Chicago loses Ezell ---- again (23 Jan`17)

[mehavey]

May be a drive by, but an earlier thread by another poster was closed due to lack of web cite.

If so, here it is:
In response to the McDonald case, the council had passed an ordinance requiring gun owners to have at least one hour of range training. The range ordinance was an effort to make sure no one could get the required training.

In response to that loss, the city passed a new ordinance. Described by the Seventh Circuit as “an elaborate scheme of regulations,” the range ordinance was so restrictive that only 2.2 percent of the city’s entire acreage was “even theoretically available” for a gun range. Moreover, the court noted, “the commercial viability of any of these parcels” was so questionable “that no shooting range yet exists in the city of Chicago.”

So Rhonda Ezell, the plaintiff in the first case along with several other Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois Rifle Association, went back to court and won again.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ago-gun-ranges

I could tag it on to a 7-month old/7 page thread (that had gone slightly off the rails), but here it is clean.

[Al Norris]

Just a note.

I have closed the original thread for going off topic.

[Aguila Blanca]

It's interesting (to me, anyway) that the court was able to infer from the 2A a "right" to practice and to maintain proficiency with a firearm. The 2A doesn't actually say anything about practicing.

Or does it?

What about that much-maligned and oft-discussed prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."? Despite arguments from the anti-gun side over what "well-regulated" means in the context of the 2A, we know that what it means is not "over-burdened by restrictive laws" but rather "well-trained and standardized." And since we the People are the Militia, it would seem that it is not, therefore, illogical to determine that the 2A right to keep and to bear arms carries with it a right (and even a duty and a responsibility) to maintain proficiency with said arms.

[Metal god]

It's interesting (to me, anyway) that the court was able to infer from the 2A a "right" to practice and to maintain proficiency with a firearm. The 2A doesn't actually say anything about practicing.

It would seem that the court used logic in there ruling . In most urban areas/cities you can't discharge a firearm in public . So if the city then passes a law banning shooting ranges they are essentially banning the use of firearms . We all know there is more to using a firearm then self defense .

I have to say it is amazing how the anti's first tried to ban hand guns and when that failed the tried to ban there use . WOW

[WeedWacker]

The 2A doesn't actually say anything about practicing.

Wouldn't a "well regulated militia (being necessary for the security of a free state)" need to practice regularly to be well regulated?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

Wouldn't a "well regulated militia (being necessary for the security of a free state)" need to practice regularly to be well regulated?

Did you read the second and third paragraphs of my post?

[44 AMP]

I'd say we don't even need to go the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. I don't think the court did, either.

I think the message the court sent wasn't that we have a protected right to practice (in order to be well regulated), they didn't go, or need to go that far.

What I get from it is, that the court only needed to go as far as "you cannot have a law requiring practice, and then forbid that required practice".

in other words, if X amount of range time is a legal standard, then ranges have to be available to provide it. They do not get to have their cake, and eat it, too.

I see it as just that simple.

[Skans]

I'm not getting the connection here. A Chicago ordinance requires range training. Another Chicago ordinance essentially makes it impossible to have a shooting range inside the city limits of Chicago. I'm sure there are gun ranges to the north or west of Chicago? I do get that it is hypocritical to require a significant amount of training and then not allow gun ranges in Cook County. But, I'm not sure I'm buying that folks from Chicago can't find a range within 1 hour drive to shoot at.

[vicGT]

Originally Posted by skans

But, I'm not sure I'm buying that folks from Chicago can't find a range within 1 hour drive to shoot at.

It doesn't seem to specify anything concrete like 1 hour's drive. The 7th just decided it was a "drastic limitation" and a severe limitation:

Originally Posted by 7th Circuit

This severely limits Chicagoans’ Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range.

and that those limitations couldn't pass heightened scrutiny. Where are you drawing the "within 1 hour drive" from?

[Armed_Chicagoan]

For the record the ordinance Chicago had requiring training to get a firearm license is no longer in existence. The Chicago firearms license is also in the dustbin of history. That was a factor in Ezell I but not Ezell II.

Rhonda Ezell, btw, is very active in support of firearms rights in Chicago and Illinois beyond being a plaintiff in these lawsits. A shining star for the cause!

[K_Mac]

Skans many of the folks living in the most dangerous areas of the city are dependant on public transit. Traveling outside the city to get the required range time would be difficult at best for them. It placed an unreasonable burden on those folks to excercise their 2A rights.

[Skans]

K-Mac, you make a good point. I never thought about having to use transit. Never having lived in a big city, its just natural for me to think everyone drives their cars everywhere. For me, driving a minimum of 45 minutes to get to a range is normal.

[62coltnavy]

It is worse than that. As I recall, it is illegal to carry firearms on city transit buses and trains, even with a concealed carry permit. So these folks would either have to get a ride--or walk.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Skans

K-Mac, you make a good point. I never thought about having to use transit. Never having lived in a big city, its just natural for me to think everyone drives their cars everywhere. For me, driving a minimum of 45 minutes to get to a range is normal.

I also drive 45 minutes (to an hour, depending on traffic) to get to a range. That means I have to cross four (4) municipal boundaries in each direction. I do it, but that doesn't mean it's not a hardship. It also doesn't mean I would continue to do it if there were a comparable facility in my town or in a neighboring town.

I'm in a 'burb to the west of the neighboring city. For someone living in an apartment on the west side of the city to get to my range by bus, he/she would have to change buses at least twice, and the schedule is such that the transit time in each direction would probably be an hour and a half to two hours.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by 62coltnavy

It is worse than that. As I recall, it is illegal to carry firearms on city transit buses and trains, even with a concealed carry permit. So these folks would either have to get a ride--or walk.

It's illegal to carry a loaded firearm on public transit. Any Illinois resident with a FOID card, or any out of state resident who can legally possess a firearm in their home state, can transport an unloaded firearm on public transport. Standard Illinois transport rules apply - unloaded and in a case. It doesn't have to be a locked case, and you can keep a loaded magazine in the same case. As long as the loaded magazine isn't in the gun and there is no cartridge in the chamber the gun is considered unloaded.

Really even a paper bag would qualify as a "case" under Illinois law. A few years ago, before the CCL law, some activists were talking about using a clear plastic bag as a case but I don't think anyone ever did so,

[K_Mac]

Armed Chicagoan, according the following ordinance of the Chicago Transit Authority any possession of a firearm is prohibited.

ORDINANCE NO. 006-75
(Continued) -5
2.15 Weapons
to possess or carry any pistol, revolver, firearm, dagger, stiletto, billie club, knife,
stun gun, taser, mace, bludgeon, explosive device or other weapon on property
owned, operated or maintained by the CTA.
Section 1.15 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(1) Peace Officers.
(2) The military, jail penitentiary, or security personnel while in the
performance of their official duty or while commuting between home
and place of employment.
(3) Pepper spray.

[armoredman]

I rode on the "L" back in '87 - I will not willingly repeat the experience, don't think it's gotten any better! Kept waiting for it to jump right off that track...
I am rural as well, and it takes me about 15 minutes to get to the range - on the other side of this little mountain range down here. I got spoiled being in AZ where we have outdoor and indoor ranges everywhere, so a Chicago style ordinance would be a huge problem, glad it was overturned.
So, where does this leave Chicago? Is a company poised to move in an build a range, or will Rahm do what he can to stop that no matter the law? I hope the Windy City gets its rights back.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by K Mac

Armed Chicagoan, according the following ordinance of the Chicago Transit Authority any possession of a firearm is prohibited.

Preempted by state law.

(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)
Sec. 13.1. Preemption.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of handguns and ammunition for a handgun, and the transportation of any firearm and ammunition by a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police under this Act are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, enacted on or before the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police under this Act in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, on the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, shall be invalid in its application to a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police under this Act.