OK, I’m more than a day late on this … three weeks late, actually. But today I finally got around to reading Ezell v. Chicago and in case there is anyone who hasn’t heard of it yet, basically it says that pistol-training.com is a Constitutionally protected site.
Wait, no. It says that firearms training is a Constitutionally protected right.
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.
Ezell v. Chicago, No 10-3525 slip op. at 35-36 (7th Cir. July 6, 2011)
The City of Chicago argued in part that its complete ban on public firing ranges within city limits was only a minor burden because many other ranges were located near the city’s border. The court, however, clearly — and rather obviously — pointed out that Chicago could not, for example, ban churches within its borders on the argument that people could just drive a little way out of the city to attend service. Drawing analogy to the First Amendment is a major event because it helps frame the standard by which future challenges to similar restrictions will be evaluated. Without getting into a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, it’s good news.
I wonder if we could get Congress to pass a Firearms Training Leave Act that guarantees a week’s paid vacation to anyone attending a shooting course? There’s a new campaign slogan for you: “A gun in every pot and a Gunsite 250 certificate on every wall.”
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Excellent decision! I can’t believe I didn’t hear about it till now. I would hope that this would extend to possible further retarded laws that would target ammo by placing unreasonable taxes on it, or for that matter any firearm accessory. You can’t say it legal to practice xyz and then place unreasonable burdens via taxes etc on xyz.
Awesome!
If you find the legal aspect of things interesting, Eugene Volokh has an excellent paper on recommendations of how to interpret the 2nd amendment reasonably in light of how other constitutional rights are recognized. It’s a bit more of a thinking man’s interpretation than “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand” in that it addresses what are considered reasonable limits on other rights, applies them rationally to the 2nd amendment, and ends up with something that most gun owners think would be reasonable.
I mention it because this court opinion cited it, and the reasoning in the opinion is straight out of Volokh’s paper.
http://uclalawreview.org/?p=124
I wish that was the train of thought north of the border. As it currently stands it’s nearly impossible to have land zoned to allow for new ranges and, further to this, the largest City in Canada doesn’t have a range within it’s limits (There used to be one downtown that was used by olympic athletes and other members…until it was shut down by a mayor who was about as anti-firearm as they come)
Ezell v. Chicago was a great win for Americans who want to exercise our 2nd Amendment Rights and get proper training.
Another important case working its way through the Supreme Court of Illinois is Wilson v. Cook County. I volunteer with an organization that has just filed an amicus brief in that case, and I believe this is the first challenge to an “assault weapons” ban post Heller/McDonald. If decided correctly, this case could eventually help law-abiding citizens get out from under the 10-round magazine limit which is still in effect in several states.
There are many benefits to this, not the least of which is that it will make it easier to comply with Todd’s equipment requirement to bring “enough magazines, pouches, etc., to carry a minimum of 50 rounds to the firing line”. I could do that now, but I had to pay twice the going rate for normal capacity, 17-round magazines, and they are 20 years old!
“I wonder if we could get Congress to pass a Firearms Training Leave Act that guarantees a week’s paid vacation to anyone attending a shooting course? There’s a new campaign slogan for you: “A gun in every pot and a Gunsite 250 certificate on every wall.””
As much as I just want the fed gov to shut up, protect the borders, keep the terrorists out of the country, and leave me alone I could back this one.
Gunsight??? How about a AFHF certificate !!!!!!!
Leave it to Todd G. not only to raise the bar on shooting speed, but get his website declared as a constitutionally protected activity…
UechiBear,
The “Heller II” case is challenging several of D.C.’s post-Heller restrictions, including its AW and magazine bans. The case was argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals late last fall, so it could be decided any time.
Thanks for that, John! I learned something new today.
I’ll post a link to the relevant Heller Foundation page so it’s easy for people to find more information about this.