Chicago May Finally Be Listening

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the City of Chicago that a) they must allow shooting ranges, b)that they can’t so limit their locations as to be prohibitive, and c)that those under the age of 18 should be allowed at ranges so as to get proper firearm training. These rulings stem from cases brought the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association in  Ezell v. City of Chicago and what is called Ezell II.

On Wednesday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel proposed new zoning regulations that would bring the city into compliance with the court’s rulings.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday proposed allowing gun ranges in more areas of Chicago in response to a federal appellate court ruling that struck down the city’s zoning restrictions on the shooting facilities.

The new rules would allow gun ranges in business, commercial and industrial areas, provided the owners obtained a special-use permit — which requires officials to take into consideration any objections from people and businesses in the surrounding area…

The changes also would allow people younger than 18 to shoot at a range, provided they are supervised by a parent, guardian or trained instructor.

The earlier regulations had limited shooting ranges to industrial areas and required that the ranges be located more the 500 feet away from “homes, schools, day care operations, houses of worship, liquor stores, parks, libraries, museums and hospitals.” This effectively limited shooting ranges to about a 2% area within the city limits. The early regulations also banned anyone under the age of 18 from going to a range.

While I don’t have the final details of Emanuel’s proposal, this seems to be a start in the right direction. When the minutes from the March 29th City Council meeting are published, I will publish the relevant portions.

Congratulations again to the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association, plaintiff Rhonda Ezell, and attorney Alan Gura for their efforts to bring a basic civil right to the City of Chicago.

Gaming A Gun Buy-Back

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans to waste another $250,000 of the city’s money in order to fund a gun buy-back. He announced his plans yesterday at press conference attended by the usual hanger’s on. The money is coming from the Chicago Police Department’s budget. The “intent” is to “get guns off the street”.

Emanuel’s buy-back will be a partnership between the city and various groups who can apply for grants to fund buy-backs.

Organizations can apply directly to the police department and will be responsible for organizing and advertising the events. Chicago police will staff the buy-back events, recover the guns, and provide cash cards for guns turned in. The $250,000 fund will be used to purchase the cash cards, and is funded through the existing CPD budget.

“Illegal guns drive violence in our neighborhoods, and we must do everything possible to keep them off our streets,” said Superintendent McCarthy. “Our officers already recover more illegal guns than officers in any other city in the country, and this new take on gun buy-backs will help us get even more guns out of our communities.”

The last time the city sponsored such a buy-back gun rights organizations and suburban gun dealers dumped a number of inoperable firearms on the city and collected $100 each in gift cards. John Boch of Guns Saves Lives said the money was used to purchase ammo for a NRA youth camp.

Boch said his group will be back and the cops aren’t happy.

Boch is vowing to return to Chicago with another 50 or 60 guns to turn in.

“We will put that money to good use for public awareness efforts on our part,” he said. “We don’t need gun control, we need crime control.”

Anthony Guglielmi, spokesman for the Chicago Police Department, said officers will check to see whether turned-in guns are operable but won’t check the IDs of the people who bring them in.

“If people want to game the system, society is the victim,” he said. “I think those people need to ask themselves, are they part of the solution to reduce violence?”

No, what Mr. Guglielmi should be asking is whether this $250,000 of taxpayer’s money couldn’t be better used in enforcement efforts against criminal gangs such as the Gangster Disciples, the Latin Kings, and Black P Stone. When you look at a map of Chicago and see very few areas that don’t have known gang boundaries, it is what I’d be asking.

Dream On, Rahmbo

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel held a press conference today to bemoan the fact that Illinois will now finally have shall-issue concealed carry. He said he was glad Illinois was the last state to adopt concealed carry and that he hopes the Illinois General Assembly will allow Chicago to adopt its own stricter concealed carry ordinances.

He goes on to say that Chicago is different and that it “needs” gun control. I would agree with him that Chicago is different than Downstate – it has more shootings and murders than the rest of the state despite having much tougher gun control laws.

View more videos at:

Emanuel To Propose New AWB For Chicago

Chicago is now jumping on the bandwagon of proposing new gun laws before the Illinois concealed carry law is enacted. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has proposed a new assault weapon (sic) ban that would prohibit the sale and possession of such firearms in the city. From the report by WGN-TV below, it appears the bill will also contain a listing of such firearms and will also contain a magazine ban.

The second bill introduced will ban the carrying of firearms in student safety zones. While I am not completely familiar with the concept, it appears that they include the sidewalks students most frequently use when walking to school. This second bill sounds like even more of an intrusion upon the Second Amendment than the Chicago AWB depending on just how broadly a student safety zone is defined.

The second ordinance would make the punishment harsher for gun-related offenses in “student safety zones”.

Those zones are found near schools, buses, and parks across the city.

Anyone convicted of having a gun in a safety zone would face a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 for the first offense and a mandatory 30 days in jail.

A second offense would carry a fine of $5,000 to $15,000 and a mandatory three months in jail.

A third offense would carry a fine of $10,000 to $20,000 and a mandatory six-month jail term.

Neither bill nor its text is posted on the City of Chicago’s website as of now.

CCRKBA On Rahmbo’s Strong Arm Attempt

Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago is trying to use the “Chicago Way” to hurt firearms manufacturers. He has “suggested” to Bank of America and TD Bank that that should end lending to Sturm, Ruger and Smith & Wesson. Like most, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is taking a dim view of this.


BELLEVUE, WA – Anti-gun Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking his demagoguery to a new level by attempting to coerce banks into refusing service to firearms manufacturers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

CBS News in Chicago reported that Emanuel was pressuring two major banks, identified as Bank of America and TD Bank, to stop lines of credit to Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger, two of the largest gun makers in the industry. In letters to bank executives, Emanuel reportedly said he wanted to send a message to gun makers that they must buckle under to gun control measures being pushed by the Obama administration.

“This is outrageous,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Mayor Emanuel is acting like a Chicago gangster instead of a public servant, and we are very concerned that there might be legal ramifications. How dare the mayor engage in this kind of anti-gun lobbying effort, trying to cut off operating capital to a pair of perfectly legal companies that happen to be engaged in perhaps the most heavily-regulated business in the country.

“Gun owners and people who believe in the Bill of Rights should stop giving Chicago a line of credit by purchasing municipal bonds,” he added. “Rahm wants to send a message, and the nation should send him a reply.

“Mayor Emanuel is allegedly contending that lines of credit should dry up unless Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger submit to operating their businesses the way anti-gunners demand,” Gottlieb continued. “That conduct seems more in the realm of a street thug than a political leader, but then, again, we’re talking about a mayor who presides over a city with Draconian gun laws and a murder rate rivaling a Third World country.

Emanuel is a career anti-gunner who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, typically as point man on some kind of gun control effort.

“Mayor Emanuel seems to be under the illusion that he can force banks to act as his surrogates in an unrelenting campaign to crush the firearms industry and erase the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said. “This is insidious and we hope the banks recognize it for the kind of below-the-belt political chicanery for which Chicago politicians have become famous. No wonder they sometimes refer to him as ‘The Godfather’.

An ISRA Alert On Senate Bill That Would Establish A Tax Per Handgun Owned

The Illinois State Rifle Association sent out this alert this evening about an attempt to tax each handgun owned. If you live in Illinois, I’d suggest you contact your legislator even if you know that they are anti-gun. That way they can’t say they only got pro-gun control mail.

The Chicago Mayor’s efforts to punish Illinois gun owners for Chicago’s out of control crime problem continue in the Illinois Senate.

SB3625 – This bill would tack a $20.00 tax on every hand gun you own and require you to register like a sex offender.


Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and State Sen. Antonio Muñoz (IL-1) are continuing their attacks on firearm ownership in Illinois. Monday, Senator Muñoz amended a bill to turn it into Emanuel’s handgun registration scheme, blaming law abiding Illinois handgun owners for his failure to control crime in Chicago. This bill makes it a felony, equivalent to arson, to possess an ‘unregistered’ handgun in the state and further punishes victims of crime through a ‘Lost or Stolen’ mandate, in other words, if you have your firearms stolen and don’t report it to the police in a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, YOU will become the criminal. To them, owning a handgun without government permission is the same as burning someone’s house down.

The only purpose of this bill is to make firearm ownership more onerous and expensive for Illinois residents during a time of economic hardship. It will have no effect on criminals except to give them peace of mind knowing that fewer people will be able to defend themselves.


1. Contact your State Senator and politely inform him/her that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you do not support registering firearm owners like sex offenders. Tell him/her that you expect to see them vote AGAINST SB3625 if this antigun bill comes to the floor. If you do not know who your State Senator is, click this link to go to the Illinois Board of Elections: .

2. Contact the sponsor of the Emanuel/Obama gun tax, State Antonio Muñoz, (217) 782-9415, (773) 869-9050, and tell him that you do not appreciate the idea of being registered like a sex offender and having to pay a tax for exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I’m Shocked – Rahmbo Joins MAIG

The AP is reporting that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has joined Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors. I am shocked, shocked I say by this news.

In a statement, Emanuel says almost half of the guns recovered in Chicago come from outside Illinois. He says Chicago has to work with other cities to fight gun trafficking and pass federal legislation.

It is interesting that such important news as this was first reported on a Sunday afternoon. Moreover, the release still isn’t up on Emanuel’s City of Chicago website nor even MAIG’s website.

Chicago officials are also reporting that “more than 80 percent of murder victims last year were killed with a gun.” The victims must have been hanging around outside all those shooting ranges in Chicago. Oh wait, there weren’t any as the Chicago Gun Law forbid them and the 7th Circuit hadn’t ruled in favor of Rhonda Ezell until July of this year.

Too Little, Too Late

Mayor Rahm Emanuel thought he could beat the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to the punch by racing through an amendment to Chicago’s gun laws that would allow shooting ranges in the city under certain, onerous conditions. (To see those conditions either read the full bill or go to Sebastian’s summary here.)

He lost.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their decision today on the appeal of Judge Kendell’s denial of a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs in Ezell v. Chicago. It is a 59 page decision written by Judge Sykes with which Judge Rovner concurred in the results. In other words, it was 3-0 against the City of Chicago but for different reasons. The relevant passage in the decision is this:

The plaintiffs have established their entitlement to a preliminary injunction based on their Second Amendment claim, so we need not address the alternative argument that range training is protected expression under the First Amendment. Given the strong likelihood of success on the former claim, the latter claim seems like surplusage.

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion.

Judge Sykes in her decision said specified certain conditions on the preliminary injunction. They are:

The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforcement of Chicago Municipal Code § 8‐20‐280—the prohibition No. 10‐3525 49 on “[s]hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged.” They are entitled to a preliminary injunction to that effect. To be effective, however, the injunction must also prevent the City from enforcing other provisions of the Ordinance that operate indirectly to prohibit range training. The plaintiffs have identified several provisions of the Ordinance that implicate activities integral to range training: CHI. MUN. CODE §§ 8‐20‐020 (prohibiting the possession of handguns outside the home), 8‐20‐030 (prohibiting the possession of long guns outside the home or business), 8‐20‐080 (prohibiting the possession of ammunition without a corresponding permit and registration certificate), 8‐20‐100 (prohibiting the transfer of firearms and ammunition except through inheritance), 8‐24‐010 (prohibiting the discharge of firearms except for self‐defense, defense of another, or hunting). To the extent that these provisions prohibit law‐abiding, responsible citizens from using a firing range in the city, the preliminary injunction should include them as well. Similarly, the injunction should prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city.

Finally, because range training is required for the issuance of a Chicago Firearm Permit, a registration certificate, and ultimately, for lawful possession of any firearm, see CHI. MUN. CODE §§ 8‐20‐110(a), 8‐20‐140(a)‐(b), the firing‐range ban implicates not only the right to train at a range but also the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self‐defense. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should include sections 8‐20‐110(a) and 8‐20‐140(a) to the extent that those provisions operate to prohibit otherwise eligible persons from “carry[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm” at a range without a Permit or registration certificate while they are trying to complete the range‐training prerequisite for lawful firearm possession.

Despite Rahm’s 11th hour move, today was a good day for the Second Amendment in Chicago.

UPDATE: Josh Blackman has an “instant analysis” of the 7th Circuit’s decision in Ezell here. Dave Hardy calls the decision a major win and points out some of the salient points of the decision.

Gun Ranges In The City Of Chicago

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was true to his word that a bill would be introduced today to amend the Chicago Gun Law regarding shooting ranges. The item below is the only item on the agenda for the City Council’s Committee on Public Safety this afternoon at 2pm CDT.



An ordinance amending Chapters 8-20 and 8-24 and related
provisions of the Municipal Code.

Translating these Municipal Code references, Chapter 8-20 deals with Weapons and Chapter 8-24 deals with Firearms and Other Weapons. Within Chapter 8-20 is Section 280 which prohibits “shooting galleries and target ranges” while Chapter 8-24 deals with discharging a firearm within the City of Chicago.

As I and others have noted, passage of such an amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago could moot the Second Amendment Foundation’s case – Ezell v. Chicago -that challenges the prohibition on shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. An appeal of Judge Kendell’s denial of a preliminary injunction is pending a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal hearing was held in April and seemed quite favorable to those supporting gun rights and shooting ranges.

Is Rahm Afraid Of Alan Gura?

When the New Chicago Gun Law was passed in 2010, shooting ranges for civilians were banned. This became the basis of the lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation in Ezell v. Chicago.

Judge Kendell’s denial of a preliminary injunction was appealed by Alan Gura to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals where it appears quite likely he will win his injunction. When a judge says to you, “Mr. Gura, what would you like your injunction to say”, any reasonable person would take that as a good sign.

Against this background comes a report in the Chicago Sun-Times that Mayor Rahm Emanuel will introduce an ordinance next week to allow shooting ranges in Chicago.

The new ordinance should address the concerns raised in the lawsuit, officials say.

The proposed ordinance limits gun ranges to areas zoned for manufacturing. Outdoor ranges would be banned.

Anyone opening a gun range would have to obtain a gun permit from the city and obtain approval from the Chicago Police Department for a safety plan.

The Court of Appeals has not rendered a decision in this case and, presumably, an ordinance allowing shooting ranges would moot the case.