Jump to content

Ezell v Chicago - New info


RacerDave6

Recommended Posts

It amazes me to this day some of the inane things that people like Scott Drury and Paul Castigliano say about the constitutionality of some of these anti-gun proposals.

 

They'll try to convince legislators that anti-Second Amendment legislation is constitutional - and then they're proven wrong, but more anti-Second Amendment stuff comes up, and they run their mouths again, and they're wrong again.

 

You'd hafta be a fool to listen to them.

 

You would think that when we're talking to people like Don Harmon and Kathleen Willis we'd say "Your win loss record in the courts for gun control is pretty lousy - why don't you stop already?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The County of Alameda, California, has a similar ban on gun stores. The favorable 3 judge panel decision was vacated. The appeal will be heard en banc in March. Teixeira v. County of Alameda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet the local media never mentions this big victory.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-gun-range-restrictions-20170118-story.html

 

Appeals court rules restrictions to gun-ranges in Chicago are unconstitutional

 

Tribune news servicesContact Reporter

The U.S. Court of Appeals handed Chicago another defeat in its effort to restrict the operation of gun ranges in the city.

 

The appeals court on Wednesday ruled that city ordinances restricting gun ranges to manufacturing areas in Chicago are unconstitutional. The ordinances also placed limits on the distances they can be located in relation to other gun ranges and to residential areas, schools, parks and places of worship.

 

A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted the city claimed the ordinances serve important public health and safety interests, specifically that they attract gun thieves, cause airborne lead contamination and carry a risk of fire.

 

"The city has provided no evidentiary support for these claims, nor has it established that limiting shooting ranges to manufacturing districts and distancing them from the multiple and various uses listed in the buffer-zone rule has any connection to reducing these risks," the court wrote in its opinion.

 

The court also ruled there was no justification for banning of anyone under 18 years from entering a gun range. However, the court says the city can establish a "more closely tailored age restriction" that does not completely extinguish the right of older adolescents and teens to shoot in a supervised firing range.

 

Judge Ilana Rovner dissented from the majority's opinion on the part of the ruling that struck down the ordinance banning those under 18 years from gun ranges, noting that laws and statutes are employed to protect children from harm, "even where the risk of harm is slight or negligible.

 

rest of story at link...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhonda posed for a picture with my daughter outside Chuck's Gunshop.

 

I'm going to show my daughter this court decision. Its pretty cool...

My wife and 2 little girls walked beside her at IGOLD a few years back. Rhonda took my girls as if they were hers. They took to her as if she was theirs. I think some of that has to do with the snacks she kept feeding them. Rhonda is an AWESOME CHICK! Congrats to her as well as the law abiding folks in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dissenting opinion points out that minors can have more restrictions placed on their rights. The dissent references the restrictions of free speech that were upheld in Morse v. Frederick. That case seemed familiar to me and when I looked it up, I saw it was the notorious "bong hits 4 Jesus" case.

 

Interesting to see that the bad decision in the Morse case is now propagating other cases. Fortunately the dissenting judge didn't oppose the majority's decision on minors, but it looks like they're signalling that they would approve of some restrictions.

 

Otherwise, the opinion of the court was very fun to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet the local media never mentions this big victory.

 

It's being reported everywhere.

 

The only question is what kind of shenanigans Chicago will come up with next. Apparently the city council and the mayor don't mind wasting taxpayer money fighting to keep all these unconstitutional laws.

 

I'm certain they will make it a living Hades for any shooting range to operate anywhere in the city. If you can manage to get through all the red tape and actually get a business license and building permits, I'm sure they'll have an inordinate number of "inspections" for "code violations" at random times. Anyplace that intends to go into business selling guns or operating a range within the city limits of Chicago had better make sure all their plumbing and electrical is up to snuff. They'd better not have any cracked sidewalks or chipped paint anywhere.

 

Other than that, congratulations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhonda posed for a picture with my daughter outside Chuck's Gunshop.

 

I'm going to show my daughter this court decision. Its pretty cool...

Your daughter must have an innocent face. I asked Rhonda for her autograph on a pamphlet ISRA have out at the Diplomat some years back, and she seemed hesitant when she asked me what I would be doing with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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