Another nail in Chicago's anti-gun coffin... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Another nail in Chicago's anti-gun coffin...


WarCry
07-06-2011, 19:26
The 7th Circuit court ruled that Chicago's ban on gun ranges in they city limit not only violates 2nd amendment rights, but 1st, also.

Ezell v. City of Chicago (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9C0NWF4M.pdf)

(please note: quotes below are sourced from the above-linked public document, not a copyrighted work)

A few highlights:

The City’s confused approach to this case led the district court to make legal errors on several fronts: (1) the organizational plaintiffs’ standing; (2) the nature of the plaintiffs’ harm; (3) the scope of the Second Amendment right as recognized in Heller and applied to the States in McDonald; and (4) the structure and standards for judicial review of laws alleged to infringe Second Amendment rights.

#3 is especially nice to see....

In response to Chicago's claim that "they can just go to the suburbs":


In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ ” Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76‐77 (1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939)). The same principle applies here. It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a freespeech or religious‐liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.


It’s true that Second Amendment litigation is new, and Chicago’s ordinance is unlike any firearms law that has received appellate review since Heller. But that doesn’t mean we are without a framework for how to proceed. The Supreme Court’s approach to deciding Heller points in a general direction. Although the critical question in Heller—whether the Amendment secures an individual or collective right—was interpretive rather than doctrinal, the Court’s decision method is instructive.

With little precedent to synthesize, Heller focused almost exclusively on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, consulting the text and relevant historical materials to determine how the Amendment was understood at the time of ratification. This inquiry led the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment secures a pre‐existing natural right to keep and bear arms; that the right is personal and not limited to militia service; and that the “central component of the right” is the right of armed self‐defense, most notably in the home.

And there's a really good analysis/write-up at Josh Blackman's site (http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7500).

Gunnut 45/454
07-07-2011, 10:19
I like how they state emfacticailly that the right is a Individual right ! Chitcago needs to read the tea leafs there toast! :rofl:

wjv
07-07-2011, 11:01
Chicago will simply ignore the ruling by creating 1,000+ business/tax/safety requirements which "Must Be Met" before they will issue a permit for a new shooting range. .

Glockdude1
07-07-2011, 11:10
Don't all the bad guys/gang bangers in Chicago, just the streets for shooting ranges anyway???

:cool:

WarCry
07-07-2011, 13:46
If Chicago wants to have ANY control left at all, they need to learn to play ball REAL fast, because there are two lawsuits going on right now that the plaintiffs seem to be striving for near-constitutional carry.

Rep Brandon Phelps, trying to get CCW passed, said on the floor of the House that his door was open to try and accommodate concerns over CCW - like courthouses, colleges, etc. (Yes, it seems like he was caving, but the point was he wanted to get the BASIS passed, and we can work on the rest later.) He told peers if they didn't pass the law, the issue would be taken up in the courts, and there wouldn't be the same opportunity to wheel and deal if the courts come down on the RKBA (which is, as of today, a near certainty).

.....Guess what happened? And guess what's coming?

bigskinny
07-09-2011, 18:20
Don't all the bad guys/gang bangers in Chicago, just the streets for shooting ranges anyway???

:cool:



Come on there is no gangbangers or crime in chicago.:tongueout:

Glockdude1
07-09-2011, 18:29
Come on there is no gangbangers or crime in chicago.:tongueout:

You are right!!!

WTH was I thinking???

Guns are illegal in Chicago, so there can't be any crime there!!

Thanks for setting me straight........... :supergrin:

maestro pistolero
07-11-2011, 00:43
Chicago will simply ignore the ruling by creating 1,000+ business/tax/safety requirements which "Must Be Met" before they will issue a permit for a new shooting range. .If they do, they will likely be found in contempt this time, because in ordering the lower court to issue the injunction, the 7th circuit court of appeals was very careful to spefically order them NOT to use zoning laws or other end-run means to make opening/operating a range overly burdensome. The noose is only beginning to tighten.

Even the most anti-gun judge on the panel said the city had "thumbed it's nose" at the Supreme Court ruling (McDonald vs Chicago)