View Single Post
Old July 6, 2011, 06:54 PM   #62
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,217
From the link to the article about the new ordnance:

Quote:
The move to introduce, pass, and implement this ordinance is a rush job as the City of Chicago freely admits. Jeff Levine of the City of Chicago's Law Department had this to say:

But Levine said the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals could rule on the lawsuits at any time, making it important for the city to get its own firing range rules on the books. The city hopes the appellate judges will opt not to intervene if Chicago has a firing range law in place, Levine said.

As Sebastian noted last night, Alan Gura does not think this ordinance should moot Ezell v. Chicago.
Looks like Sebastian (whoever he is) was right ... and Levine was wrong.

One might almost think the Circuit Court didn't like the fact that Chicago tried to thumb its collective, municipal nose at the SCOTUS.


I don't think the ordnance will hold up. Just for starters, they treat the "license fee" like an application fee. You have to pay it up front ($4,000!!!), and if your application is deemed "incomplete" or is denied -- the "license" fee is forfeited, even though you never got the license.

They give the Commissioner authority to deny an application if he deems the business
Quote:
... would have a deleterious impact on the health, safety or welfare of the community in which the shooting range facility is or will be located. A deleterious impact is presumed toexist whenever there have been a substantial number of arrests within 500 feet of the applicant's premises (measured from the nearest exterior wall of the premises) within the previous two years, unless the applicant has adopted a plan of operation that will provide reasonable assurance that the issuance of the license will not have a deleterious impact.
And:

Quote:
There shall be a minimum of 1 rangemaster for every 3 shooting range patrons who are discharge a firearm from the firing line.
Aside from being grammar-challenged ... one safety officer for three shooters? That's onerous.

No one under 18 allowed. God forbid a Chicago resident might want to teach his kids how to, like ... shoot a gun.

Love this part:

Quote:
4-151-160 RangeMasters - Qualifications and duties.
a) Every rangemaster shall:
  1. have - completen a course in firearm safety and instruction;
  2. be familiar with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations pertaining to firearms;
  3. have experience in range operations and management;
  4. be proficient in firearm utilization and instruction.
And where is this hypothetical rangemaster supposed to have obtained "experience in range operations and management" when Chicago has never had ranges?

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; July 6, 2011 at 07:20 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04402 seconds with 7 queries