Second amendment now requires cities and states to allow shooting ranges?

See this post about Ezell Vs Chicago ( gun range case )

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=601866

I am definitely not a lawyer but reading the ruling handed down in this case it now appears that cities, municipalities, counties and states cannot deny people the right to build shooting ranges. ( Of course with reasonable safety features )

I know that my city will not allow any indoor shooting ranges to be built. Houston Texas does not allow any new ones to be built. ( A couple of old ones that were originally in the county are grandfathered in after the area was annexed )

Do you think this will change now?

It's possible, but it's beyond the scope of this ruling. The fact that Chicago was requiring people to get range training before giving them a permit to own a handgun, but then not allowing ranges was a large part of the argument.

This ruling wasn't even about that, though, it's an injunction that says the law can't be enforced while the lawsuit is being settled. We'll have to wait for that to happen before any precedent is really set.

Do you think this will change now?
No, and for multiple reasons.

1. This was just an injunction, not a decision on the merits.

2. This was in the 7th Circuit and the decision is only binding on states within it.

3. It wasn't the fact that there were no ranges in Chicago that per se violated the 2nd Amendment. It was that Chicago required range training as a condition for owning guns, but did not allow ranges in Chicago. The 7th Circuit had a major problem with Chicago imposing conditions on RKBA and then forcing people to satisfy those conditions outside of Chicago's border.

If Chicagoans didn't need range training as a condition of owning firearms, this case may not have even been filed.

I think some have not read the ruling yet. It may be as cbrator said about injunction vs decisions but please read the following quotes from the case:

The plaintiffs here challenge the City Council’s treat‐ ment of firing ranges. The Ordinance mandates one hour of range training as a prerequisite to lawful gun ownership, see CHI. MUN. CODE § 8‐20‐120, yet at the same time prohibits all firing ranges in the city, see id. § 8‐20‐080. The plaintiffs contend that the Second Amendment protects the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use—including the right to practice marks‐ manship at a range—and the City’s total ban on firing ranges is unconstitutional.

Pages 2 & 3

The plaintiffs—all of them—frame their Second Amend‐ ment claim in two ways. First, they contend that the Amendment protects the right of law‐abiding people to maintain proficiency in firearm use via marksmanship practice and the City’s absolute ban on firing ranges violates this right.

Page 15

For all three the City’s ban on firing ranges inflicts continuous harm to their claimed right to engage in range training and interferes with their right to possess firearms for self‐defense.

Page 16

Moreover, this is a pre‐enforcement challenge to the Ordinance. The plaintiffs contend that the City’s ban on firing ranges is wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment.

Page 16

The ques‐ tion is not whether or how easily Chicago residents can comply with the range‐training requirement by traveling outside the city; the plaintiffs are not seeking an injunction against the range‐training requirement. The pertinent question is whether the Second Amendment prevents the City Council from banning firing ranges everywhere in the city;...

Page 18

The City’s misplaced focus on the availability of firing ranges outside the city also infected the district court’s evaluation of irreparable harm.

Page 19

The plaintiffs have challenged the firing‐range ban on its face, not merely as applied in their particular circumstances.

Page 20

As has been stated, this opinion is nothing more than a ruling that prevents Chicago from setting forth in ordinance a requirement to obtain “proficiency” to own a gun but, then outlaws the obtaining such proficiency. Pure chickens#*t if you ask me.

While reading the decision, I was amazed at the BS that the judge based her overturned decision on.

That being said, there is a far greater injustice that Chicagoland is trying to impose, that of a limitation on the RKBA by requiring such proficiency in the first place. I don’t recall any reference in the 2A about proficiency. However, I will review the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision that reaffirmed the citizens the RKBA in cities such as Chicago and Washington DC.

BTW, to find out the reason behind the district court ruling, one may want to read up Judge Virginia M. Kendall who heard the case.

Before being appointed in January 2006 by President Bush (how did this appointment get through on his watch), Judge Kendall worked for the United States Attorney's Office in Chicago as among other things its Coordinator of Project Safe Neighborhoods,for the Chigaco district

From her bio on Loyola Universary Chicago’s website:
Judge Kendall has participated in a number of service projects that support high school students, including moderating service trips to Peru, establishing trial training programs in both Chicago Public Schools and the federal courts, and developing awareness and support programs to curb gun violence and aid offender re-entry into the community.

More quotes from the decision:

The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforce‐ ment of Chicago Municipal Code § 8‐20‐280—the prohibition on “[s]hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged.” They are entitled to a preliminary injunction to that effect.

Page 48 & 49

...the firing‐range ban implicates not only the right to train at a range but also the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self‐defense. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should include sections 8‐20‐110(a) and 8‐20‐140(a) to the extent that those provisions operate to prohibit otherwise eligible persons from “carry[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm” at a range without a Permit or registration certificate while they are trying to complete the range‐training prerequisite for lawful firearm possession.

Page 49 & 50

The language of this ruling is clear. The City of Chicago cannot, under the Second Amendment, completely forbid the existence of shooting ranges. This ruling does not address the question of whether or not the training requirement is legal.

If you disagree with me about this please show me where in the text of the ruling it so states.

If you disagree with me about this please show me where in the text of the ruling it so states.

I think it took Justice Scalia about 30+ pages to say just that.

:p

I think it took Justice Scalia about 30+ pages to say just that.

Justice Scalia????? What has Justice Scalia to do with this rulling?????

Justice Scalia????? What has Justice Scalia to do with this rulling?????
He wrote the majority opinion in Heller (http://dcguncase.com/blog/), which established that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, which decision enabled McDonald (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/), which decision established that the 2nd Amendment applies to lower political subdivisions than the Federal government.

Both decisions were cited in Ezell.

I give up! :banghead:

See this :

http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?t=423370

Should the City of Chicago not appeal this decision and no Judge inside the 7th Circuit requests an en banc hearing (ala the 9th Circuit in Nordyke), then this opinion is the law within the 7th Circuit (meaning that it stands as is).

Other cases in other jurisdictions can use this decision as persuasive case law (it is precedent only within the 7th Circuit).

The opinion held that training in arms was as close to the core of the right as you could get, without being the core. Hence, strict scrutiny applies (the panel did this in all but name) to laws that would necessitate a training requirement but also banned gun ranges (of any kind).

That's it. Nothing more. But that's still a heck of a lot.

As evidenced in today's preliminary injunction filing by the SAF/David Jensen in Moore v. Madigan (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.14.0.pdf), it may be enough.

It does not mean that no city may ban gun ranges.

JellyJar; What you cited is "obiter dicta" (words in an opinion not addressing the issue before the Court) it's not binding precedent and has no authorative value. (The reason for this is because such issues often have not been fully & fairly argued beore the Court)

Dicta is however, an indication of how the Court would be likely to rule in a future case that adresses the issue directly.

Implicit in the Heller & McDonald decisions is the right to transport firearms. The right to own a gun would be hollow if one could not lawfuly bring it home, get it repaired or bring somewhere to use. There's a SCOTUS case that deals with this type of issue (although it was not about firearms) although I can't remember what it is.

Also be wary about quoting Justice Scalia (in concurring opinions) as he tends to hyperbolize, call names and is known as the Court's "bomb-thrower." Often he is alone in concurring or dissenting opinions. If he writes the majority opinion, he usually tones it down to keep the other Justices from filing seperate concurring opinions.

I stand corrected, I was referring to the Heller decision when I made mention of Scalia.

The City maintains that firing ranges create the risk
of accidental death or injury and attract thieves wanting
to steal firearms. p. 45

All those poor poor Chicago police officers who are attractive to thieves wanting to steal their sidearms. Maybee they should disarm their officers so they are not picked on.

belercous

So what would you say is the "holding" in this case?

To me the holding is this...A blanket ban on public firing ranges in any jurisdiction is null and void as being contrary to the core element of the Second Amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms for self defense as regular practice with arms is necessary in order to be able to use arms for self defense.

Perhaps a good lawyer could express it better than me but given the "dicta" of the case that is the basic principle of law used in this instance.

However, I now understand that if allowed to stand this case will only provide precedent in the 7th district and not here in Alabama or Texas. Yet I hope.

JellyJar, don’t bang your head too much. I see your point regarding the prohibition on the banning firing ranges. Yes, it does leave intact the city’s ability to ban ranges, but only under certain circumstances.

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.

:D

A blanket ban on public firing ranges in any jurisdiction is null and void as being contrary to the core element of the Second Amendment,

This ruling does not establish firing ranges as a corollary to the 2A for the jurisdiction of the 7th district, or any other jurisdiction. That is a separate legal issue in of itself. But, what I suspect will happen is that Chicagoland will attempt to regulate where ranges can be located. See my post right above this one.

As I stated when I started this post, I am not a lawyer. But I can read!!!

Here is what the Second Amendment Foundation has to say about this case:

SAF Wins Injunction v. Chicago Gun Range Ban

In a 3-0 ruling issued July 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed a lower court ruling and ordered that court to issue a preliminary injunction against the City of Chicago on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation that prevents the city from banning gun ranges inside city limits.

No word here about training requirements needed to get a gun license.

As is says in the "dicta"

the plaintiffs are not seeking an injunction against the range‐training requirement.

What is at issue here is the legality of the law of the City of Chicago that bans all shooting ranges except for a few for law enforcement and security guards, not the training requirement recently enacted by the City of Chicago. The court found that this ban was contrary to the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment.

I realize that this case does not set a nation wide precedent but is important for other reasons than just the point of law in question. What is most important here is the level of scrutiny that should be applied to cases involving the Second Amendment.

I will say no more on this subject.

JellyJar; Tge holdingf in the Heller & McDonald cases are that one is allowed to posess firearms in one's home. This implies the right to transport firearms. The holdings in these cases go no further. That's not simply my opinion, that's what SCOTUS has ruled.

Your oipinion that firing ranges cannot be outlawed anywhere is only your opinion, it has no federal judical support, at least not on an appeallate level. Local zoning rules may differ. One's opinion in a federal court does not carry much weight.

I don't believe that firing ranges can be totally outlawed, but that does not mean they
can be put anywhere. Consider that porn-shops or liquor stores are lawfully prohibitted in certain areas.

BTW, the S.A.F. is not exactlly an unbiased source, they have an agenda. If one quotes them, then the anti's can cite the Brady Bunch just as easily. It is best to use disintersted, unbiased sources as a reference. People tend to discount sources that have an ulterior motive.

Jelly Jar:

David Kopel's take on the case is here: http://volokh.com/2011/07/08/ezell/

He knows more about RTKBA litigation than anyone except Gura.

here is his introduction / summary for the discussion:

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Ezell v. Chicago is a tremendously important case for Second Amendment doctrine. The key rules from Ezell: use originalism from both 1791 and 1868 to determine if an activity is within the scope of the Second Amendment right. If it is, apply First Amendment doctrine, and make the standard of review more stringent when the activity is closer to the core of the right, and when the government is prohibiting rather than regulating. Generally speaking, when looking for guidance, look to Eugene Volokh.

I've just scanned the preceding posts here, so I will refrain from comment beyond posting what Kopel sees in this decision. Looks good to me.

Jim H.

SAF seeks injunction against Illinois state carry ban

Hot on the heels of its win before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday that resulted in an order to the federal district court forcing the City of Chicago to allow gun ranges inside the city limits, the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation has moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state’s prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/bellevue-v-illinois-saf-seeks-injunction-against-state-carry-ban

belercous wrote:
BTW, the S.A.F. is not exactlly an unbiased source, they have an agenda. If one quotes them, then the anti's can cite the Brady Bunch just as easily. It is best to use disintersted, unbiased sources as a reference. People tend to discount sources that have an ulterior motive.

Keep in perspective this was SAF's case. Who better than the source of the litigation to quote? SAF certainly knows what its case was and is about.

McDonald was SAF's case.
Ditto Moore v. Madigan

Sebastian_the_Ibis

I agree with you;

From your link:

As the above rules apply to the case at bar: The right to practice with firearms is an important ancillary to the core of the Second Amendment right, so Chicago’s ban on firing ranges is subject to not-quite-strict scrutiny.

So the question I posited stands as this; If this case is not reversed on appeal and if the holding of this case becomes set as a precedent over the whole country would that mean that cities, counties, states and even the Federal Government will no longer be able to place a blanket ban on all public shooting ranges within their jurisdiction?

JellyJar: practically speaking, your conclusion may have some merit. But, in fact, this is a legal discussion, and the original post by Scimmia seems to me to be a more accurate conclusion.

It also seems to me (and IANAL) that the the Kopel summary points out what the legal community will take from this ruling--it (the ruling) becomes a roadmap to the kind of reasoning that should be applied to arguments such as these. If so, then it makes your conclusion more plausible, I guess.

Jim H.

Without reading all the posts, I'll say it's more to do with the Right to Self Defense than the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody

So the question I posited stands as this; If this case is not reversed on appeal and if the holding of this case becomes set as a precedent over the whole country would that mean that cities, counties, states and even the Federal Government will no longer be able to place a blanket ban on all public shooting ranges within their jurisdiction?

Not quite. What the 7th circuit did was explain how a court needs to analyze 2A challenges to gun laws, with the Chicago range laws as the example. Once the 7th ran all the facts presently in the record through the analysis, it held that Chicago's ban was unconstitutional and enjoined it. However: 1. This Analysis is only binding in the 7th circuit. Court's in other circuits will likely follow it, but they do not have to. and 2. The facts in other cases will be different. The facts most likely to change are the zoning restrictions, Chicago enacted a blanket ban. If the city instead requires beefed up (expensive) security, and fire suppression systems the court may not reach the same conclusion.

However as the concurrence indicated, the 7th sees right through Chicago's shenanigans and from this point on will probably look upon any Chicago ordinance with much less deference than it otherwise would. Let's hope Chicago keeps fighting in the 7th so the court can establish more precedent with a higher standard of review.

As far as the Right to Protection, Citizens are all equally protected under the law FROM the law-bringers. We have no such protection by the state against law breakers. We need to seek prevention or redress of those wrongs on our own, hence my signature line on other gun sites:

Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."

I concur - Scimmia was correct: It's possible, but it's beyond the scope of this ruling. The fact that Chicago was requiring people to get range training before giving them a permit to own a handgun, but then not allowing ranges was a large part of the argument.

This ruling wasn't even about that, though, it's an injunction that says the law can't be enforced while the lawsuit is being settled. We'll have to wait for that to happen before any precedent is really set.

The ruling was that the district court's decision on the request for the injunction (no) was reversed. The 7th said that the case seemed likely to prevail on the merits, so it remanded the case back to the District court to issue the injunction, following the description and scope the 7th provided in the opinion.

Chicago may appeal. The 7th may take the decision en banc all on its own.

The injunction may be issued, and then the case may be taken to trial.

The losers at such a trial may appeal. The losers of the appeal may ask for en banc or request certiorari from the Supreme Court or do both serially.

The big deal from this opinion is the analysis used.