7th Circuit Ct of Appeals

Uncategorized

Ezell II Is Another Win For The Second Amendment

January 19, 2017 by 1 Comment

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the Second Amendment again today. In a majority decision written by Judge Diane Sykes, the court found that the new zoning restrictions imposed by the City of Chicago on shooting ranges were unconstitutional. It also found that the city’s restriction that limited range use to those 18 years of age or older was unconstitutional.

Judge Ilana Rovner concurred on one of the zoning restrictions and dissented on another one of these restrictions and on the age restriction.

I am in the midst of reading the decision now. In the meantime, here is the response of the Second Amendment Foundation which brought the original and subsequent lawsuit on behalf of Rhonda Ezell and the other plaintiffs.

BELLEVUE, WA — A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today handed the Second Amendment Foundation a victory in its challenge of firearms regulations in the City of Chicago, striking down a zoning provision, reversing an earlier ruling that upheld “distancing” restrictions for gun ranges, and reversing an earlier ruling that upheld certain age restrictions.

Writing for the court, Judge Diane S. Sykes noted, “To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety. That’s not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.”

“We are delighted with the outcome of this lengthy case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The extremes to which the city has gone in an attempt to narrow its compliance with the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago can only be described as incredible stubbornness. In the 6½ years since the high court ruling in our McDonald case, the city has had ample opportunity to modify its regulations. Instead, Chicago has resisted reasonableness.

“We had already sued Chicago successfully to knock down its outright ban on gun ranges within the city,” he recalled. “Then they adopted new regulations that included the zoning, distancing and age restrictions that we contested in this legal action, known as ‘Ezell II.’

“The city tried to severely limit where shooting ranges could be located, and they failed,” he continued. “The city put up arguments about the potential for gun theft, fire hazards and airborne lead contamination, and they failed. Even the judge’s opinion today noted that the city had ‘produced no evidentiary support for these claims beyond the speculative testimony of three city officials.’ This nonsense has got to stop.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for citizens of Chicago who want to exercise their rights,” Gottlieb said, “and particularly for Rhonda Ezell, who has been steadfast in her resolve.”

Also on the panel with Judge Sykes were Judges Michael S. Kanne and Ilana D. Rovner.

As a side note, Judge Sykes is one of the jurists mentioned as a possible successor to Justice Antonin Scalia by President-elect Donald Trump. Given this decision and the earlier Ezell I decision, it is my hope that she be given the strongest consideration for this nomination.

Uncategorized

Madigan Files For 30 Day Stay On Mandate (Updated)

June 4, 2013 by 8 Comments

Getting each house of the Illinois General Assembly to pass a concealed carry law with lopsided margins looks to have been the easy part. The harder part, in many ways, is going to be getting the law implemented.

It just got a bit harder today thanks to the machinations of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. She has filed a motion to stay the 7th Circuit’s 180 day mandate to have a concealed carry law in place for another 30 days. She gives as her rationale that it would give Gov. Pat Quinn “a reasonable time to fulfill his constitutional duties.” The Illinois Constitution gives the governor 60 days after a bill’s passage to consider and sign it. That amount of time is one of the longest in the nation according to the National Governor’s Association.

Madigan argues that the additional time is necessary to avoid having no state law in place which she says was the court’s original intent of the 180-day stay of its mandate.

The expiration of the stay on June 9 without a substitute law in place
would present a significant harm, not to the defendants in an individualized or
official capacity, but to the People and Constitution of Illinois. The current stay of
this Court’s mandate expires in less than one week, significantly shortening the
sixty-day period constitutionally afforded the Governor to consider and sign
legislation into law. Expiration of the stay on June 9 will either eliminate that
constitutionally-provided period entirely or create a gap in state firearm regulation.
These represent unnecessary harms to the public interest.

Madigan goes on to argue that 30 days is only for the “orderly completion of the legislative process and is not intended for purposes of delay.” If this is indeed the case, one might well ask why Madigan isn’t asking for 51 days or the full amount of time left for Gov. Quinn to either sign or veto the bill under the Illinois Constitution.

Madigan concludes her argument by saying she recognizes that a delay of a constitutional right imposes a burden upon the plaintiffs but that is outweighed by the public’s interest in not having a period where no law is in effect.

It should be noted that Madigan still has another 21 days left on her extension in which to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court appealing this case. There is no word on what she intends to do regarding that.

UPDATE: Despite it being highly irregular and that a stay would seem to violate many of the Rules of Federal Appellate Procedure, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan got her order staying the mandate of the court for another 30 days. 

1. MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS, filed on
June 3, 2013, by counsel for the appellees.

2. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR ADDITIONAL 30
DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants Michael Moore, Charles
Hooks, Peggy Fechter, Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and
Illinois Carry.

3. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS MARY SHEPARD AND ILLINOIS STATE
RIFLE ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE
FOR ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants
Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay mandate for additional 30 days is GRANTED.
This court’s mandate is STAYED until July 9, 2013. No further extensions to stay the court’s
mandate will be granted.
form

 Sebastian has more on the opposing motions here.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On Win In 7th Circuit

February 23, 2013 by

The NRA-ILA was also pleased with the ruling from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday that denied Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request for an en banc hearing of the dual cases – Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan.

They released this statement yesterday.


Fairfax, Va. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on December 11, 2012, that Illinois’ total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business is unconstitutional. Today, the same court sitting en banc denied the State of Illinois’ petition to rehear the case. The case involves lead plaintiff Mary Shepard, an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in both Utah and Florida. The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle and Pistol Association is a co-plaintiff in this case.

On September 28, 2009, while working as the treasurer of her church, Ms. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245 pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Ms. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Ms. Shepard’s injuries required extensive surgeries and she continues physical therapy to this day attempting to recover from her injuries.

In the ruling which was upheld today, Judge Richard Posner ruled that Illinois’ ban on carriage is unconstitutional. The Judge went on to say, “One doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. . . . Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk than in his apartment on the 35th floor.”

“Today’s decision is a major victory for the Second Amendment and all the law abiding citizens of Illinois who wish to both to keep arms, and to bear arms,” added Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “It is now clear that no state can deny law-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. We have been fighting this case for years and are prepared to keep fighting until the courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment.”

Uncategorized

SAF On Win In 7th Circuit

February 23, 2013 by

The refusal of the 7th Circuit to grant Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan an en banc hearing is a win for concealed carry in that state. While the question remains whether Madigan will appeal to the US Supreme Court, in the meantime the Illinois General Assembly has to get to work on a concealed carry law that would pass the court’s muster.

As you can imagine, the Second Amendment Foundation is thrilled with the refusal to grant an en banc hearing.


7TH CIRCUIT LETS POSNER RULING
STAND; HUGE WIN FOR CCW, SAYS SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”

“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”

In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

Judge Posner subsequently added, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”

“It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”

The ruling also affects a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan.

Uncategorized

Illinois AG Madigan Requests En Banc Hearing In Carry Cases

January 8, 2013 by 4 Comments

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced today that she will be requesting an en banc review of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the joint cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan. This decision by the 7th Circuit would have forced the Illinois General Assembly to come up with some form of concealed carry within 180 days. An en banc review means all the judges of the 7th Circuit will review the case and not just the three judge panel assigned to the case. As I understand it, a petition for an en banc review is not automatically granted.

There had been some question on whether or not Madigan would appeal or seek an en banc review given her ambitions to succeed Pat Quinn as Governor of Illinois. Letting the decision stand would have been a bone tossed to downstate Illinois Democrats who tend to look at gun rights more favorably. I take Madigan’s petition as an indication that she feels that gun control post-Newtown is a winning proposition.

From Madigan’s press release:


Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced she has filed a petition for rehearing before the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in lawsuits challenging the Illinois laws that prevent the carrying of ready-to-use firearms in public.

The Attorney General’s petition for a rehearing “en banc” is a request for all of the judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case after a December decision by a three-judge panel of the court held that the state laws barring carrying ready-to-use firearms in public are unconstitutional.

Madigan’s petition was filed in lawsuits brought against the State of Illinois by Michael Moore, Mary E. Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, which allege that Illinois’ restrictions on the carrying of ready-to-use weapons in public violates their Second Amendment rights. The laws had previously been upheld by two separate federal district courts in Illinois.

In its December decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set a 180-day deadline for the Illinois legislature to draft and enact new laws relating to carrying ready-to-use firearms in public. Today’s petition for rehearing by the Attorney General does not affect that deadline.

Madigan issued the following statement regarding her decision to seek a rehearing:

“In ruling that Illinois must allow individuals to carry ready-to-use firearms in public, the 7th Circuit Court’s decision goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held and conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts. Based on those decisions, it is appropriate to ask the full 7th Circuit to review this case and consider adopting an approach that is consistent with the other appellate courts that have addressed these issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.”

UPDATE: The petition from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office can be found here.

The Brady Center along with Trayvon Martin’s parents and others have filed an amicus brief in support of the Madigan’s petition. It can be found here. Frankly, I find the thought of including Trayvon Martin’s parents in the amicus brief just a trifle tacky. But then again, this is the new and improved Brady Center.

There is also an amicus brief in support of Madigan’s petition from the City of Chicago, the Chicago Board of Ed, the Chicago Transit Authority, and the Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the old LCAV) which can be found here.

Uncategorized

NRA Calls It A “Victory For Self-Defense”

December 11, 2012 by

Just like the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA is celebrating today’s ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. If you will recall, the 7th Circuit combined the appeals of the SAF’s case – Moore v. Madigan – and the NRA’s case – Shepard v. Madigan – into a joint appeal. Plaintiffs’ oral arguments were presented by both Alan Gura and Charles Cooper.

The NRA’s release on the win is below:

Federal Court Strikes down Illinois’ total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business

Fairfax, Va. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled today that Illinois’ total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business is unconstitutional. The case involves lead plaintiff Mary Shepard, an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in both Utah and Florida. The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for all law abiding citizens in Illinois and gun owners throughout the country,” said Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of NRA. “The court recognized that the text and history of the Second Amendment guarantee individuals the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and other lawful purposes. In light of this ruling, Mary Shepard and the people of Illinois will finally be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

On September 28, 2009, while working as the treasurer of her church, Ms. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245 pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Ms. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Ms. Shepard’s injuries required extensive surgeries and she continues physical therapy to this day attempting to recover from her injuries.

In today’s decision, Judge Richard Posner ruled that Illinois’ ban on carriage is unconstitutional. The Judge went on to say, “One doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. . . . Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk than in his apartment on the 35th floor.”

“Today’s ruling is a major victory for law-abiding Illinoisans—and for everyone who understands that the Second Amendment protects the right both to keep arms, and to bear arms,” added Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This ruling makes clear that Illinois cannot deny law-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. This is a step in the right direction for all gun owners. We know it probably won’t be the end of this case, and we’re ready to keep fighting until the courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment.”

Uncategorized

ISRA On Today’s 7th Circuit Win

December 11, 2012 by 3 Comments

The Illinois State Rifle Association welcomed the ruling by Judge Posner in the joint appeal of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan today. However, they recognize that with the focus shifting to the Illinois General Assembly, it is time to get to work so that a sham carry law isn’t shoved through the legislature by the anti-gun, anti-carry forces.

From ISRA’s Urgent Alert sent earlier this afternoon:

7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTS ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY BILL

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has rendered a decision in the Shepard/Moore v. Madigan case that states that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional. The court further directs the legislature to pass a concealed carry bill within 180 days. Although the announcement of this court ruling would appear to be good news for self-defense advocates, it is really nothing more than the first volley in what will be a heated battle to preserve and protect our gun rights. The gun control movement, headed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, will be introducing a concealed carry bill of their own for the sole purpose of satisfying the court order. Madigan’s bill is sure to be a sham that will be so restrictive and impractical that only very few Illinois citizens would even qualify for a carry permit – most citizens would remain unprotected from criminals. Information obtained from within the Madigan organization indicates that the anti-gunners will piggyback an “assault weapons” ban and other onerous gun control legislation on the concealed carry bill. In order to prevent Madigan from hijacking concealed carry, Illinois gun owners need to step up and let their voices be heard on this issue.

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO GET A GOOD CONCEALED CARRY BILL PASSED:

1. Contact your State Representative and State Senator. Politely advise them that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you support the court of appeals decision in the Shepard case. Politely advise them that you want them to vote against any sham concealed carry bill that Lisa Madigan will try to push. Politely tell them that you want them to vote for HB 148, the Family and Personal Protection Act. Advise them that you will not support any concealed carry bill that contains provisions that would discourage the average citizen from seeking a carry permit such as exorbitant fees, impossible training requirements, or excessive red tape. Advise them that you will only support a “clean” concealed carry bill that does not try to sneak through gun control schemes. If you do not know who your State Representative and/or State Senator is, please visit the Illinois State Board of Elections website link here.

2. Pass this alert along to your family and friends. Encourage them to contact their representatives as well.

3. Post this alert to any and all internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you may belong.

Uncategorized

Oral Arguments Set For Challenges To Illinois’ Ban On Carry

May 9, 2012 by 7 Comments

The NRA’s challenge to the ban on any form of carry in the state of Illinois, Shepard et al v. Madigan, will come before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments on Friday, June 8th in Chicago. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a party to this suit.

At the same time, the Court of Appeals will also hear the Second Amendment Foundation’s case, Moore et al v. Madigan. Illinois Carry, SAF, and a number of other individual plaintiffs are party to this suit.

A motion had been made to consolidate the cases by attorneys for the State of Illinois and was denied on April 26th. Judge Frank Esterbrook ordered:

IT IS ORDERED that the motions to consolidate are DENIED. Appellees do not need a formal order of consolidation in order to file one brief addressing two appeals. They may file one brief, or two, at their option.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, but only until May 9, 2012 (in both appeals). This should allow enough time to prepare a single brief covering the two cases. Appellees previously told the court that the two suits are functionally identical. There is accordingly no need for time beyond the 30-day extension already granted, and this one-week increment.

The court’s last regular sitting of the current term is June 8, 2012. If the court were to delay the appellees’ briefs until June 1 or June 11 (the alternate dates appellees propose), that would postpone oral argument until next September, an unnecessary delay. Appellees must file their brief (or briefs) in both cases by May 9, and appellants their reply briefs by May 23. That will permit oral argument the last week of May or the first full week of June.

The lead attorney for the plaintiff-appellants in the Shepard case is Charles Cooper of Cooper and Kirk. Mr. Cooper has been handling much of the NRA’s appeal work and formerly was an Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration.

David Sigale, co-counsel in both the McDonald and Ezell cases, is listed as the counsel of record in the Moore case. However, I expect Alan Gura to present the oral arguments as there was a notation in the docket of his schedule and he is listed as an attorney in the case.

UPDATE: P.T. had a question below about the three judges who will hear the case and whether they had been announced. I asked David Sigale if he knew who they would be. His response is below:

John, my understanding is that the Judges get picked for the panel not long before the argument. In any event, the litigants only find out who is on the panel when they show up that morning.

Uncategorized

ISRA Response To 7th Circuit Win On Ezell

July 7, 2011 by

The Illinois State Rifle Association is obviously pleased with the decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that mandates a preliminary injunction against the City of Chicago’s previous ban on shooting ranges within the city limits. As one of the organizational plaintiffs in Ezell v. Chicago, they not only got the preliminary injunction but their status as an organizational plaintff was reaffirmed by Judge Syke’s opinion.

The official response from ISRA and their in-house counsel Victor Quilici is below.

Firearm Law & Commentary
by Victor D. Quilici, ISRA Attorney

7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS GRANTS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN EZELL V. CITY OF CHICAGO GUN RANGE CASE

July 6, 2011

One day after the Supreme Court decided McDonald vs. City of Chicago, the City explored a legislative response to the decision and shortly thereafter the ordinance banning handguns was repealed and the City passed its now infamous “Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance.”

The new ordinance contained a sweeping array of firearm restrictions, including a ban on firing ranges within the City, although the ordinance contained a provision requiring aspiring gun owners to complete one hour of range training as a prerequisite to acquiring a Chicago Firearm Permit which is mandated for lawful gun ownership in the City. Immediately, ISRA was joined by three Chicago residents, the Second Amendment foundation, and Action Target Designs, and a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO), a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction against the City’s firing range ban.. As the appellate court noted, the lawsuit alleged that the range-ban “impermissibly burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms in the home for self-defense because it prohibits, everywhere in the City, the means of satisfying a condition the City imposes for lawful firearm possession.”

The District Court judge denied the relief sought by the Plaintiffs, and on appeal the appellate court tribunal found that the lower court’s acceptance of the City’s “confused approach to the case” led the District Court to err in failing to recognize “ the scope of the Second Amendment right as recognized in Heller and applied to the states in McDonald, and the standard of review of laws alleged to infringe Second Amendment rights.” The appellate court also noted that the City failed to produce any empirical evidence of any kind, “and rested its entire defense of the range ban on speculation about accidents and theft.”

The appeals court concluded by noting that at this stage of the proceedings “the firing range ban is wholly out of proportion to the public interests the City claims it serves.” Thus, the court determined the plaintiffs showed irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, and a strong likelihood of success—all prerequisites to obtaining injunctive relief. The District Court’s decision was reversed and the case remanded (returned) to the lower court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with its decision. A First Amendment violation alleged in the lawsuit was not addressed and considered surplusage based on the court’s findings and its decision based on the Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims.

Illinois State Rifle Association members and its friends should keep in mind that this is only round one of a continued fight to protect our fundamental rights to ownership and possession of firearms for self-defense, and other lawful purposes, as our United States Supreme Court clearly pronounced in its ground-breaking decisions in Heller, and McDonald. We owe a big round of applause and “thanks” to the attorneys involved— Alan Gura and David Sigale.

Victor D. Quilici
ISRA Counsel

Uncategorized

SAF On Their Win In Chicago

July 6, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Second Amendment Foundation issued this release about their win today in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision by Judge Sykes also said that organizational plaintiffs like SAF had standing to sue on behalf of their members.

BELLEVUE, WA – In a 3-0 ruling issued this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed a lower court ruling and ordered that court to issue a preliminary injunction against the City of Chicago on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation that prevents the city from banning gun ranges inside city limits.

Joining SAF in the original lawsuit were 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. The Appeals Court ruling is severely critical of the lower court’s ruling.

“This is a significant victory that could have strong implications well beyond the Chicago city limits,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. 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.”

Immediately after last year’s landmark SAF victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the city adopted a handgun ordinance that required special permits and mandated range training, but banned gun ranges inside city limits. The city argued that citizens could fulfill their training requirement by visiting a suburban range. In today’s ruling, written by Judge Diane S. Sykes, the Appeals Court observed, “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 noted, “…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.”

“What the city tried to do, as the court ruling noted, was ‘thumb its municipal nose at the Supreme Court’,” Gottlieb stated. “City governments, no matter how much they abhor the fundamental right of citizens to keep and bear arms, cannot use clever legal devices to prevent the exercise of that right. As Judge Rovner noted, ‘the city must come to terms with that reality’.”