of my shorts. I assess the situation and scare no one. If all is normal I get a glass of water and return to my bedroom. If ever the situation requires me to take action, I have my hand on the revolver in my pocket and can draw and shoot in less than a second. I pray that this will never happen. I would never want to shoot another person, but I would especially if he endangered my family.

[DonP]

19. WTF are you talking about?

A ban on gun ranges seems "overly restrictive", but a complete ban on gun ownership is "reasonable"?

You can have a place to shoot and practice but you can't own the tools you need to shoot with? Yeah, that makes about as much sense as some of the other proposed gun control rules I've read here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. We agree in part.

...a total ban on gun ranges seems overly restrictive.

What wrong with the rest of the decision?

[TPaine7]

22. I'll hazard a guess--or two.

1) "Stupid" means "not in harmony with damntexdem's policy preferences."
2) Someone has no clue as to the actual legal and historical evidence backing the Court in the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment was written to force states and their political subdivisions to respect the individual right to keep and bear arms.

[oneshooter]

23. Try #3, both of the above. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

14. Wow...

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.

LOL, PWNED.....

If firing ranges were added as a permitted use, she said they should be classified as an “intensive use” under the Code. An “intensive use,”
she explained, is a use “that could pose a threat to
the health, safety and welfare” of city residents and therefore
may be located only in a manufacturing district; even
then, intensive uses are allowed only by special‐use permit,
not presumptively. On cross‐examination Scudiero admitted
she has never been to a firing range. She acknowledged as
well that the governmental firing ranges within the city are
not limited to manufacturing districts; they are located near
churches, schools, university buildings, residential housing,
a county courthouse, retail stores, and parks. She has not
received any complaints from the public about these ranges.

[one-eyed fat man]

15. It might be even funnier

During the oral arguments, Chicago's lawyer also claimed gun ranges drew undesirables and a criminal element. She claimed they were often the scene of fights.

One of the judges asked if fights broke out at the police range, and pointed out the very courthouse where they were also has a range.

Several of Daley's relatives or cronies likely made a bunch of money defending Chicago in the lawsuit. Recall further that Daley demanded a city paid security detail and two city vehicles, in perpetuity, for his retirement.

Instead of every man, woman and child in Chicago having 10 bucks of their taxes to pay for the legal costs involved in the lawsuit, all of it should come out of the pockets of "King Richard" (retired) and the scumbag Alderman who rubber stamped his decision.

Look on the bright side, Chicago's willful and obstinate refusal to comply with the law is helping make Alan Gura a rich man.

[X_Digger]

16. The hypocrisy was thick in their arguments..

The decision goes into a lot of detail smacking down the hypocrisy in their arguments, heh.

[spin]

21. I've visited a gun range many times over the last 40 years ...

and I've never seen a fight.

[RSillsbee]

25. Clearly Chicago's lawyer was correct

The very courthouse where they were also has a range.

And look how many undesirables and members of "the criminal element" element come into that court house every single day.



If you insist :sarcasm:

HTML issue

[DonP]

24. The "New" CHicago range laws, from today's Tribune

From Eric Zorn's column in the Tribune today ... nice summary of how burdensome the "new" law they passed the same day the court slapped them down. This isn't even the one they went to court over! This is the supposedly new and "Better" law to make ranges in the city legal - well sort of.

It's pretty clear that the people that run Chicago still think the constitution and SCOTUS decisions are an option here.

"Under the law, which passed Wednesday, shooting ranges must be in areas zoned for manufacturing and at least 1,000 feet from any park, day-care facility or other children's activity center, place of worship, liquor store or bar, library, museum, hospital or district zoned for residential use.

They must close at 8 p.m., have one "range master" for every three customers on the firing line, and meet a variety of ventilation and noise-reduction requirements that industry experts say are higher than those imposed on law-enforcement training ranges in the city. Further, they must pay a $4,000 business license fee every two years, more than five times the fee paid by a similarly sized bowling alley, for example.

Gun ranges under the new law will not be allowed to sell guns or ammunition that can be taken from the premises, though such sales are standard at firearms practice facilities across the country."

No wonder the judge said they were "thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court Decision" and "being too cute by half".

I don't think I've ever seen a legal opinion from any court that was that bluntly stated.

All she left off was a "Stop Fucking Around Assholes!" comment

[one-eyed fat man]

26. Things have not changed much

since Al Capone threw the Mayor down the steps of City Hall. Chicago is still a cesspool of corruption and cronyism.