search
top

Gun Range Ordinance in Chicago Shouldn’t Moot Ezell

John Richardson reports on an ordinance floated by Rahm Emanuel that would allow ranges in the City of Chicago. This is ostensibly aimed at Ezell v. Chicago, but Alan Gura is reporting on Twitter it shouldn’t moot the case. This is good news.

Mayor Rahm’s backpedaling indicates he’s smarter than his predecessor. He’s at least backing up to what he thinks is a more defensible position. Daley basically stuck to his guns and tried to reargue Heller.

You can read more about the ordinance here:

Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but that’s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district.

No wonder Alan Gura isn’t worried about Ezell. Is there anywhere in Chicago you could have a range under this ridiculous standard?

13 Responses to “Gun Range Ordinance in Chicago Shouldn’t Moot Ezell”

  1. Shootin' Buddy says:

    This bodes ill.

    Tiny Dancer is not as stupid as Shortshanks and did not have to repeat the 4th grade. TD is showing his smarts by withdrawing to a more defensible position and refusing his flank.

    We need Shortshanks “no compromise” position for optimal judicial results.

  2. Matthew Carberry says:

    I dunno. All Gura really has to do is produce a map.

    He’s got the judges on record asking him how he wanted the injuction to read, this would not be it.

  3. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “We’d like to prohibit all gun ranges within 1,000 feet of Chicago, but we’re willing to settle for prohibiting gun ranges within 1,000 feet of anything within Chicago. See! We Marxists are willing to compromise!”

  4. David Lawson says:

    How about a floating range, 1000 feet in the air?

  5. Ian Argent says:

    As Chas noted, will this allow any permissible locations? those kilofoot radius zines end up being pretty big in the aggregate

  6. illinois voter says:

    We’re starting to wonder which alderman just happens to own the only property that meets all the restrictions they have suddenly come up with.

  7. chris says:

    Every range is required to have $1m in insurance, a 3 to 1 ratio max of shooters to “rangemasters”, every shooter must have a CFP and FOID, no ammo can leave the range, ranges cannot be outdoors, shooters must be 18, all firearms in the range must be registered and you have to show proof of registration…

    Ranges cannot be within 1000ft of another range, a school, park, day care, place of worship, library, museum, hospital, place that sells liquor or a “children’s activity facility”… Also they cannot be within 1000ft of any place zoned as residential… Far as I can tell, that would make it impossible to open one in the city.

  8. Ian Argent says:

    “ok, show us on the map where the bad range touched you”

  9. chris says:

    Some quick math shows that for 675 public schools in a city limit of 227sq miles of land means that there are roughly 3 public schools in every square mile. Add in parks, churches and day-cares and there are zero places in the city that you could put a range.

  10. Matthew Carberry says:

    A city using restrictive zoning to discriminate against lawful business activity?

    Maybe Alan will get that second run at Slaughterhouse after all. ;)

  11. Alpheus says:

    I have a brother-in-law who is a city planner. I remember him explaining that you have to be sure to zone in pornography shops, because the Supreme Court ruled that if you don’t, they can go pretty much anywhere–otherwise, “zoning them out” is essentially the same as banning them.

    Gee, I wonder if this new ordinance falls under that!

  12. Chas says:

    Chicago’s 1000 foot prohibition would extend outside of Chicago. Their prohitibition is so extensive, that it extends beyond their jurisdiction. I don’t know if that’s legal, but it’s certainly ridiculous.

  13. Ian Argent says:

    Well, Chicago code has no effect past their border – but I’d suspect that the surrounding municipalities, anyway, would gladly “carry over” this zoning reg.

top