Chicago range ban overturned by US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

[LorenzoS 100]

The ban on firing ranges within Chicago was just declared unconstitutional by a Federal Appeals court. The decision was absolutely beautiful and I encourage all of you to read it in full: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9C0NWF4M.pdf

 

The opinion throws out the ban on the grounds that it infringes on the people's 2A rights, and makes many analogies comparing infringement of the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment, and throws out any notion of a "balancing" requirement of 2A rights against a generalized notion that guns are harmful to society. It also notes that the range ban is not a regulation but in fact a prohibition. My favorite quote:

 

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. The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits.

 

I am hopeful that this will help set precedent for CCW and all gun laws here in NJ. The court threw out Chicago's (and hopefully NJ's) "thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court" by enacting prohibitions disguised as regulations, and the infringement of Constitutionally protected rights based on generalized and vague belief that firearms are just bad. They placed the burden on the state to prove specific harm that would justify any infringement on that right, just like they would for an infringement on free speech.

[Jeff 13]

Relief in NJ cannot come fast enough. Keep coming with the favorable court rulings...

[LorenzoS 100]

Actually, this part might be my favorite quote from the court's ruling:

 

In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ ” Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76‐77 (1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939)). The same principle applies here. It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free speech or religious‐liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.