Jump to content

Ezell Decision


mauserme

Recommended Posts

Decision here Ezell Ruling.pdf .

 

The ordinance admittedly was designed to make

gun ownership as difficult as possible. The City has legitimate,

indeed overwhelming, concerns about the prevalence

of gun violence within City limits. But the Supreme Court

has now spoken in Heller and McDonald on the Second

Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for selfdefense

and the City must come to terms with that reality.

Any regulation on firearms ownership must respect that

right.

 

Reading more, the court realized that the Ordinance was designed to prohibit firearm ownership and to 'thumb their nose' at the SCOTUS and the court responded in kind. W/ the new range requirements already voted on, realizing they were going to lose and for the same reason, this is just going to lead to another round of lawsuits against the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decision here.

 

The ordinance admittedly was designed to make

gun ownership as difficult as possible. The City has legitimate,

indeed overwhelming, concerns about the prevalence

of gun violence within City limits. But the Supreme Court

has now spoken in Heller and McDonald on the Second

Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for selfdefense

and the City must come to terms with that reality.

Any regulation on firearms ownership must respect that

right.

 

Reading more, the court realized that the Ordinance was designed to prohibit firearm ownership and to 'thumb their nose' at the SCOTUS and the court responded in kind. W/ the new range requirements already voted on, realizing they were going to lose and for the same reason, this is just going to lead to another round of lawsuits against the city.

 

 

Without reading the complete decision, could the mobile range be brought into the city even though the city enacted a new ordinance disallowing the mobile range? Or like you said is there more lawsuits to come?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FANTASTIC!!

 

 

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 free speech

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be misunderstanding, but it looks to me that it's not the end of the case, right? It appears this is simply granting an injunction against the city's ban until the matter is settled in court (a symbolic win, though in practice it's pretty silly since one could build a range during the injunction, then have the court decide the ban is OK, then have to tear it down).

 

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 deci‐ sion 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.

 

A pretty awesome ruling though. There's quite a lot of smacking down the lower court, too :)

 

The lower court judge tried to say that because there's no post-Heller precedent, she didn't need to apply any level of scrutiny to restrictions on the second amendment. This court replies:

The Court resolved the Second Amendment challenge in Heller without specifying any doctrinal “test” for resolv‐ ing future claims.

For our purposes, however, we know that Heller’s refer‐ ence to “any standard of scrutiny” means any heightened standard of scrutiny; the Court specifically excluded rational‐basis review. Id. at 628‐29 & n.27 (“If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”); see also Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641 (“If a rational basis were enough [to justify a firearms law], the Second Amendment would not do anything . . . because a rational basis is essential for legisla‐ tion in general.”).

 

In other words - Regarding heightened scrutiny (i.e. the government has to PROVE to some degree (depending on the type of scrutiny) that their laws limiting the 2nd Amendment are necessary and in the public's interest) ... the argument that it's not needed is absolute garbage since allowing the government to willy-nilly create gun control laws without proving their need would effectively erase the second amendment.

 

Thank goodness this court used logic. It's a refreshing change.

 

It's also nice to see the ruling acknowledge that our right to self defense is a pre-existing natural right.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of good in that decision.

 

I suspect that this decision means the ball is back in the District Court to issue the injunction. I wonder if that court must now take the new ordinance into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

 

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ruling lays it on heavily about the scrutiny needed when ruling on Constitutionally-protected rights (and that quote from the introduction, as GF pointed out, is golden: " the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.").

 

I wonder if this will help strengthen a fight against the Cook County semi-auto ban? This is a court ruling, in black and white, saying heightened scrutiny is required. In plain English. No weaseling about it.

 

I want to hear the Cook County board explain exactly what evidence they have that their semi-auto ban is necessary for public safety.

 

Edit: +1 to GF for simultaneously likening our dictators to weasels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find a map someone once did, I think with respect to 1000 feet from schools, that showed how very few spots were available in urban areas. This would be further exacerbated by the other non-school zones created. It'd be great to have a google map/mashup that showed there was no place or very few in Chicago that would meet their requirements.

 

ETA: here is a map done for the GFSZ law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding scrutiny, I love the comparison of the 1st and 2nd amendments. This is profound.

 

This whole issue centers on Chicago's ban on firing ranges. OK. But that particular issue results directly from Chicago's live-fire/competency training requirement. This whole case could easily be turned into a challenge of the live-fire and training requirements. And remember these are requirements established to authorize mere possession of a gun in the home. Chicago could simply drop the training requirement. After all, it is hardly a longstanding requirement (initiated just last year)!

 

Literacy/intelligence/competency tests are unconstitutional as long as voting or speech whatever other rights are predicated upon them.

 

In many ways, a firing competency test for second amendment rights is homologous to a intelligence competency test to speech or voting rights. Who is to say how thoroughly one must comprehend political issues or candidate's stances before that citizen is allowed to vote for public officials?

 

No ... we don't test their competency as a prerequisite to their right to vote. So what the heck are we doing testing competency as a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder if this will help strengthen a fight against the Cook County semi-auto ban? This is a court ruling, in black and white, saying heightened scrutiny is required. In plain English. No weaseling about it.

 

 

 

When I read through the decision, I thought they used 'almost strict scrutiny' as the ban on ranges is close to the core of the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got off the phone with NRA lawyers. This has a lot of GOOD for us in other cases.

 

His words were, "Bloomberg's lawyers should be shi--ing bricks over this"

 

It would seem that the City got the decision leaked to them as some of their new ordinance tries to dance on the head of a pin to come within the ruling, but I do not beleive the new ordinance does this. There is much more trouble for the city ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

 

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.

Actually GF Rahm took the ordinance to the Public Safety Committee yesterday and told them to pass it which they did. It was presented to the full City Council today and passed.

 

As to the insult to injury, I think Chicago will be the one suffering that. Since the last line of the ordinance says it will take effect 10 days after passage and publication I think an argument could be made that Chicago is liable for court costs since there is technically no ordinance in place.

 

It would be funny as he!! to me if Rahm and the City Council started financing the ISRA air strikes over Chicago :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

 

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.

Actually GF Rahm took the ordinance to the Public Safety Committee yesterday and told them to pass it which they did. It was presented to the full City Council today and passed.

 

As to the insult to injury, I think Chicago will be the one suffering that. Since the last line of the ordinance says it will take effect 10 days after passage and publication I think an argument could be made that Chicago is liable for court costs since there is technically no ordinance in place.

 

It would be funny as he!! to me if Rahm and the City Council started financing the ISRA air strikes over Chicago :tongue:

 

The biased media is reporting the passage of the new ordinance today with absolutely NO mention of the 7th Circuit decision. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

 

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.

Actually GF Rahm took the ordinance to the Public Safety Committee yesterday and told them to pass it which they did. It was presented to the full City Council today and passed.

 

As to the insult to injury, I think Chicago will be the one suffering that. Since the last line of the ordinance says it will take effect 10 days after passage and publication I think an argument could be made that Chicago is liable for court costs since there is technically no ordinance in place.

 

It would be funny as he!! to me if Rahm and the City Council started financing the ISRA air strikes over Chicago :)

that would be nice for once. like

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision is today's news, the ordinance is yesterday's. If you're looking at a newspaper, no surprise that they aren't as up to date as they should be.

 

Just from my quick browsing of the ordinance, I see some stumbling blocks:

 

1. Outdoor and mobile ranges totally prohibited--I thought Ezell had a plaintiff who wanted to bring in a mobile range? Am I wrong? I know the ISRA wanted to do that . . . I think.

 

2. Ranges not only limited to manufacturing zones, but within those zones, prohibited within 1000 feet of residential zones. The most popular indoor range in Springfield might have trouble meeting that standard, and it's located in an industrial park on the edge of town.

 

3. Ranges prohibited within 1000 feet of all the places already mentioned: schools, day-care facilities, libraries (no, really) and places of worship (I'm not making this up) retail liquor sellers (in the manufacturing zone, I guess?) and "children's activities facilities" (I looked that one up, it includes tumbling centers, dance schools, martial-arts schools, pools, climbing centers, arts and crafts places . . . anywhere kids do anything for fun or education that isn't a school or a day-care facility, basically.)

 

4. Ranges prohibited from allowing anyone under 18 to enter the facilities for any reason. Your 12-year-old can't sit at the ammo counter and have a coke while you shoot, even if she never touches a firearm or ammunition. Your ten-year-old can't even come in with you and use the bathroom if the family drops you off to go shooting. As for taking your kids shooting as a family activity . . . well, in Chicago, it isn't one.

 

5. Ranges prohibited from "providing" firearms to patrons other than for the 1-hour CFP training course. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like that could be read so that they certainly can't sell firearms on the premises (even though they need an FFL to run the range) nor could they rent them or even simply provide a firearm for someone taking an NRA safety course, for instance. Basically, you can't even touch a gun even in this commercial range setting unless you have a CFP for it or you're there with a friend who does, and forget about trying out different firearms, as is common in other places. It's not The Chicago Way.

 

6. Ranges required to use an approved (by Supt. McCarthy's office) safety plan that includes video surveillance inside and out, with all video surveillance archived for 30 days and "made available to members of the police department." This may be boilerplate, but it caught my eye. The words "court order" and "warrant" are conspicuously absent. It reads, to me, as if they're required to keep 30 days of their own surveillance and allow Chicago police officers to come in and view whatever they want at their discretion. I don't know whether other places have required anything like this, or if other businesses have similar licensing requirements, but it jumps right out at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nit picking but.... at what time did the courts ruling get announced ? and at what time did the council pass its new ordinance? Does Rahm have to sign ordinance for it to become effective like Gov has to sign bills? Chicago's still playing games but does Gura have some room to play back against this last minute council effort?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG! OMG! on page 48/49 of the decision the court states:

 

The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforcement

of Chicago Municipal Code § 8‐20‐280—the prohibition

on “hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place

where firearms are discharged.” They are entitled to a

preliminary injunction to that effect. To be effective, however,

the injunction must also prevent the City from enforcing

other provisions of the Ordinance that operate indirectly

to prohibit range training. The plaintiffs have identified

several provisions of the Ordinance that implicate activities

integral to range training: CHI. MUN. CODE §§ 8‐20‐020

(prohibiting the possession of handguns outside the home),

8‐20‐030 (prohibiting the possession of long guns outside

the home or business), 8‐20‐080 (prohibiting the possession

of ammunition without a corresponding permit and registration

certificate), 8‐20‐100 (prohibiting the

transfer of firearms and ammunition except through

inheritance), 8‐24‐010 (prohibiting the discharge of

firearms except for self‐defense, defense of another, or

hunting). To the extent that these provisions prohibit

law‐abiding, responsible citizens from using a firing

range in the city, the preliminary injunction should

include them as well. Similarly, the injunction should

prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude

firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city.

 

It sounds like they basically said that the WHOLE ordinance is unconstitutional and they should be enjoined from enforcing ANY of it!!

 

nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Court also addresses other restrictions in the ordinance:

Last paragraph of pg. 49/top of pg. 50

Finally, because range training is required for the issuance

of a Chicago Firearm Permit, a registration certificate, and

ultimately, for lawful possession of any firearm, see CHI.

MUN. CODE §§ 8‐20‐110(a), 8‐20‐140(a)‐, the firing‐range

ban implicates not only the right to train at a range but also

the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for

self‐defense. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should

include sections 8‐20‐110(a) and 8‐20‐140(a) to the extent

that those provisions operate to prohibit otherwise eligible

persons from “carry[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm” at a

range without a Permit or registration certificate while they

are trying to complete the range‐training prerequisite for

lawful firearm possession.

 

Those are the bounds of the proposed preliminary

injunction, which should be entered upon remand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG! OMG! on page 48/49 of the decision the court states:

 

The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforcement

of Chicago Municipal Code § 8‐20‐280—the prohibition

on “hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place

where firearms are discharged.” They are entitled to a

preliminary injunction to that effect. To be effective, however,

the injunction must also prevent the City from enforcing

other provisions of the Ordinance that operate indirectly

to prohibit range training. The plaintiffs have identified

several provisions of the Ordinance that implicate activities

integral to range training: CHI. MUN. CODE §§ 8‐20‐020

(prohibiting the possession of handguns outside the home),

8‐20‐030 (prohibiting the possession of long guns outside

the home or business), 8‐20‐080 (prohibiting the possession

of ammunition without a corresponding permit and registration

certificate), 8‐20‐100 (prohibiting the

transfer of firearms and ammunition except through

inheritance), 8‐24‐010 (prohibiting the discharge of

firearms except for self‐defense, defense of another, or

hunting). To the extent that these provisions prohibit

law‐abiding, responsible citizens from using a firing

range in the city, the preliminary injunction should

include them as well. Similarly, the injunction should

prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude

firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city.

 

It sounds like they basically said that the WHOLE ordinance is unconstitutional and they should be enjoined from enforcing ANY of it!!

 

nice.

OMG, NICE ONE.BRING ON THE GUN SHOPS, GUN RANGES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...