search
top

Rahm’s Shooting Range Ordinance

I’ve managed to get a hold of the copy of their range ordinance. As expected, it is completely draconian. It’s a joke if Rahm thinks this is going to make lawsuits go away. Let me offer you some of the features:

  • $4000 license fee paid every two years by the range.
  • The Police Commissioner may deny a license for a facility if there’s been “a substantial number of arrests” within 500 feet of the facility. He may also deny a license that “would have a deleterious impact on the health, safety or welfare of the community in which the shooting range facility is located.”
  • One a shooting range is denied a license, it can never be a shooting range again, even under new owners, without “clear and convincing evidence” that it such licensing won’t have a deleterious impact.
  • A written plan of operation must be submitted to city, speaking of how to minimize deleterious impact, including providing security personnel, restricted hours of operation, outdoor lighting, display of signs, and “other reasonable restrictions.” Failure means you lose your license.
  • If you’re an operating range, and one of your employees gets into trouble with the law, such as an ordinance violation involving a firearm, the entire range could lose its license.
  • Range must hold a $1,000,000 insurance policy.
  • Bans outdoor and mobile shooting ranges (Mobile ranges being at issue in Ezell)
  • Operating hours can only be between 9AM and 8PM.
  • Requires that range operators inspect every gun brought into the range for safety, and that the caliber is appropriate for an indoor range. Appropriateness does not seem to be a defined standard, which means you can bet it will be arbitrary. Guns must also be registered in the City of Chicago.
  • You must have a range master for every three shooting patrons. That range master must be on duty at all times.
  • No person under the age of 18 is permitted in a shooting range facility.
  • You could not take an out of state friend shooting, since CFP and FOID is required to be in possession of a firearm in the facility. The only exception is one-time for a training session in compliance with Chicago’s training requirement.
  • Air guns may not be used at a shooting range.
  • Shooting ranges may not reload ammunition.
  • Requirements for qualifications for range employees are completely arbitrary and up to the discretion of the Police Commissioner.
  • Surveillance cameras are required, on a 30 day loop. Both interior and exterior cameras are required.
  • Ranges can not operate within 1000 feet of another range, any district zoned for residential use, any school, day-care, park, place of worship, premises licensed for retail sale of liquor, any “children’s activities facility”, library, museum, or hospital.
  • Any illegal activity not reported is grounds for losing your license. Both inside or outside the range.
  • All law enforcement, federal, military, or PI/security ranges are exempted from this ordinance.
  • Ranges my not rent guns, except to people taking training classes for a Chicago CFP.
  • Ranges may only sell ammo for use onsite, and must ensure no one leaves the range with unauthorized ammo.
  • You could be fined $500 dollars, and up to $5000 dollars for taking your hearing protection off for a second in a shooting range. You could also be jailed for 180 days. The same could be said if a range master forgets to inspect a pistol, or a patron manages to leave with a single round of range ammo.
  • There’s a bunch of environmental requirements, some of which are left up to the commissioner’s whim. There are also a number of construction requirements. Not being an expert on range construction, I can’t speak to whether what’s being described is reasonable or insane.

Rahm’s ordinance is basically a joke, and an insult. I can’t imagine anyone would even try to operate a range under these ridiculous standards, and I suspect that’s the whole idea.

17 Responses to “Rahm’s Shooting Range Ordinance”

  1. David says:

    Come on, this is a perfect example of common sense gun legislation.

  2. Sean says:

    Makes me appreciate the freedoms I enjoy in my state.

  3. Thirdpower says:

    The 7th Circuit Ezell decision just came out and they bitchslapped Chicago again. Basically the judges realized the ordinance was designed to prohibit ownership and to ‘thumb their nose’ at SCOTUS and the court responded in kind.

    Knowing they were going to lose, they put this up for the exact same reason and even more lawsuits are going to take place.

  4. Thanks bro, for shedding a little light on this dude. Mind if I talk about this week on my show? The Urban Shooter Podcast

  5. GMC70 says:

    Rahm’s ordinance is basically a joke, and an insult. I can’t imagine anyone would even try to operate a range under these ridiculous standards, and I suspect that’s the whole idea.

    Of course that’s the whole idea. It’s laughable to believe otherwise for even a second. Chicago is attempting to do what it has always done – do an end run on the 2nd Amendment. Fortunately, that’s getting harder and harder to do. Looks like the city is gonna have to get used to being bitchslapped.

    And I feel just awful about it!

    Just try not to be too hard on their lawyer; he had his marching orders, and was desperately trying to polish a turd. It’s not his fault that his client’s position was indefensible. I’ve been there – it’s not fun.

  6. Sebastian says:

    Rev. Blanchard:

    No problem. Feel free to use any of the content you’d like.

  7. Kevin Highland says:

    Hell this makes me appreciate what freedoms I have in downstate Illinois.

  8. Ranges can not operate within 1000 feet of another range, any district zoned for residential use, any school, day-care, park, place of worship, premises licensed for retail sale of liquor, any “children’s activities facility”, library, museum, or hospital.

    I’m sure it’s a matter of time, but I feel that there will just happen to be some sort of disqualifying facility within 999′ of any planned range …

    Gun grabbers just can’t help themselves.

  9. Chas says:

    It’s not a Shooting Range Ordinance, it’s a list of deliberate Second Amendment infringements, from a city government that is still angry about having had its gun ban overturned, and still obstinate about denying its citizens their Second Amendment rights.
    Chicago’s city government is very much in need of a hard smackdown by the courts, or it will continue to defy the courts.
    One has to bear in mind that this anti-freedom oppression is coming directly from Barack “Ak’s for the Reconquista” Obama’s former chief of staff, and make that association stick to the Gun Smuggler-in-Chief in 2012, if he hasn’t resigned or been impeached by then, for his leading role in the multiple fatalities of his failed, harebrained, Gunwalker scheme.

  10. Patrick says:

    I can’t think of anything they could have added short of “thou shalt build no ranges” to make this more prohibitive. They are an incredibly creative bunch.

  11. Sigivald says:

    Ranges can not operate within 1000 feet of another range, any district zoned for residential use, any school, day-care, park, place of worship, premises licensed for retail sale of liquor, any “children’s activities facility”, library, museum, or hospital.

    Because of the magic gun range doom field that destroys books and historical artifacts, no doubt.

    And because handwaving.

    Seriously, how do they think the Court’s going to look at this?

    They’re already getting slapped down in opinions over their utter bulldada around “lead contamination” – when the court says it smells of pretext, that’s more or less the equivalent of a normal human being asking “who the hell do you think you’re kidding?”

  12. Keith says:

    As an Illinois resident this isn’t surprising and that’s unfortunate, that this behaviour is normal.

  13. Mr Evilwrench says:

    Living in the next state over, I’ve had some experience with IL. A fence should be built around it, the inside being reserved as an insane asylum, though maybe just chicago would be sufficient.

    I was at Cabella’s in Hammond IN, picking up a used 92FS that looked like it had never been fired. Sweet deal, but I digress. There was a guy recently moved to IL asking questions about buying something and how he would have to act. I told him he should move over here and commute, housing would probably be cheaper, and, (showing him my pink card) “with this, I walk this out of here tonight, no waiting, no dumb questions.” It’s been fired a few times since then :)

  14. Kaid says:

    Wouldn’t it be cool if there were laws on the books that created clear penalties for government agents/officials doing things like infringing the right to keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches or seizures, or abridging the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, et al.

    Currently there’s basically no downside to routine abuse of power. Maybe if you do something unpopular enough regularly enough you don’t get re-elected. Boohoo. Throw these people in prison.

  15. PJ says:

    Well these rules seem to make perfect sense…If you want to completely disregard the Second Ammendment.. thumb your nose at the Supreme Court and generally piss people off.

  16. Pathfinder says:

    What’s needed is the kind of lawsuit that forces Chicago into Federal court-supervised mediation. If they jack around – contempt of court and Rahmie’s buddies in the mediation go to jail.

    Any ideas how to force this?

  17. Jacob says:

    Kaid, technically when they do things like that they’re committing an act of high treason, so the punishment is pretty well defined.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Range rules - [...] look at Chicago’s proposed rules for firing ranges, brought to you by Rahm [...]
top