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

[Patrick]

More Gura Goodness:

Heller thus rejected the notion that safety rules for a world in which cities were tinderboxes, firearms sparked unstable powder, and Mrs. O’Leary’s cow could seriously be accused of burning down Chicago, might today swallow the Second Amendment guarantee nearly in its entirety. ...

Given modern firearms and the advent of indoor ranges, the firing of guns today does not, without more, set buildings ablaze, any more than does “modern transportation” depend upon a ready supply of hay.​

 

[swinokur]

Mr Obama said he recognized the 2A gives us the right to bear arms for SD. No mention of only in the home. Hmm. Maybe he gets it. Nah. Probably a verbal gaff.

 

[SkunkWerX]

Mr Obama said he recognized the 2A gives us the right to bear arms for SD. No mention of only in the home. Hmm. Maybe he gets it. Nah. Probably a verbal gaff.

Interesting what spews forth when there is no teleprompter?

 

[Kharn]

Could you imagine the obscenity-filled rant left on his voice mail by Sarah Brady the next morning when she realized what he said?

 

[Patrick]

I think he get it, in the sense that he understands the challenges fighting against gun rights. That does not mean he likes it.

I predicted he would push for a reviatlized NICS, make a soft attempt at private sales and then ignore high-cap mags and the AWB. Let's see if any of that holds, but so far it looks promising.

I have no problem with better NICS reporting, provided a decent line is drawn. I think it would be. There has got to be tremendous pressure on both sides to get something into law: the anti's want a "gun control" measure - no matter how tepid - that they can extol to their base that they did something post-Tuscon. The pro-gun people also will want to pass something to prove they understand the concerns and can react when needed. Keep in mind NICS is a creation of our side, and to the extent we keep it valid, we keep it strong. We need NICS.

Anyway...I think we need to worry about Obama on the backside: ATF rules changes and the like. He won't do a frontal attack and he might not even threaten a veto on pro-gun bills. Too risky with an election coming up.

 

[Trapper]

Mr Obama said he recognized the 2A gives us the right to bear arms for SD. No mention of only in the home. Hmm. Maybe he gets it. Nah. Probably a verbal gaff.

Or, more probably, the guy typing the text into the teleprompter gets it.

Interesting what spews forth when there is no teleprompter?

I can't see the video, maybe they've got it wired directly into his ear? I can't imagine those words came out of him voluntarily.

 

[krucam]

Reminder that tomorrow is "show time" for Ezell at the Circuit....

03/02/2011 22 Argument set for Monday, April 4, 2011, at 9:30 a.m in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721. Each side limited to 20 minutes. [22] [6290421] [10-3525] (RS)

 

[Boxcab]

Live feed?

Edit: Too late, any feed back?

 

[krucam]

I believe the 7th Ckt will eventually release audio for arguments at:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=arg

Nothing yet...

 

[press1280]

I believe the 7th Ckt will eventually release audio for arguments at:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=arg

Nothing yet...

Listening to it now. Gura is getting badgered by I believe Rovner, with Sykes helping Gura. No word from Kanne.
Chicago's lawyer is getting eaten up by Sykes, Kanne keeps asking what the dangers are with an indoor firing range-Chicago says criminals will come to the ranges, there will be shootouts at the range,stray bullets. Kanne responds by saying does this happen at police ranges? "You want to make it so safe that you ban ranges."
Chicago keeps equating laws regulating discharge of weapons to ranges.
This looks like a winner! We have 2 judges hammering Chicago, and they sound pissed! That's unless this goes en banc afterward......

 

[05FLHT]

Wow...and I was thinking they were giving Gura a hard time. Chicago got grilled, hard.

 

[Patrick]

For those looking, link to the MP3 is here.

 

[Boxcab]

Thanks.

 

[krucam]

The older sounding female Judge is, well, I'll just shut up on her.

The younger sounding woman Judge gives me more cause for hope. She's asking a lot of good questions which Gura is answering well.

Why would you ever say the District Judge denied your injunction when she didn't....Gura was squirming a little there...

Chicago comes up and starts talking about the now defunct permanent/preliminary Injunction (to stop the stopping of the shooting trailer from coming in), he starts talking technicalities of an Injunction. He says there's 15 ranges within 50 miles, then the younger female speaks up again...what about the Constitutional question? The injunction and the 50 mile remedy is a complete "Red Herring"

She goes on, "The city has at once required range training for licensure and at the same time, banned them. How is that Constitutional?"

She then puts this in First Amendment analogies.....gawd, I think I'm in love...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the male Judge had just a bit of a drawl..."what evidence did you submit that ranges are dangerous?". Obviously he is baiting the Chicago lawyer..."If you could ban those 15 ranges outside the city limit, you would".

Younger woman Judge, "you're not planning or regulating, you're banning"

The older woman Judge chimes in and asks, "Is the City taking any steps towards REGULATING ranges?", the real question meaning are you looking towards stopping the banning. The Chicago lawyer says "no"....

The lawyer for Chicago is squirming....

He gets backed into a corner and starts to swing...."The City is NOT REQUIRED to find 'the least restrictive alternative'". The younger female judge jumps in saying, "The City IS REQUIRED to not suppress gun rights..." WOW!

 

[krucam]

Just finished up....the younger Judge stated that there were many errors in the District that they've identified....strongly suggesting a Reversal is coming....

Gura: If they weren't doing this, we wouldn't be here....

Pfft....this sure took longer than the 20+20= 40 minutes I was expecting. It is a very entertaining listen....

 

[Patrick]

OK, Chicago got torn to pieces. The District Court was not viewed kindly. Judge Sykes outright said the District Court reviewed the wrong issue and then got that wrong. She told the city that their Foundation-Era sources were misunderstood and that they were not applicable.

When it comes to indoor ranges, the question came up about bullets flying outside the range. Chicago maintains it is a concern. All of their historical references used that concern. Problem is that concern was for open-air ranges, not indoor closed ranges. Asked about the problem, the city keeps trying to make this about open-air ranges. It didn't work. When pressed hard, the city admitted it was an issue of construction. Judge Sykes points out again and again that this is an issue of regulation (proper construction of ranges), not prohibition.

Judge Kanne: "OK, tell me what the dangers are for a closed firing range operated under regulation by trained and qualified personnel."

City Lawyer: There is a concern about bullets escaping. If not properly constructed, something could get out

Judge Sykes (interrupting the city): That's an argument for strict safety standards in the construction of firing ranges, not in support of anything...any argument for a complete prohibition."

Judge Kanne (jumping in, incredulously): "How can you ban something just because of that?"

City: That's not all.

Judge Kanne: "Alright, what else?"

City: People congregate at the ranges.

Judge Kanne: "Have you ever been to an indoor firing range?

City Lawyer: No, never myself.

Judge Kanne: Well it seems like a lot of people who worked on this have never been to a firing range.​

Soon thereafter Judge Kanne gets into an interchange with the city over the issue of a complete ban. The city claims it is too dangerous in the city to have a range. Kanne then says if it was up to Chicago, they would ban ranges everywhere - even outside the city - if they could. Kanne sounded incredulous and maybe a little annoyed.

Judge Sykes: "The City is required to not suppress gun rights, and the city requires live fire training for a license and that coupled with the prohibition on live fire ranges in the city...suppresses gun rights."​

Even Rovner (anti-gun Judge) said to the city attorney: "When this gets to be about the merits, you are going to have issues."

Sykes: "I don't see how the city can even see this [argument on requiring live fire then banning it] as rational."​

Sykes points out the contradiction of the city argument: that the city claims live fire training is absolutely required before you can exercise your Second Amendment right, yet somehow the city also claims that live fire training is not covered by the Second Amendment.

Sykes said point blank that the city's argument is full of flawed arguments. She also said that the district court used a flawed legal argument in denying the injunction. Kanne did not say that, but he made it clear he didn't much buy any of their arguments. The pro-Chicago judge (Rovnel) kept saying that the discussion should not be about the "merits" of the case; that the only thing worth examining was whether the harm suffered by the plaintiffs rose to the level required for a preliminary injunction.

Gura got hammered for one piece of hyperbole: he said that the city of Chicago did not recognize private property. He was referring to the zoning laws that say "if it ain't pre-approved you cannot do it." Judge Rovnel hammered him and actually said it angered her. He backed off, explained himself and then moved on.

Overall quite entertaining.

 

[Patrick]

...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the male Judge had just a bit of a drawl..."what evidence did you submit that ranges are dangerous?". Obviously he is baiting the Chicago lawyer..."If you could ban those 15 ranges outside the city limit, you would".

Somewhere in there they posit the location of ranges. The older female judge (Rovner according to someone here) asked Judge Kanner where we was from. It was some farm town in Indiana. So the drawl was real.

Remarkably, there is something outside Chicago in that Circuit.


Overall a good discussion. I think it is safe to say the panel is convinced that there is real harm being suffered at the hands of this range ban. They are probably going to grant the TRO and remand to the District for an evaluation of the merits. I suspect they will touch on those in their current opinion.

The District Court is going to get a smack-down for ignoring the real issue and distracting the case away from the real problem to address. Judge Sykes slipped at one or two points and made it sound like she is favoring strict scrutiny for 2A issues, but then hastily added "or intermediate."

Because this is an appeal of a TRO - therefore involving great and continuing harm - I wonder if they will respond faster than normal? I hope not...I'd prefer to see a strong foundation laid for not only for this district court but others in that circuit (and in the USA).

 

[MDFF2008]

Patrick, good summery. Two things stick out

1.) The judge is arguing that it shouldn't be decided on the merits of the case. Very interesting, more proof in my belief that they have no merits to argue with.

2.) Gura's comment, bound to have a few misses when your blitzing someone.

 

[Patrick]

Patrick, good summery. Two things stick out

1.) The judge is arguing that it shouldn't be decided on the merits of the case. Very interesting, more proof in my belief that they have no merits to argue with.

2.) Gura's comment, bound to have a few misses when your blitzing someone.

All three judges agreed that the city was going to have problems with the merits. Sykes went so far as to say it was full of holes and irrational. Hence, the anti-gun judge tried to limit the argument to the TRO because it was the harder climb for Gura. It looks like he got over that hump, though.

 

[Al Norris]

Just finished listening, and while I would normally hate to base an opinion on oral arguments, this time I happen to agree with Patrick and Mark.

Gura will get his TRO.

I really hope that this isn't pulled back and goes en banc. I would also hope that the decision illuminates the errors of the District Court, so that there is no excuse to come back to the Circuit.

We shall see.