View Single Post
Old July 6, 2011, 03:14 PM   #51
Spats McGee
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,904
Some of my favorite quotes:

Indeed, the City considers live firing range training so critical to responsible firearm ownership that it mandates this training as a condition of lawful firearm possession. At the same time, however, the City insists in this litigation that range training is categorically outside the scope of the Second Amendment and may be completely prohibited. There is an obvious contradiction here, but we will set it aside for the moment . . . .
. . . . this requires us to select an appropriate standard of review. Although the Supreme Court did not do so in either Heller or McDonald, the Court did make it clear that the deferential rational basis standard is out, and with it the presumption of constitutionality. . . . . This necessarily means that the City bears the burden of justifying its action under some heightened standard of judicial review.
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. Sergeant Bartoli was asked a series of questions about the importance of hand-washing after shooting; he said that “lucrative amounts of [cold running] water and soap” were required to ensure that lead contaminants were removed. The City argued below that mobile firing ranges might not be sufficiently equipped for this purpose, suggesting that mobile ranges would have inadequate restroom facilities and might have to rely on “port-a-potties.” This sparked a discussion about the adequacy of the water supply available at a standard “port-a-potty". . . . . On appeal the City raised but did not dwell on its concern about lead contamination. For good reason: It cannot be taken seriously as a justification for banishing all firing ranges from the city. To raise it at all suggests pretext.
(Emphasis mine, but . . . OUCH!)

Perhaps the City can muster sufficient evidence to justify banning firing ranges everywhere in the city, though that seems quite unlikely.
Here's my favorite, from the concurrence:

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.
(Emphasis mine, but, again . . . OUCH!)
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

Last edited by Spats McGee; July 6, 2011 at 07:44 PM.
Spats McGee is offline  
Page generated in 0.07393 seconds with 7 queries