SAF SUES CHICAGO OVER GUN RANGE PROHIBITION ON 1A, 2A GROUNDS

CHICAGO, IL - The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Chicago's new gun ordinance, asserting that "by banning gun ranges open to the public... under color of law," the city is depriving citizens of their right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Action Target, Inc., and three individual plaintiffs including a retired Chicago police detective. They are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and David Sigale of Chicago, who teamed up with SAF and ISRA on the landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, effectively striking down Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban.

"While the city has adopted new regulations that make it legal to own handguns," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, "they have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time.

"This is a Catch-22' scenario," he continued, "that seems deliberately designed to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their firearm civil rights barely two months after those rights were restored by the Supreme Court."

Individual plaintiffs are Rhonda Ezell, a victim of three attempted burglaries who has disabilities making it difficult for her to travel outside the city; Joseph Brown, a WWII U.S. Army veteran who was among the liberators of the infamous Dachau concentration camp, and William Hespen, a retired police detective, all of whom must qualify for Chicago Firearms Permits.

Action Target, a Utah-based company, builds shooting ranges and manufactures gun range equipment and supplies. It has a long history of providing gun safety equipment and training, and has previously built law enforcement shooting ranges in Chicago. However, Action Target is prohibited from building a public target range within the city's limits under the restrictions of the new gun ordinance.

Randy Graham, vice president of Action Target, said, "We believe that citizens have a constitutional right to use and train with firearms in a safe and controlled environment. As a leader in the firearms training industry, Action Target is committed to standing up for these rights."

"By banning public gun ranges," Gottlieb said, "and by banning the loan and rental of firearms at such ranges, Chicago is acting under color of law to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms, and to conveniently receive the education required under the ordinance that is necessary to obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit. The city is violating both the Second and First amendments, and we are asking the court to put an end to this nonsense."




The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Click to expand...

ozwyn said:

I think over the next ten years gun rights will be restored and protected to an extent that we could have only dreamed of....

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Ezell v. City of Chicago (Gun Range prohibition in Chicago) SAF/Gura

Docket is at: http://ia360706.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.docket.html

This one will be on a 'fast track', primarily due to Daley's "emergency gun bills" following McDonald. There was a 90 day grandfather clause to get your Handgun Permit (requires range time, but there are no ranges Catch-22) that is coming up in October.

Gura & team have asked for a Preliminary Injunction as a result: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.6.0.pdf (great read)

Click to expand...

ozwyn said:

We will look back and with 20/20 hindsight call ourselves fools for trying to lobby congress for fair-weather friends

Click to expand...

Patrick said:

Wow. A First and Second Amendment challenge to the range ban. The case of the 2A arguments is as we would expect, plus the added 1A argument that suppressing training and education is suppressing speech. Turns out they have cases supporting exactly the latter - a police officer reprimanded for teaching a gun safety class sued and later won, on the basis that his "educational material" rose to the highest standard of protected speech.

The brief also points out that Chicago will suffer no harm by allowing ranges - it already has several that are not open to the public and until recent times had ranges that were open to the public. It makes clear that the law was passed specifically to frustrate people interested in getting a gun and that it was designed as resistance to McDonald.

Other interesting notes: they reference several portions of Heller regarding training with guns, and how such training is part of the "core right" protected.

The SAF and plaintiffs make it clear that this law will be struck. They contend there is no argument over its unconstitutional nature. Heller specifically calls out training being part of the 2A right...yet Chicago bans it , while also requiring it.

This is argued in Court next Monday. Can't wait to see Chicago's response, as Gura pretty much demands they make their case on the Constitutional merits of their range ban right now. There are 18 cases referenced here, including the Girl Scouts, Christian Legal Society and even Lawrence v Texas (which tossed a Texas law against gay sex). It's going to be a long week for Chicago's counsel.

Click to expand...

shawn said:

Exactly.......This is what the NRA fails to see (or ignores). These battles must be fought in court to restore rights.

I suppose the NRA does a good job of keeping anti-guns bills from being passed but they are always on defense. The SAF is on a scorched earth offense.

The NRA never wants to go on the offensive.

Click to expand...

Oreo said:

Chicago attorney is arguing his / her ass off on that one. LOL. Granted, I think it awfully bold of Alan Gura to seek that TRO. He's clearly under their skin.

Click to expand...

08/24/2010 17[RECAP] MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Temporary restraining order hearing held on 8/24/2010. Plaintiff's motion for TRO 11[RECAP] is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Minute entry 13[RECAP] is stricken. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary and permanent injunction 4[RECAP] is briefed as follows: Responses due by 9/20/2010 Replies due by 9/27/2010. Preliminary Injunction hearing set for 10/1/2010 at 01:00 PM. Defendant's oral motion to keep the previous schedule is denied. Any discovery shall be complete by 9/13/2010. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

Click to expand...