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).
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Ezell Ruling.pdf 381.05K
45 downloads .
