RaleighDevil
Well-known member
It should be noted that the City Council could see the handwriting and altered its approach today, allowing ranges. Still, you should read the ruling to see how far these zealots will go. The arguments got farcical.
http://volokh.com/2011/07/06/seventh-circuit-tempo rarily-blocks-chicago-gun-range-ban/
The City’s firing‐range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the “law‐abiding, responsible citizens” of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self‐defense. That the City conditions gun possession on range training is an additional reason to closely scrutinize the range ban. All this suggests that a more rigorous showing than that applied in Skoien should be required, if not quite “strict scrutiny.”
To be appropriately respectful of the individual rights at issue in this case, the City bears the burden of establishing a strong public‐interest justification for its ban on range training: The City must establish a close fit between the range ban and the actual public interests it serves, and also that the public’s interests are strong enough to justify so substantial an encumbrance on individual Second Amendment rights. Stated differently, the City must demonstrate that civilian target practice at a firing range creates such genuine and serious risks to public safety that prohibiting range training throughout the city is justified.
At this stage of the proceedings, the City has not come close to satisfying this standard. In the district court, the City presented no data or expert opinion to support the range ban, so we have no way to evaluate the seriousness of its claimed public‐safety concerns. Indeed, on this record those concerns are entirely speculative and, in any event, can be addressed through sensible zoning and other appropriately tailored regulations. That much is apparent from the testimony of the City’s own witnesses, particularly Sergeant Bartoli, who testified to several common‐sense range safety measures that could be adopted short of a complete ban...
At the preliminary‐injunction hearing, the City highlighted an additional public‐safety concern also limited to mobile ranges: the risk of contamination from lead residue left on range users’ hands after firing a gun. ...
It cannot be taken seriously as a justification for banishing all firing ranges from the city. To raise it at all suggests pretext.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/ chi-city-council-approves-gun-ranges-in-chicago-20 110706,0,6446088.story
The Chicago City Council today voted to legalize firing ranges inside city limits as Mayor Rahm Emanuel tries to head off a federal court decision that could force the city to welcome them.
The vote came without discussion or dissent today.
The practice shooting venues could be built only in areas of Chicago zoned for manufacturing and would have to be more than 1,000 feet away from residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals.
The ranges also would have to be indoors, and a license to operate one would cost $4,000 every two years.
http://volokh.com/2011/07/06/seventh-circuit-tempo rarily-blocks-chicago-gun-range-ban/
The City’s firing‐range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the “law‐abiding, responsible citizens” of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self‐defense. That the City conditions gun possession on range training is an additional reason to closely scrutinize the range ban. All this suggests that a more rigorous showing than that applied in Skoien should be required, if not quite “strict scrutiny.”
To be appropriately respectful of the individual rights at issue in this case, the City bears the burden of establishing a strong public‐interest justification for its ban on range training: The City must establish a close fit between the range ban and the actual public interests it serves, and also that the public’s interests are strong enough to justify so substantial an encumbrance on individual Second Amendment rights. Stated differently, the City must demonstrate that civilian target practice at a firing range creates such genuine and serious risks to public safety that prohibiting range training throughout the city is justified.
At this stage of the proceedings, the City has not come close to satisfying this standard. In the district court, the City presented no data or expert opinion to support the range ban, so we have no way to evaluate the seriousness of its claimed public‐safety concerns. Indeed, on this record those concerns are entirely speculative and, in any event, can be addressed through sensible zoning and other appropriately tailored regulations. That much is apparent from the testimony of the City’s own witnesses, particularly Sergeant Bartoli, who testified to several common‐sense range safety measures that could be adopted short of a complete ban...
At the preliminary‐injunction hearing, the City highlighted an additional public‐safety concern also limited to mobile ranges: the risk of contamination from lead residue left on range users’ hands after firing a gun. ...
It cannot be taken seriously as a justification for banishing all firing ranges from the city. To raise it at all suggests pretext.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/ chi-city-council-approves-gun-ranges-in-chicago-20 110706,0,6446088.story
The Chicago City Council today voted to legalize firing ranges inside city limits as Mayor Rahm Emanuel tries to head off a federal court decision that could force the city to welcome them.
The vote came without discussion or dissent today.
The practice shooting venues could be built only in areas of Chicago zoned for manufacturing and would have to be more than 1,000 feet away from residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals.
The ranges also would have to be indoors, and a license to operate one would cost $4,000 every two years.
