*** UPDATE 1 *** The appellate court just struck down the city’s firing range ban…
The City’s firing‐range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the “law‐abiding, responsible citizens of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious
encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self‐defense.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Not long before the court ruled, the city council voted to legalize firing ranges…
The Chicago City Council today voted to legalize firing ranges inside city limits as Mayor Rahm Emanuel tries to head off a federal court decision that could force the city to welcome them.
The vote came without discussion or dissent today.
The practice shooting venues could be built only in areas of Chicago zoned for manufacturing and would have to be more than 1,000 feet away from residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals.
The ranges also would have to be indoors, and a license to operate one would cost $4,000 every two years.
[ *** End Of Updates *** ]
* A lawsuit is quickly making its way through the system, so Mayor Emanuel wants to pass an ordinance before the court acts. Firing ranges are currently banned within the city limits, but the city’s new gun ordinance requires owners to get training at a firing range. So, Emanuel is hastily pushing a new measure through the city council…
Firing ranges could soon be legal inside Chicago limits as Mayor Rahm Emanuel is fast-tracking a plan designed to head off a federal court decision that could force the city to welcome them. […]
The shooting practice venues could be built only in areas of Chicago zoned for manufacturing and would have to be more than 1,000 feet away from residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals.
The ranges also would have to be indoors, and a license to operate one would cost $4,000 every two years.
* Let’s look at the react. First, one of the original plaintiffs…
Walter Maksym, who sued the city on behalf of people who want to be able to sell guns in city limits, said the Emanuel administration’s firing range proposal still seems too restrictive.
“It’s a step in the right direction, a recognition that the original ordinance would not stand up to scrutiny, but it doesn’t go far enough,” Maksym said.
* A suburban gun dealer…
According to Don Mastrianni, the owner of Illinois Gun Works in Elmwood Park, “They’re doing it to make money, let’s face it, that’s common sense and he sees Chicago as a big market so right now that market has to go to the suburbs.” […]
According to Mastrianni, “If the city is going to have the CFP process I would think that they need to ensure that everybody is actually participating and cooperating with it. There are plenty of gun shops that will cell guns to people without their Chicago Firearm Permit.”
* And the NRA…
The National Rifle Association branded the ordinance so restrictive, it invites another lawsuit.
“This is protected constitutional activity. If the city wants to continue to deny it, as they have with their revised gun ordinance, then obviously they haven’t learned anything from court rulings and our tenacity,” said Todd Vandermyde, Illinois legislative liaison for the NRA.
“The city is already on the hook for big-time legal fees in the McDonald case [that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban]. When you have a multi-million dollar deficit, you should be trying to find ways to minimize litigation instead of inviting more litigation.”
* Meanwhile, the mayor is proposing some lobbying reforms…
At Wednesday’s City Council meeting, the mayor will introduce an ordinance limiting — to $50 per gift and $100 per calendar year —the value of gifts lobbyists can give to city employees.
City employees would also be prohibited from getting loans from individual lobbyists or their businesses. Twice a year, lobbyists would be required to report their campaign contributions to city employees and elected officials. […]
Lobbyists would literally be required to disclose who they lobby and what they are lobbying for and post those disclosures online in “real-time,” so voters can access the information before legislation is approved.
* More…
And lobbyists would be required to report campaign contributions to city elected officials and city employees running for office. Right now, candidates are required to report lobbyists’ political donations to the Illinois State Board of Elections. […]
The mayor called his proposed changes “the most comprehensive lobbyist disclosure database in the nation.” But the Cook County clerk’s website, up and running for year, appears to be as detailed as the one Emanuel is proposing. And Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board has a database that goes a step further, offering links to bills each lobbyist is working on.
Emanuel also wants to codify an executive order he signed hours after he was sworn in to office. That order bans any city employee who leaves his administration from lobbying City Hall for two years. Emanuel’s directive exempts people hired under former Mayor Richard Daley who leave by Nov. 16.
* Unlike the state, the city requires lobbyists to disclose their pay. From a recent story…
Chicago City Hall lobbyists were paid nearly $13 million last year, according to records the city posted online Thursday. […]
Among the highest paid were political insiders such as Michael Kasper, a high-powered Democratic Party lawyer who along with partner Courtney Nottage was paid $460,500 to lobby last year. Terry Gabinski, a former alderman, was paid $276,000, according to the data. […]
The top three earners among the individual lobbyists were Theodore Brunsvold, the son of a late former downstate legislator, who was paid $978,000; Ronald Johnson of Johnson Research Group, who was paid $838,000; and Jay Doherty, president of the City Club of Chicago, who was paid $771,750, according to the data.
I’m starting to rethink my subscription rate. Just kidding. Kinda…
* Related…
* Mayor looking to revamp Taste of Chicago after attendance drops
* Emanuel questions school security
* Rogers Park harvests plan for open land that could become urban farm
- Damfunny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 7:44 am:
A step in the right direction.
(What a change from that previous guy!)
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 7:53 am:
Is there any other business license in the City of Big Empty Pockets that costs “$4000 for 2 years?”
Oh My.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 8:17 am:
According to the Trib’s lobbyist story, Ronald Johnson of Johnson Research was paid $838,000 to lobby City Hall for “several government agencies, including City Colleges of Chicago and Chicago Public Schools…”
So city public agencies, governed by mayoral appointees, are paying six-figure fees to a third-party to lobby the city and the mayor?
Um, couldn’t members of those governing bodies and their staffs do that “lobbying” without shelling out for a third-party?
- AnonX - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 8:18 am:
==Is there any other business license in the City of Big Empty Pockets that costs “$4000 for 2 years?”==
Yes. They’re called liquor licenses, and they’re more expensive than $4k every two years.
- Jimmy CrackCorn - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 8:31 am:
==There are plenty of gun shops that will CELL guns to people without their Chicago Firearm Permit== (caps added)
See: The importance of teaching writing in post above.
- downstate hack - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 8:47 am:
===Teaching people to write is akin to the age-old proverb about teaching a hungry man to fish.===
“Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day”
Teach a man to fish and he will……
“learn to drink beer in a boat for weeks”
- Benny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 9:19 am:
Teach a man to shoot and he will stay alive to go fishing another day, plus he’ll be able to fill the freezer.
It’s time the city let go of its superstitions about guns and fall in line with the rest of the country. I’m pretty tired of seeing these hoplophobes waste my tax dollars trying to erode my Constitutional rights.
The price to defend their nanny state positions is getting too expensive.
- Esquire - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 9:43 am:
Point of clarification regarding the new Chicago pistol range ordinance: Is that the same Walter Maksym who was one of the leading objectors to Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral candidacy on the basis of residency?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:05 am:
–I’m pretty tired of seeing these hoplophobes waste my tax dollars trying to erode my Constitutional rights.–
“Hoplophobes” — excellent contribution, Benny, I’d never run across that word before. The etymology is a little off, as the ancient Greek citizen soldiers — the Hoplites — didn’t carry firearms, but still, English is an evolving language and this one might have some legs.
As far as your Constitutional rights, states and local governments have regulated guns throughout American history. Depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court in a couple of years, that could very well change, but it will be a “discovered” right.
From an excellent article in The New Yorker on the Constitution and public perception of it over the years:
–Consider the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Historical evidence can be marshalled to support different interpretations of these words, and it certainly has been. But the Yale law professor Reva Siegel has argued that, for much of the twentieth century, legal scholars, judges, and politicians, both conservative and liberal, commonly understood the Second Amendment as protecting the right of citizens to form militias—as narrow a right as the protection provided by the Third Amendment against the government’s forcing you to quarter troops in your house. Beginning in the early nineteen-seventies, lawyers for the National Rifle Association, concerned about gun-control laws passed in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, argued that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms—and that this represented not a changing interpretation but a restoration of its original meaning. The N.R.A., which had never before backed a Presidential candidate, backed Ronald Reagan in 1980. As late as 1989, even (Judge Robert) Bork could argue that the Second Amendment works “to guarantee the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms.” In an interview in 1991, the former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”–
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/01/17/110117crat_atlarge_lepore#ixzz1RKz1gM2N
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/01/17/110117crat_atlarge_lepore
- Jimmy CrackCorn - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:07 am:
==It’s time the city let go of its superstitions about guns and fall in line with the rest of the country.==
In what major city can you set up an outdoor gun range next to a school? The city doesn’t have a right to make sure that a potentially noisy gun range doesn’t pop up in the middle of my quiet residential block? Really… what is so outrageous about this?
- Slick Willy - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:13 am:
—…former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”––
I find the “fraud” statement a bit ironic, given his concurring statement attached to/and the Roe v. Wade decision. Then again, he does limit the fraud to just special interest groups and not the courts. / snark off
- Slick Willy - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:17 am:
—In what major city can you set up an outdoor gun range next to a school? The city doesn’t have a right to make sure that a potentially noisy gun range doesn’t pop up in the middle of my quiet residential block? Really… what is so outrageous about this?—
You are talking about indoor handgun ranges that will likely have security and be soundproof. Pretty sure that an outdoor 1,000 yard rifle range, complete with skeet, trap and sporting clays stations on Michigan Ave is not a viable business plan.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:18 am:
hoplophobes - not a new word construction, I think it was contributed by Col. Cooper.
- E Town Tommy - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:20 am:
Looks like the new Mayor realizes that there is some positive economic impact that can come from the lawful use of firearms in his city
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:23 am:
>>>>Pretty sure that an outdoor 1,000 yard rifle range, complete with skeet, trap and sporting clays stations on Michigan Ave is not a viable business plan.
Could we see a revival of the gun club that used to be on the lakefront? Maybe this time with steel shot and biodegradable clays.
- someguy - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:25 am:
is it safe to assume the NRA (or ISRA, whichever it was) has called off the boycott of Chicago?
- Jimmy CrackCorn - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:31 am:
==You are talking about indoor handgun ranges that will likely have security and be soundproof.==
Yes which I would have no objection to, once they are codified by this ordinance that has stirred up the faux outrage.
- Benny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:45 am:
wordslinger- Second Amendment is settled law. Besides, how can I as a citizen form a militia when those in charge would like to have me disarmed?
jimmy crackcorn- Was Chicago asked to allow outdoor gun ranges next to schools? First time I’m hearing this. They are not so noisy when they are indoors.
Frankly, schools make more noise than the indoor gun ranges do. Ever hear those dratted bells, or the kids screaming at recess? School yards are also popular hangouts for noisy miscreants after normal school hours.
The city should be made to donate some of those unused school buildings for gun ranges as payment for our rights violations. I thought I saw that idea floating around already, time to make it happen.
- Esquire - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:46 am:
“In what major city can you set up an outdoor gun range next to a school?”
Don’t know about current cities, but in the not too distant past, some high schools had gun ranges on their campuses. This was particularly true where ROTC programs were available. I am aware of one former New York who received Physical Education credits for the class that was held in the high school’s pistol range.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:52 am:
- wordslinger- Second Amendment is settled law. -
Really? You better let the ISRA know, because I’m pretty sure they’re on their way to court.
- amalia - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:05 am:
Wordslinger @8:17……YES. and each of these agencies has an on staff person in charge of Intergovernmental Affairs. why the local duplication? what do they do for their large salaries? it’s one thing to hire someone to go to Springfield or D.C. if needed. it’s another when there are things in town. aren’t these agencies meeting regularly to coordinate under the mayor?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:07 am:
–Second Amendment is settled law.–
Not so you’d notice. If it were, why would you need any state conceal-carry laws at all?
Even some states that are considered “conceal-carry,” such as Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey, virtually ban the practice for the great majority of their citizens.
- Jimmy CrackCorn - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:11 am:
Clearly my point has been lost… so I’ll wrap up with this:
This appears to be a zoning bill (which is being fast-tracked to appease the courts) to codify a new unique business entering the city. This does not appear to be an attack on your Second Amendment rights (which I have no problem with).
The NRA and supporters would be better served commending the Mayor for taking action against his personal beliefs, and pledge to work to change portions of the ordinance it finds too restrictive. Instead, they express outrage and threaten further legal action.
The gun industry is not subject to zoning ordinances, like any other business is, because of the Second amendment?
- Slick Willy - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:25 am:
—The gun industry is not subject to zoning ordinances, like any other business is, because of the Second amendment?—
Of course they are. The trick is in ensuring that the ordinances for the gun industry are fair/not unduly discriminatory, relative to other industries.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:37 am:
Benny the only settled constittutional law is that the consitution is a living document. Which means every couple ofdecades its meaning is refreshed to account for the social/societal changes of the time.
I myself think Gary Larson got it right. The second amenemdent is clearly about our right to arm bears.
- titan - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:39 am:
Indoors - certainly sounds reasonable, bullets do fly a fair distance (Chicago is great proff of this, it has been gun free for a long time, but has a lot of shooting deaths each year - so those bullets have to be flying in from other places, right?).
1000 feet - may or may not be reasonable (you’d have to chart it out whether that leaves a reasonable amount of manufacturing zoned property on which to have them).
- Benny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:59 am:
–Second Amendment is settled law.–
~Not so you’d notice. If it were, why would you need any state conceal-carry laws at all?
Kind of along the same lines where it’s illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, huh?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:11 pm:
–Kind of along the same lines where it’s illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, huh?–
No, I don’t follow that at all. The range of laws in the United States range from effective bans to virtually no restrictions, from a practice not allowed, to allowed by permit, to allowed without the need of permit.
I don’t see any “settled” federal standard at all.
New Jersey is a so-called conceal-carry state. Among a population of 8 million, there are fewer than 1,000 conceal-carry permits.
- Jimmy CrackCorn - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:14 pm:
==Of course they are. The trick is in ensuring that the ordinances for the gun industry are fair/not unduly discriminatory, relative to other industries. ==
Agreed Willy.
But after rereading the NRA statement in the Sun-Times, that does not seem to be the logic they base their threat of further legal action on.
It just seems like this type of grandstanding is counterproductive to getting a better result for the ranges when you have already won (albeit through a court order).
- 32nd Ward Roscoe Village - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:28 pm:
“I’m starting to rethink my subscription rate. Just kidding. Kinda…”
You just need a two-tier rate, one for lobbyists (a “corporate” rate) or one of the rest of us. Corporate rates are standard for MSM.
- Benny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:38 pm:
Read em’ & weep
Gun range ban overturned
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=10-3525_002.pdf
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 1:09 pm:
When I read the 2nd Amendment, I see no reference at all to firing ranges.
Must be in a penumbra or something. And since we know how the right feels about penumbras and strict construction, I expect that conservatives will be outraged by this decision.
- Benny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 1:20 pm:
Sigh, what part of “shall not be infringed” is giving the city so much trouble?
Must be the “not” part.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 1:25 pm:
Benny,
Are you actually claiming that the 2nd Amendment is absolute?
You realize, as all regular CapFax readers do (since it is pointed out every time the 2nd A comes up) that just about nothing else (including the First A) in the Constitution has been found to be absolute.
So you might want to do some reading before commenting. Because the “2nd A allows no exceptions” argument is just a way of showing that you haven’t read much or given the topic much thought.
- Benny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 1:46 pm:
I know what the SCOTUS ruled on the subject, I’m in agreement with their ruling. I don’t believe I gave the impression of absoluteness. Perhaps I do need do to more reading Skeeter, I’m relatively new here as compared to most. However, trends seem to be moving in the same direction as my thinking, so perhaps I’m not alone in the need to do more reading and/or thinking. I’ll keep your advice in mind.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 1:48 pm:
I’d be very interested in investing in a state of the art gun range in Chicago. The demand is there, and if done right, somebody could make some good money operating these businesses. Anything to boost the retail real estate market in the city is a good thing in my book.
Lots of vacant space in the 47th Ward guys. Come on up and check it out. The city could use the sales tax on the ammunition too. It’s win-win-win.
- Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 2:34 pm:
I’m so misinformed. I though portions of Chicago already were outdoor shooting ranges featuring children as targets.
- Todd - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 2:37 pm:
Skeeter — from the decision….
“The plaintiffs challenge only the City’s ban on firing ranges, so our first question is whether range training is categorically unprotected by the Second Amendment. Heller and McDonald suggest to the contrary. The Court emphasized in both cases that the “central component” of the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and home. Heller, McDonald. The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the
core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. Several passages in Heller support this understanding.”
“[T]o bear arms implies something more
than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them . . . ; it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.”
“This reasoning assumes that the harm to a constitutional right is measured by the extent to which it can be exercised in another Jurisdiction. That’s a profoundly mistaken assumption. 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. 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.”
This ruling has some major implications for other pending litigation, even the UUW challenge.
- David Lawson - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 3:27 pm:
Reading the restrictions, and popping up google maps, a simple search on “school” only severely restricts the locations available. Then add in the other 1,000 foot obstacles and I can’t imagine anywhere you can place such a range.
For reference, in my neighborhood in the 45th Ward, 1000 feet is 3 east/west blocks or 2 north/south blocks.
BTW, Heller is often mischaracterized as only applying to the home. Here is what was actually held in Heller in part 1.
“Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.”
Traditional lawful purposes…
- David Lawson - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 3:30 pm:
Correction it is 1.5 north/south blocks.
P.S. I think the plaintiffs are mischaracterized in this post and/or the linked articles. Probably confused with other lawsuits. Maksym has not ever been associated with Ezell.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 3:46 pm:
Todd,
And now that Clichy has signed with Man City, what are the Gunners going to do about the left back? However, if Nasri leaves, does that make mid-field more of a priority?
Wow, Todd. I just directed a comment to you that was in no way related to what you said. Sort of like your comment directed to me.
In any case, nowhere in your comment do you state that you find the words “gun range” in the second amendment.
Neither do I.
Which takes me back to the point: You can’t claim to: 1) Be a strict constructionist and 2) Support this decision.
Now, of course, there are people like me who think the strict constructionists are a bunch of frauds looking to find their own chosen meaning and not that of the words actually presented. Those of us who reject “strict construction” and its goofy pal “original intent” can be very pleased with this decision which seems to state the obvious: That certain rights have penumbras which, without the penumbras, make the right meaningless. It is difficult to imagine that the right to bear arms can have meaning unless you also have some chance to work to be proficient with arms. That’s a reasonable conclusion, but it is not in the words of the amendment.
But if you call yourself as strict constructionist, then you need to be outraged by this decision.
- Esquire - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 3:49 pm:
In Cook County, Illinois, the Sheriff used to issue concealed carry permits. The permit holders were considered holiday court deputies and special deputies.
- Todd - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 4:24 pm:
Skeeter
Ypur right the words gun range are not there. I showed you how the Court arrived at that conclusion– very relevent to the post you put up.
If I were a strict constructionist, the web, tv and radio would not be covered by the 1sr amendment, only printing presses and the spoken word
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 4:48 pm:
–If I were a strict constructionist, the web, tv and radio would not be covered by the 1sr amendment, only printing presses and the spoken word–
The Heller decision has prompted an interesting debate among “conservatives” who call themselves “originalists,” as certainly Justice Scalia has, when it suits him.
The prolific writer, professor, jurist and poster boy for the Federalist Society, Judge Posner of Chicago, certainly has had a lot to say about it:
–Similarly, Judge Richard A. Posner, in an article in The New Republic in August, wrote that Heller’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions ‘’was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade….
–The Heller decision, he wrote in The New Republic, ‘’is evidence that the Supreme Court, in deciding constitutional cases, exercises a freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.'’–
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E2DB133FF932A15753C1A96E9C8B63&pagewanted=all
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 4:53 pm:
Exactly, Wordslinger.
The logic behind Heller and Roe is exactly the same.
- Todd - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 9:26 pm:
Word, Skeeter — I differ on agreeing that Roe and Heller are the same. But if they are, then minors are allowed to have guns with no parental consent, they can sign for their own FOID cards no parental oversight or involvement.
you confuse your perception of the stict constuctionists, with me. I am more of a small “l” libertarian. But I will aregue the case at hand.
Skeeter didn’t “see” gun range in the 27 words of the Second Amendment. The Court opinined has to how the issue at hand was protected activity under the 2A.
So if being able to establish a range, and go tot he range is protected as part of the core right, how is carrying a gun for self defense NOT?
you have to be Gumby to get there.
- Benny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 9:38 pm:
hoplophobia - n. - an irrational and morbid fear of guns, a term coined
by Jeff Cooper, from Greek “hoplites,” weapon. Symptoms may include
discomfort, disorientation, rapid pulse, sweating, faintness and more,
at the mere sight or even thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and
should never be involved in setting gun policies, though many are hard
at work in the rights-denial movement, and are arguably the greatest
threat in the debate. Point out hoplophobic behavior when you see it, it
is dangerous, and sufferers deserve pity. A hoplophobe (HOP-li-fobe) can
often be cured by training, or by a day at the range.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:42 pm:
Todd, the split within the judicial right over Heller is very interesting to me, and goes to a lot of the chatter these days over the nature of the Constitution.
And given the NRAs track record of success in Congress and state legislatures, the decision to challenge Illinois ban in court is intriguing, too, considering how close proponents of conceal-carry are to victory in the state.
Though Heller and McDonald were big victories for the NRA, they were decided on 5-4 votes. As the new case (and potential other cases) wind through the system, it’s quite possible that the composition of the court could change significantly. Who will be on the court (and who will have appointed them) becomes very important in a high-stakes ruling.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 6:29 am:
Todd,
I keep wondering why IL is the only state without some form of CC, and then I read your posts and realize I’m looking right at the problem.
Could you point out to me where I said the decision was wrong? Why do you continue with that argument? If you actually read what was written, you would figure out I said the opposite.
Seems like just as your organization has written off vast areas as enemy ground you’ve done the same with me. And that’s how you become the only one in the country to lose on the issue.
Seriously, every time I read these threads I realize that the major problem that we have with gun rights in IL is that we’ve got the wrong people making the argument.
- Benny - Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 9:33 am:
Instant Analysis: Ezell v. City of Chicago (Chicago Gun Range Case)
http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7500
- Todd - Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 10:18 am:
“When I read the 2nd Amendment, I see no reference at all to firing ranges.”
Skeeter, I was just trying to show how the court arrived at the decision to strike down the city’s ban on gun ranges. How they connected the activity to the core right protected under the 2A.
you didn’t say the decision, you implied that there is no right to operate or requirement for the city to allow ranges.
It seemed that you were grousing about the opinion, but if I missread you post so be it.
And no, I have not written you off. I always enjoy our banter and debate.
As to why we don’t have a RTC law is at this time we are unwilling to concede a ban in Cook County, any home rule unit or the City of Chicago. while it looks like a local problem/issue, what happens in one state with guns has an effect on other states. giving into Chicago or Cook County only creates more problems in PA, CA, GA and other states.
Word –
absolutely. all the more reason to get more case law on the books NOW. just like as time has gone by there is more relucatance to overturn Roe, and a lot of case law was built around it, so to is the road map to for Heller/McDonald.