Chicago attack on guns delayed by judges

The city of Chicago has been caught thumbing its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court, according to plaintiffs in a lawsuit over the city's attempt to ban gun ranges after the high court said it could not prevent its residents from exercising their Second Amendment rights to own guns.

It came in a decision yesterday by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered a district court to grant a preliminary injunction against the city's gun range ban while the issue is battled in court.

"What the city tried to do, as the court ruling noted, was thumb its municipal nose at the Supreme Court," said Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president for the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Read Wayne LaPierre's detailed explanations on "SAFE: How to Protect Yourself, Your Family and your Home"

Other plaintiffs are Action Target Inc., the Illinois State Rifle Association and three Chicago residents, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen and Joseph Brown. Their attempts to obtain a temporary restraining order against the gun range ban were twice rejected by the district court, a stance that now has been ordered reversed.

Noted Judge Diane S. Sykes in the appellate ruling, "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."

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote, "The city may not condition gun ownership for self-defense in the home on a prerequisite that the city renders impossible to fulfill within the city limits."

SAF officials confirmed today they had made a formal request for the injunction that the appellate court had approved.

It was right after last year's landmark SAF victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago that affirmed the 2nd Amendment that the city adopted a handgun ordinance requiring special permits and range training. But the city then banned gun ranges inside city limits, arguing that citizens must fulfill their training requirement by visiting a range somewhere else.

The 3-0 ruling from the 7th Circuit reversed the district court's decision not to grant a preliminary injunction.

"This is a significant victory that could have strong implications well beyond the Chicago city limits," said Gottlieb. "The court is making it clear that cities cannot adopt firearms ordinances that are so deliberately restrictive that they make it impossible for citizens to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment."

The Second Amendment Foundation 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.

In the previous precedent-setting Otis McDonald case challenging Chicago's gun restrictions, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals.

"The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a [substantial] guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the states legislated in an evenhanded manner," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision followed the 2008 Heller case in the District of Columbia that declared the Second Amendment to be an individual right. That case, however, pertained only to D.C. The McDonald case established the precedent nationwide.

Here's everything you need to know about firearms and ammunition

The foundation already has brought to court a number of other cases over local restrictions that it believes are precluded by the Supreme Court's rulings:

In New York, the organization has asked for a summary judgment that would strike New York City's $340 triennial fee for just owning a handgun. The legal brief explains that under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, "the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense is a part of the 'core' of the Second Amendment's protections." The case, brought by SAF, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and individuals including an electrical contractor, a paramedic, CPA and woodworker, argues, "The city's $340 fee is inherently prohibitive and serves the impermissible purpose of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights. While the city can charge a nominal fee to defray costs, the $340 fee is not nominal, and has never been calculated to defray costs."
The organization has sued New Jersey and officials and judges over procedures that allowed them to refuse firearms permits for a kidnap victim, a man who carries large amounts of cash for his business and a civilian FBI employee who fears attacks from radical Islamists. The permissions were denied on the grounds people had not shown a "justifiable need." "Law-abiding New Jersey citizens have been arbitrarily deprived of their ability to defend themselves and their families for years under the state's horribly crafted laws," said a SAF spokesman. "The law grants uncontrolled discretion to police chiefs and other public officials to deny license applications even in cases where the applicant has shown a clear and present danger exists."
The SAF filed a case on behalf of an honorably discharged veteran from the Vietnam War and names as defendants Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Jefferson Wayne Schrader. The question is whether the state of Maryland can deprive an individual of the right to possess a weapon over a misdemeanor. Schrader had been convicted of misdemeanor assault relating to a fight involving a man who previously had assaulted him in Annapolis. But he was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift or to purchase a handgun for personal protection.
It filed a claim against Maryland for a man who alleges the state is violating the Second Amendment by refusing to renew his handgun permit. Raymond Woollard originally was issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family event in 2002. Woollard's permit was renewed in 2005 after the defendant in the case was released from prison. But state officials now have refused to renew the permit, even though the intruder now lives some three miles from Woollard.
It sued Westchester County, N.Y., because officials there were requiring that residents have a "good cause" to ask for a handgun permit. The federal lawsuit alleges the requirement conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment establishes a personal right to "keep and bear arms." Individual plaintiffs in the case are Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied.
The earliest case to result from the McDonald decision challenged a practice in North Carolina of banning guns during "emergencies." The case claimed state statutes forbidding the carrying of firearms or ammunition when officials declare "states of emergency" are unconstitutional. Further, the plaintiffs said a state law allowing the government to prohibit the sale, purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional. WND reported when residents of King, N.C., were startled by the banishment of firearms during a "declared snow emergency."

The high court's 5-4 ruling in the first Chicago case was forecast to bring on such challenges.

It flipped "the burden onto the government and legislatures to show why they need to restrict what the court has already said is an individual right," John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, told WND after the decision.

There is other action on the state level regarding gun rights. Already, eight states have adopted laws that exempt guns made, sold and kept inside the states from any federal gun regulations.

A court case already is being heard over the effort in Montana – the first state to take the step of ordering federal regulators to stay out of the state business of regulating its citizenry's weapons.

In Wyoming, lawmakers even adopted a $2,000 penalty for federal agents trying to enforce federal regulations against an exempted weapon.

Special offers:

Read Wayne LaPierre's detailed explanations on "SAFE: How to Protect Yourself, Your Family and your Home"