Tvandermyde Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:10 PM Share Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:10 PM http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/6358572-418/city-council-panel-oks-gun-range-ordinance.htmlCity Council panel OKs gun range ordinance BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com July 5, 2011 4:36PM Gun ranges would be free to operate in Chicago, but only in areas zoned for manufacturing under rigid conditions, thanks to a mayoral plan rushed through a City Council committee Tuesday to avoid an adverse court ruling. Two federal lawsuits have been filed challenging the ban on gun ranges in a city whose residents are now required to complete a firearms training course in order to obtain a gun permit. That forces Chicago gun owners to travel to suburban gun ranges. If the city waits for the ban on gun ranges to be overturned, it would be in the unenviable position of having the court dictate an ordinance that could be far less restrictive. That’s not an outcome that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is prepared to risk. On Tuesday, the City Council’s Public Safety Committee reluctantly approved an ordinance directly introduced to committee, a rarely-used shortcut normally reserved for emergencies. It would allow gun ranges, but only with special use permits that require public hearings. Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that’s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. The mayor’s ordinance also mandates that Chicago gun ranges be enclosed and mandates the type of construction. They could operate, only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. With those restrictions, aldermen unanimously approved the ordinance. But, that doesn’t mean they were thrilled about it. Far from it. “We don’t want them to be de-facto sales for ammunition, where anyone can walk in, fire five shots and walk out with 200 rounds of ammunition that could be re-sold on the street. ... That’s ammunition that could be used against citizens or police,” said Ald. Harry Osterman (48th). “We’re in the summer months when crime escalates. We’re very concerned. ... We want to make sure these are safe and well-regulated. ... I don’t know that anyone wants to have gun ranges in our city. ... But, [for] law-abiding citizens who want to be trained to protect their families — whether it’s with a long-gun or a handgun — there needs to be facilities for them to do it.” Although Chicago gun ranges would be free to sell ammunition only for use at the facility, Ald. Willie Cochran (20th), a former Chicago Police officer, said, “What I’m worried about is the restrictiveness of it and our ability to enforce.” The National Rifle Association branded the ordinance so restrictive, it invites another lawsuit. “This is protected constitutional activity. If the city wants to continue to deny it, as they have with their revised gun ordinance, then obviously they haven’t learned anything from court rulings and our tenacity,” said Todd Vandermyde, Illinois legislative liaison for the NRA. “The city is already on the hook for big-time legal fees in the McDonald case [that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban]. When you have a multi-million dollar deficit, you should be trying to find ways to minimize litigation instead of inviting more litigation.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:24 PM Share Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:24 PM Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that’s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. I bet someone is computing this restriction at this very moment and triangulating just exactly how thiswill limit possible range sites. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:42 PM Share Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:42 PM They are scared, but still haughty as can be. What a bunch of arrogant bureaucrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:48 PM Share Posted July 5, 2011 at 10:48 PM Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that’s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. I bet someone is computing this restriction at this very moment and triangulating just exactly how thiswill limit possible range sites. . . They probably already have done the calculations... Oh darn, guess there's nowhere in the city to have a range after all. The 1000 foot regulation would just put everything within range of one of those things - or so they hope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted July 5, 2011 at 11:14 PM Share Posted July 5, 2011 at 11:14 PM Thanks, Todd. Nice quote in the article. They come right out and say it ... this decision is a direct result of the pending lawsuit, and they think that if they come to the table now, the city might get the most restrictive outcome possible. It very much is a "tit for tat" game Chicago is playing (with matters affecting fundamental civil rights!). I can't help but wonder if the 7th circuit court might see Chicago's action for what it really is, and slap them despite their likely having an "allowance" for gun ranges. And Osterman, a new Alderman, isn't happy about it. He's worried about people buying ammunition, among other things. What a dipshit. It's a pleasure to see him continue to be frustrated by this issue. Here is the Tribune's article on the matter: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-aldermen-moving-quickly-to-legalize-firing-ranges-in-chicago-20110705,0,7023780.story Note the license fee ... $4000 each two years to the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeyl Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:03 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:03 AM Chicago's interactive zoning map. https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/ still lots of scattered manufacturing areas and strips right along/near CTA routes in many areas of the city. And of course an urban range IMHO should be indoors, but 1,000 feet(almost two city blocks) from a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. That's a deal killer. Good luck, leaves you pretty much in very out of the way(and dangerous) locations like parts of the "westside" and around Lake Calumet. Try again Rahm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer_Fudd Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:21 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:21 AM Note the license fee ... $4000 each two years to the city. The cost is similar to that of a liquor license. Bars have similar restrictions on what they can be near...although nowhere near 1,000 ft. I believe it's 150 ft for a bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer_Fudd Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:36 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:36 AM Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that’s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. I bet someone is computing this restriction at this very moment and triangulating just exactly how thiswill limit possible range sites. . . They probably already have done the calculations... Oh darn, guess there's nowhere in the city to have a range after all. The 1000 foot regulation would just put everything within range of one of those things - or so they hope... Without doing some measurements I'd say here's a list of possible places, off the top of my head, that don't hit those 1,000 ft. restrictions. I think the big restriction caveat is the "Residential District". Tons of manufacturing places border houses. 1. Stockyards2. Old US Steel Land Site on the lakefront3. Ford City Manufacturing area by Tootsie Roll4. Kinzie St. Manufacturing District.5. Goose Island6. Pullman/Lake Calumet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:39 AM Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:39 AM http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/ John Richardson reports on an ordinance floated by Rahm Emanuel that would allow ranges in the City of Chicago. This is ostensibly aimed at Ezell v. Chicago, but Alan Gura is reporting on Twitter it won’t moot the case. This is good news. Mayor Rahm’s backpedaling indicates he’s smarter than his predecessor. He’s at least backing up to what he thinks is a more defensible position. Daley basically stuck to his guns and tried to reargue Heller. You can read more about the ordinance here: Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that’s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. No wonder Alan Gura isn’t worried about Ezell. Is there anywhere in Chicago you could have a range under this ridiculous standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:43 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:43 AM I guess a bullet cant travel 1000 feet. Would love to see there faces when NRA and SAF file new suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:08 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:08 AM Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that's only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. I bet someone is computing this restriction at this very moment and triangulating just exactly how thiswill limit possible range sites. . . OR.......maybe they know just exactly where the one spot in the city where it would be allowed,and they already know who might be granted the ONLY license..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:12 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:12 AM Its going to be interesting to see how the Chicago bureaucracy is going to screw this one up. So they are already talking about sales of ammo and not wanting people to be leaving with unfired rounds. So I'm seeing someone's going to be having a FFL at the Range. See where this can go? An FFL.... Gee they can sell firearms and do transfers. Stuff like that. Think the aldermen are ready for that? OMG There's gonna be the wild west in the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:13 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:13 AM Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that's only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. I bet someone is computing this restriction at this very moment and triangulating just exactly how thiswill limit possible range sites. . . OR.......maybe they know just exactly where the one spot in the city where it would be allowed,and they already know who might be granted the ONLY license..... Or which alderman's wife owns the property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeyl Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:24 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:24 AM Or which alderman's wife owns the property. And you need the "right" insurance broker too, maybe John Daley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:53 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:53 AM This is full of WIN for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted July 6, 2011 at 04:16 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 04:16 AM Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that’s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district. I bet someone is computing this restriction at this very moment and triangulating just exactly how thiswill limit possible range sites. . . I'd bet they did it while they were writing it. "ok, there's STILL a few sites open..." "Throw in Churches".... "Not enough" "Day Care?" "unh unh, STILL short" "Ah HAH, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS!!!" "Yup, that did it"..... "Ok, nra, you've been rahmmed..., THIS oughta get the court off our backs... no money for the them on THIS one ... he he he..... till they figure it out in a couple of years, after all they don't have OUR maps..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted July 6, 2011 at 04:20 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 04:20 AM Turns out Gura ain't fooled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravyboy77 Posted July 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM Turns out Gura ain't fooled. Yep, love his Twitter reply:Chicago's revised range ban should not end Ezell case. "No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted July 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM Some of those restrictions actually make some sense. Do you really want to live next door to a shooting range? They can be really noisy. 1000 ft sounds like a long way but sound travels in weird ways some times. I don't really get why it is necessary to restrict operations to times most people are at work, so I expect the lawsuits will have to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted July 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM Some of those restrictions actually make some sense. Do you really want to live next door to a shooting range? They can be really noisy. 1000 ft sounds like a long way but sound travels in weird ways some times. I don't really get why it is necessary to restrict operations to times most people are at work, so I expect the lawsuits will have to continue. Any range would have to be indoors. I do not know of any indoor pistol ranges that create a noise problem even in there own parking lots, let alone 200' away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted July 6, 2011 at 01:18 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 01:18 PM I doubt the ordinance has noise complaints in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted July 6, 2011 at 01:38 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 01:38 PM “This is protected constitutional activity. If the city wants to continue to deny it, as they have with their revised gun ordinance, then obviously they haven’t learned anything from court rulings and our tenacity,” said Todd Vandermyde, Illinois legislative liaison for the NRA. “The city is already on the hook for big-time legal fees in the McDonald case [that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban]. When you have a multi-million dollar deficit, you should be trying to find ways to minimize litigation instead of inviting more litigation.” [/size] Could the city of Chicago eventually become the largest donor for the NRA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted July 6, 2011 at 01:49 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 01:49 PM OR.......maybe they know just exactly where the one spot in the city where it would be allowed,and they already know who might be granted the ONLY license..... That's my guess. They will allow one range to try and skirt the law, and the person operating the one range will happen to be connected to one of the aldermen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:06 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:06 PM http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/07/chicago-range-ordinance.html Has the 24 page ordinance at the link. Gura is going to have another payday after this goes thru the courts. Spotted 4-151-100 ( b ) minium of 1 range master per 3 patrons shooting Any one ever see this at a gun range? I also ask in this rule is even SOP at a CPD range? another page dealing with registered and CFP 4-151-170 registration of firearms and sales of ammunition. ( b ) a licensee may sell ammunition to a shooting range patron only for use at the shooting range. The licensee shall ensure that no shooting range patron leaves the shooting range facility with any ammunition purchased from the licensee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ming Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:46 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:46 PM I see only registered firearms will be allowed at the range. Let's see now. If I recall correctly there are over 116,000 FOID card holders in Chicago and just over 3000 registered firearm owners. Looks like there's going to be a rather small pool of clients for the range. Doesn't sound like a very good business opportunity to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:57 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 02:57 PM Looking at 8-20-080 possession of ammunition and I have a question for Chicagoans. You have to have a CFP for each handgun you want to legally register and its listed for the caliber. How narrow is the interpretation? If you own a .44 magnum or .357 magnum are you afoul of the law if you have .38 special or .44 special ammunition? Or even .22 shorts out of a pistol registered as a .22 LR ? 59434669-Chicago-Range-Ordinance-07-11 (dragged).pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:02 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:02 PM Or which alderman's wife owns the property. And you need the "right" insurance broker too, maybe John Daley. So.....you guys know a little about how Chicago politics work,huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:05 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:05 PM Some of those restrictions actually make some sense. Do you really want to live next door to a shooting range? They can be really noisy. 1000 ft sounds like a long way but sound travels in weird ways some times. I don't really get why it is necessary to restrict operations to times most people are at work, so I expect the lawsuits will have to continue. Only problem I'd have is,maybe I couldn't piss off my porch anytime of day anymore,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:16 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 03:16 PM What a joke. All employees and applicants must have a CFP. REALLY?! It's in 4-151-040 Qualifications for licenses No gun rentals. Can't sell ammo other than what is used at the range. How can one even make this a profitable business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milq Posted July 6, 2011 at 06:23 PM Share Posted July 6, 2011 at 06:23 PM What a joke. All employees and applicants must have a CFP. REALLY?! It's in 4-151-040 Qualifications for licenses No gun rentals. Can't sell ammo other than what is used at the range. How can one even make this a profitable business?I think you're catching on! Allow the ranges to quell the lawsuit but make it so that no one could possibly afford to operate a range. Rahm is just postponing the inevitable in my opinion. Sooner or later the city will be forced to allow residents to own guns without ridiculous restrictions. This just buys time by fleecing the uninformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.