Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
7th Circuit July 6, 2011

7th Circuit July 6, 2011

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7,578 |Likes:
Published by crimefile
The City of Chicago get's slapped for violating Chicagoan's rights to keep and bear arms once again. How much money will the politicians waste violating civil rights in this city?
The City of Chicago get's slapped for violating Chicagoan's rights to keep and bear arms once again. How much money will the politicians waste violating civil rights in this city?

More info:

Published by: crimefile on Jul 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 In the
 United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
 
No.
 
10
3525R
HONDA
 
E
ZELL
 ,
 
et
 
al.,
Plaintiffs
 Appellants,v.
C
ITY
 
OF
 
C
HICAGO
 ,
Defendant
 Appellee.
 
Appeal
 
from
 
the
 
United
 
States
 
District
 
Courtfor
 
the
 
Northern
 
District
 
of
 
Illinois,
 
Eastern
 
Division.No.
 
10
 
cv
 
5135
Virginia
 
M.
 
Kendall
 ,
 
 Judge
.
 
A
RGUED
 
A
PRIL
 
4,
 
2011
D
ECIDED
 
 J
ULY
 
6,
 
2011
Œ
 
Before
 
K
ANNE
 ,
 
R
OVNER
 ,
 
and
 
S
YKES
 ,
 
Circuit
 
 Judges
.S
YKES
 ,
 
Circuit
 
 Judge
.
 
For
 
nearly
 
three
 
decades,
 
theCity
 
of
 
Chicago
 
had
 
several
 
ordinances
 
in
 
place“effectively
 
 banning
 
handgun
 
possession
 
 by
 
almost
 
allprivate
 
citizens.”
 
 McDonald
 
v.
 
City
 
of 
 
Chicago
 ,
 
130
 
S.
 
Ct.
 
3020,3026
 
(2010).
 
In
 
2008
 
the
 
Supreme
 
Court
 
struckdown
 
a
 
similar
 
District
 
of
 
Columbia
 
law
 
on
 
an
 
original
Œ
This
 
opinion
 
is
 
released
 
in
 
typescript;
 
a
 
printed
 
version
 
willfollow.
 
2 No.
 
10
3525meaning
 
interpretation
 
of
 
the
 
Second
 
Amendment.
1
District
 
of 
 
Columbia
 
v.
 
Heller
 ,
 
554
 
U.S.
 
570,
 
635
36
 
(2008).
Heller
 
held
 
that
 
the
 
Amendment
 
secures
 
an
 
individualright
 
to
 
keep
 
and
 
 bear
 
arms,
 
the
 
core
 
component
 
of
 
which
 
isthe
 
right
 
to
 
possess
 
operable
 
firearms
handguns
 
included
for
 
self
defense,
 
most
 
notably
 
inthe
 
home.
 
Id.
 
at
 
592
95,
 
599,
 
628
29.Soon
 
after
 
the
 
Court’s
 
decision
 
in
 
Heller
 ,
 
Chicago’shandgun
 
 ban
 
was
 
challenged.
 
 McDonald
 ,
 
130
 
S.
 
Ct.
 
at3027.
 
The
 
foundational
 
question
 
in
 
that
 
litigation
 
waswhether
 
the
 
Second
 
Amendment
 
applies
 
to
 
the
 
Statesand
 
subsidiary
 
local
 
governments.
 
Id.
 
at
 
3026.
 
TheSupreme
 
Court
 
gave
 
an
 
affirmative
 
answer:
 
TheSecond
 
Amendment
 
applies
 
to
 
the
 
States
 
through
 
theDue
 
Process
 
Clause
 
of
 
the
 
Fourteenth
 
Amendment.
 
Id.
at
 
3050.
 
In
 
the
 
wake
 
of
 
 McDonald
 ,
 
the
 
Chicago
 
CityCouncil
 
lifted
 
the
 
City’s
 
laws
 
 banning
 
handgun
 
posses
sion
 
and
 
adopted
 
the
 
Responsible
 
Gun
 
OwnersOrdinance
 
in
 
their
 
place.The
 
plaintiffs
 
here
 
challenge
 
the
 
City
 
Council’s
 
treat
ment
 
of
 
firing
 
ranges.
 
The
 
Ordinance
 
mandates
 
onehour
 
of
 
range
 
training
 
as
 
a
 
prerequisite
 
to
 
lawful
 
gunownership,
 
see
 
C
HI
.
 
M
UN
.
 
C
ODE
 
§
 
8
20
120,
 
yet
 
at
 
thesame
 
time
 
prohibits
 
all
 
firing
 
ranges
 
in
 
the
 
city,
 
see
 
id.
§
 
8
20
080.
 
The
 
plaintiffs
 
contend
 
that
 
the
 
Second
 
Amend
1
The
 
Second
 
Amendment
 
provides:
 
“A
 
well
 
regulated
 
Militia, being
 
necessary
 
to
 
the
 
security
 
of
 
a
 
free
 
State,
 
the
 
right
 
of
 
thepeople
 
to
 
keep
 
and
 
 bear
 
Arms,
 
shall
 
not
 
 be
 
infringed.”
 
U.S.C
ONST
.
 
amend.
 
II.
 
No.
 
10
3525 3ment
 
protects
 
the
 
right
 
to
 
maintain
 
proficiency
 
infirearm
 
use
including
 
the
 
right
 
to
 
practice
 
marks
manship
 
at
 
a
 
range
and
 
the
 
City’s
 
total
 
 ban
 
on
 
firingranges
 
is
 
unconstitutional.
 
They
 
add
 
that
 
the
 
Ordinanceseverely
 
 burdens
 
the
 
core
 
Second
 
Amendment
 
right
 
topossess
 
firearms
 
for
 
self
defense
 
 because
 
it
 
conditionspossession
 
on
 
range
 
training
 
 but
 
simultaneouslyforbids
 
range
 
training
 
everywhere
 
in
 
the
 
city.
 
Finally,they
 
mount
 
a
 
First
 
Amendment
 
challenge
 
to
 
theOrdinance
 
on
 
the
 
theory
 
that
 
range
 
training
 
is
 
protectedexpression.
 
The
 
plaintiffs
 
asked
 
for
 
a
 
preliminary
 
injunction, but
 
the
 
district
 
court
 
denied
 
this
 
request.We
 
reverse.
 
The
 
court’s
 
decision
 
turned
 
on
 
several
 
legalerrors.
 
To
 
 be
 
fair,
 
the
 
standards
 
for
 
evaluating
 
SecondAmendment
 
claims
 
are
 
 just
 
emerging,
 
and
 
this
 
typeof
 
litigation
 
is
 
quite
 
new.
 
Still,
 
the
 
 judge’s
 
deci
sion
 
reflects
 
misunderstandings
 
about
 
the
 
nature
 
of
 
theplaintiffs’
 
harm,
 
the
 
structure
 
of
 
this
 
kind
 
of
 
constitutionalclaim,
 
and
 
the
 
proper
 
decision
 
method
 
for
 
evaluatingalleged
 
infringements
 
of
 
Second
 
Amendment
 
rights.
 
On
 
thepresent
 
record,
 
the
 
plaintiffs
 
are
 
entitled
 
to
 
a
 
preliminaryinjunction
 
against
 
the
 
firing
range
 
 ban.
 
The
 
harm
 
to
 
theirSecond
 
Amendment
 
rights
 
cannot
 
 be
 
remedied
 
 by
 
damages,their
 
challenge
 
has
 
a
 
strong
 
likelihood
 
of
 
success
 
on
 
themerits,
 
and
 
the
 
City’s
 
claimed
 
harm
 
to
 
the
 
public
 
interest
 
is based
 
entirely
 
on
 
speculation.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->