You Must Get Gun Range Training. But You Can’t Get Gun Range Training.

Shaping the future of the Second Amendment in post-McDonald Chicago

Second Amendment lawyer Alan Gura filed an appeal this week in the case of Ezell v. Chicago, challenging the city's ban on gun ranges. It's likely to be one of the first important appeals court decisions to define the new shape of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Gura is already the most important lawyer in that field, with his one-two punch of Supreme Court victories in 2008’s D.C. v. Heller (which established that the amendment protects an individual right to own weapons, at least for self-defense in the home) and 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago (which established that that right applies to states and localities as well as the federal government).

After June's McDonald decision declaring that Chicago’s ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment, the city continues to impose picayune and detailed demands and restrictions on its citizens’ ability to possess and use weapons. One lawsuit, Benson v. Chicago, supported by the National Rifle Association, was filed in July challenging the new regulations on many grounds, including the ban on gun ownership by adults under 21, the ban on sale or transfer of weapons (except via inheritance), and the discretionary power of the superintendent of police to ban any particular type of weapon he decides is unsafe.

Gura, with the institutional support of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, sued in August challenging one specific element of Chicago’s new gun laws, a suit that could expand where and how we have a constitutionally protected right to use guns.

Chicago insists a legal weapon permit holder must have a signed affidavit from a firearms instructor affirming that he or she completed a training course, including at least one hour of gun range training. Chicago simultaneously prevents its residents from meeting that criterion in the city they live in. Yes, that’s right: The city demands gun range training to own a gun yet bans gun ranges at the same time. Well, not all gun ranges. The already existing ranges for government employees at the local Postal Service, Federal Reserve (!), and border authority offices are still in business.

No problem, the city insisted. Chicagoans could go outside Chicago to get the required training. The lead plaintiff in Gura's case, Rhonda Ezell, ill and awaiting a kidney transplant, did exactly that. (There are 14 ranges within 50 miles of Chicago’s border.)

Gura argued that the range ban was such a severe burden to the practice of a core constitutional right that the city should be immediately enjoined from enforcing it, pending the resolution of the case. In October Judge Virginia Kendall denied the injunction request because (among other reasons) the plaintiffs were unable to prove they could not go outside the city for their training—and indeed the ill Ezell had done so.

Kendall also averred that since Action Target, the plaintiff that wants to build a range, or move in a mobile range, within city limits, is not actively planning to break the law, it isn’t being harmed by the ban either.

In hearings over the injunction request, Chicago zoning commissioner Pattie Scudiero, while admitting she’s never even seen a gun range, opined on exactly where and how she thought they would need to be zoned: in manufacturing districts, with a special use permit. (She also admitted that, as far as she knew, no one had ever complained about the existing government ranges, but somehow she knew public ones would be a huge problem.) The city claims that lifting the range ban without any detailed regulations in place would represent an untenable hardship and public danger.

Judge Kendall wrote that Scudiero’s admittedly ignorant assertions rose to the level of “evidence that firing ranges would fall within the intensive use category and be zoned for manufacturing districts. This level of zoning is required for types of businesses which have high levels of risk to the public whether through environmental, social, or chemical harms.” Scudiero’s mere assertion was enough for Kendall to claim the city had “presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden under this standard that its objective is an important one and that its objective is advanced by means substantially related to that objective.” Gura points out in his appeal that existing governmental ranges in Chicago “are located in residential and commercial neighborhoods, among homes, schools, churches, parks, government buildings, and businesses of every description” with no apparent problems.

Kendall’s October decision was not on the merits of the lawsuit as a whole; it merely shot down Gura’s request for an immediate injunction stopping the city from enforcing its range ban pending the case’s eventual resolution. 

So this week Gura took Kendall’s injunction denial to the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In his appeal Gura mocks the city’s assertion that fears of criminals victimizing range patrons, or fears of gunfights galore in range parking lots, establish a real public danger. (No other city is known to have similar bans.) He insists that “Chicago cannot ban something it mandates as a condition of exercising a fundamental right” and that the city “has utterly failed to identify any legitimate governmental interests for the regulation, let alone a relationship between those interests and the law.”

Gura also argues, with ample precedent cited, that restricting the educational and training aspects of going to a gun range violates the First Amendment as well, since “training and education and learning and familiarization are all recognized forms of protected speech.”

Gura’s appeal also contains what seems a slam-dunk indication about the extent to which Heller affects Ezell. In Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia quoted with approval an 1880 source that said “The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right.”

It has become fashionable to declare Heller and McDonald feckless, already revealed to be weakly limited to self-defense in the home. Indeed, few post-Heller cases have strongly vindicated gun rights beyond that.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Come on Brian, it makes perfect sense to ban something while demanding that you have it.

  • Bill||

    Chicago has serious gun violence problems. This is why they ban guns to prevent this. Why do you want to arm Chicago? Don't you want their citizens to fee safe?

  • Matrix||

    Gun bans work perfectly, dontcha know? Never heard of a shooting in a gun-free zone before. Only blood-thirsty lunatics want guns.

  • Jeff||

    "Chicago has serious gun violence problems. This is why they ban guns to prevent this."

    Then it seems as though the gun ban isn't working, wouldn't you say? Perhaps the idea is that law abiding citizens shouldn't be reduced to cannon fodder for gang members who will not abide by the law while they cower on the floors of their homes as errant bullets whiz through their living rooms.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jeff,

    He's being facetious.

  • Realist||

    You're shittin'g us....right???

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yes, he is.

  • ||

    bill,are you a complete fucking idiot?wake up!aren`t you law abiding?then why can`t chicago abide by the law also?look at places that have liberal gun laws=no crime.chicago guns=more gun violence than any other u.s. city,just like d.c. !

  • ||

    OMG IKR rite?? lol these stoopid librals

  • ||

    heh. Good sarcasm.

    Of course, we want only the criminals to feel safe...

  • BakedPenguin||

    I know it gets cold up in Chicago, but I'd still have a problem going to a range where there are a bunch of guys in hoodies.

    Just sayin'

  • Moonbeam||

    There won't be any guys in hoodies at a gun range, there's plenty of vacants to practice in.

  • LarryA||

    Ever see what happens when a hoodie catches some hot brass?

  • ||

    better than bouncing down your shirt collar...Ouch!! Good training for keeping your aim steady, however.

  • ||

    I suspect that guys in hoodies would feel VERY out of place at the kind of gun ranges I've frequented. Most of th folks at the gun ranges I know are VERY law-abiding and have an affirmative and aggressive attitude about prohibiting crime, while they're typically walking around with multiple firearms.

    Maybe Chicago is different.

  • ||

    How can Chicago have a gun violence problem? The gun ban should have taken care of that, right?

  • S.E. Copp||

    Right. Pay no attention to that gun violence behind the barricade tape.

  • Mary||

    The military should patrol Chicago.

    As one living in downtown Chicago - I can say that I'm happy that they're aren't open gun laws. Whatever they need to do to get guns under control in my town, I say do it. But I am certain the answer ISN'T making it easier for regular citizens to get guns.

    On another note- I might actually prefer the national guard to the CPD, they would probably be less corrupt.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Whatever they need to do to get guns under control in my town...

    24/7 curfews? Sequester everyone in separate rooms of their house all day, every day.

  • Trespassers W||

    But I am certain the answer ISN'T making it easier for regular citizens to get guns.

    Please explain why I can't have a gun, your highness. Or, if you're going to be so generous as to allow me to have one, why it should be made very difficult for me to get one.

    In your answer, please make reference to me, personally, and not someone in general.

  • ||

    On another note- I might actually prefer the national guard to the CPD, they would probably be less corrupt.

    They should ban the CPD from carrying guns then.

  • ||

    Sounds like you're up for just about anything that will make you safer. Martial law in your neighborhood? Just dandy. Shred the constitution? No problem. What's the point of living in a free country if you can't be safe?

    "May your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

  • ||

    Mary is to gun control as Juanita is to drug control, no?

  • Jeff||

    So 40 year old attorneys shouldn't be able to buy guns because 18 year old black kids are out of control? Seems totally reasonable.

  • ||

    You're right. It should only be easy for criminals to get guns, not "regular citizens". It's very easy for anyone to obtain a gun illegally, which is why the bad guys have them and you don't.

  • a criminal||

    It's not easy for me to get a gun, I have to go a whole two blocks to Jim's place, its right next to a crack house, and I have to pay way over retail. It's easier to get pot, it's right here in my closet.

  • Harry||

    Whatever they need to do to get guns under control in my town, I say do it.

    Everybody, dinner at Mary's place tomorrow. Be sure to bring your guns. to

  • Mary from the future||

    Oooh dear, oh dear!

    I wish I'd purchased and learned how to use a gun before those national guardsmen quartered in my house raped me and my daughters...

  • sr7||

    So, you don't feel you deserve the same consideration nor protection of his 'honor' Mayor Daley gets? Pity, you have no self respect.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Gun violence and gangs in Chicago are caused by the drug prohibition.

  • LarryA||

    Whatever they need to do to get guns under control in my town, I say do it.

    Best way to do that is open a bunch of gun ranges and encourage regular practice.

  • PabloKoh||

    I know what you are saying. I am afraid of those Mexicans and blacks too.

  • GMT II||

    Mary, you don't need no stinkn' gun, you need a bunch of moving boxes. You do live in America.

  • ||

    No, let her stay there. Let her have the draconian gun laws. Let her city council and CPD throw out bogus gun crime statistics to justify their disarming of the people. Hell, advertise it. Do one of those state tourism tv spots. Hopefully, every progressive statist idiot and gangbanging thug will be drawn to the same wretched place like a fucking bug zapper. It's a win/win situation. The progressives get to repeat the lie. The CPD gets to announce that "murders with illegal firearms went down from 30/month to only 9 a week" in their Orwellian paradise. The thugs get their easy victims without any fight, get to rape the mom's and daughters, and god help the redneck, right-wing gun-clinging Dad that fires back in self-defense. He'll see jailtime for that insubordination.

    Let them eat their fucking cake.

  • ||

    . Whatever they need to do to get guns under control in my town, I say do it.

    In that case, report to your neighborhood detention center for preemptive incarceration, citizen! Obviously you have no objection to being treated like a criminal.

    -jcr

  • Jeffersonian||

    Whatever they need to do to get guns under control in my town, I say do it.

    Mary, Mary, Mary...they are doing it, precious, it's just that it doesn't work, nor will doubling down.

  • ||

    "But I am certain the answer ISN'T making it easier for regular citizens to get guns."

    And you base this decision on what facts? Certainly not on the proof that cities with higher levels of legal gun ownership have less gun violence. And not on the fact that legal gun owners are responsible for a vanishingly small amount of gun crime.

    No, you base this on the facts that your imagination has created.

  • ||

    Mary, remember this quote:
    "Those who are willing to trade liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will soon lose both". Benjamin Franklin.
    I will not trade my gun rights for any amount of safety, especially since it has already been shown that gun laws dont really stop gun crime anyway, they just take away the ability of the honest people to fight back.

  • juris imprudent||

    Well played Ms. Rosh, well played.

  • Jane||

    The "baddies will hesitate if they know that their target may have a gun" argument doesn't holds up.

    -The odds that any randomly selected person will own a gun, let alone be carrying it, even in the most gun-happy states, are remote. Offenders know this; they won't be deterred.

    -It doesn't really matter whether or not they "hesitate" because at the end of the day, if they need fast cash for whatever their fix is, they're going to get it. If they have to scope someone out and assess the risk beforehand, then they will. That's easy to do.

    -How useful are guns really in these encounters? The assailant will probably have his weapon drawn first, whether it's a knife or a gun. Will you have an opportunity to respond in kind?

    -For that matter, arming the would be victims puts them at greater risk. If an assailant's prospective target draws a gun, he becomes a lot more likely to actually shoot or harm the victim out of self preservation -- and THEN rob him or her.

  • Trespassers W||

    Let's be very generous and assume that your counterarguments are perfectly valid.

    They are, nevertheless, perfectly irrelevant to the question of why I, personally, should be imprisoned for possessing a firearm.

  • Fat Crack Ho||

    You're absolutely right, and these are all the same reasons that police everywhere no longer see any point in carrying guns on duty.

  • ||

    Aside from eliminating undesirables, of course.

  • hehe||

    And by undesirables, you mean dogs, of course.

  • ||

    Methinks our multiple female hoplophobes are Juanita-style trolls.

  • Trespassers W||

    Come now, Mary and Jane are both very common names.

    Wait a second, if I were trolling, I might very well use a common name!

  • Russ 2000||

    To bad they're not trolling about pot laws. Better troll names for this thread would be "Ma" and "Barker".

    The troll giveaway was the "downtown Chicago" bit. Every resident of downtown Chicago I know is in favor of concealed carry because the CPD won't do a fuckin' thing to stop crime. The Near North wusses and the South Side religious nuts are the ones looking for gun control because they are under the delusion that the police that they never see must all be out enforcing gun laws an' shit.

  • Trespassers W||

    Every resident of downtown Chicago I know is in favor of concealed carry

    *raises hand*

  • ||

    because the CPD won't do a fuckin' thing to stop crime

    Ahh, see, that's where you messed up. How people ever got the idea that police can stop or prevent crime is beyond me. They're a cleanup crew, that's all.

    Modify your expectations and the results make more sense.

  • ||

    You can probably achieve a sufficiently close approximation if you blanket an area with enough cops - I suggest living in a neighbourhood containing a wealthy university willing to pay for a massive private department.

  • cynical||

    Sounds like a good plan, until the university wants your property and turns everything around it into slums so the city will declare it blighted and force you to sell.

  • Mensan||

    Maybe not the best example, but when I went to FSU, with it's private police department, there were two to three armed robberies on campus every week, and at least one violent rape every month or two.

  • ||

    I suppose it's not a universal solution... works where I am, though. And while the university can be heavy-handed on occasion, it's no Columbia. (I think there's way too much political firepower in the neighbourhood for it to get away with the kind of dickishness even if it wanted to.)

  • Ted S.||

    FSU is a state school. Were the campus security goons not on the state payroll?

  • ****||

    I did and it didn't work. People were still getting robbed and raped.

  • Russ 2000||

    You see, money that is a gift isn't earned. Therefore it should be taxed at 100%.

    The police can't stop A crime, but if they actually follow up as a clean-up crew they can reduce the number of incidents. (I have a friend on the CPD who patrols high-crime neighborhoods on the south side and even he admits that the majority of cops just don't give a shit. He figures he has no chance of making his 20 years because he'll be too disgusted to stay that long.)

    They just call drug busts "crime" and pretend you're doing a good job. Meanwhile stolen property remains stolen forever, all the cops do is write a report so the insurance companies can handle it; the armed thief never has to lose a minute of sleep as long as the CPD is in control. But the unarmed victim who later becomes armed is a menace 2 society.

  • ||

    At least if you're going to weakly try to insult me, rectal, try and be coherent about it.

    P.S. I'd say your blog sucks, but I'd never bother to visit it, so I can only assume that it does based on your writing here.

  • Warty||

    You are terrible at insults, rctl. Terrible. Pitiful. Why do you continue?

  • Warty||

    I've been to your site, you cow. It's hard to describe how awful it is. You are disgraceful.

  • ||

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jane,

    The "baddies will hesitate if they know that their target may have a gun" argument doesn't holds up.

    -The odds that any randomly selected person will own a gun, let alone be carrying it, even in the most gun-happy states, are remote.

    So you're saying that the baddies are staticians, first, and baddies second.

    Let me give you a probability problem and solution: What's the probability of you having a gun to shoot your assailant IF you have a gun with you?

    Result: 100%

    Offenders know this; they won't be deterred.

    Let's assume that you're right, that the baddies have access to the gun ownership database and know the odds . . . what happens after one of the baddies gets killed? What happens after the SECOND one gets killed? What happens after the THIRD one gets killed? What happens after the FOURTH one gets killed? ... Do you really think that does NOT affect a person's sense of RISK???

    -It doesn't really matter whether or not they "hesitate" because at the end of the day, if they need fast cash for whatever their fix is, they're going to get it.

    Yeah, makes sense. So let's ask women not to wear panties since, by the same argument, if the rapist wants a fuck, he will get it. Why fight destiny... Right?

    How useful are guns really in these encounters?[...] Will you have an opportunity to respond in kind?

    Will your odds improve if you respond UNARMED?

    -For that matter, arming the would be victims puts them at greater risk.

    That's why soldiers go to battle without guns - places them at higher risk.

    If an assailant's prospective target draws a gun, he becomes a lot more likely to actually shoot or harm the victim out of self preservation[...]

    So would the victim - out of self preservation.

    Actually, a robber or assailant does not really attack a person planning to defend his or her life; the psycological advantage is actually on the victim, not on the assailant, unless the victim happens to be (surprise!) UNARMED.

    You don't seem to think critically very much - or at all. Most of the above "arguments" you posited are mostly anti-gun talking points, not very well-thought.

  • ||

    Jane seems to know a lot about the thought process of violent criminals. I wonder how long she's been knocking over 7-11's?

  • nekoxgirl||

    I don't know about all that. Most home invasions happen when the owner is not at home because, as it turns out, robbers want to limit their chance of getting a shot gun blast to the face.

    Thankfully, I live in an area of the country where the police don't care if you shoot some asshole that IS stupid enough to break into your house while you are there.

    That's the worst thing about the gun laws in places like Chicago. Not only can you not carry, you can't even defend yourself in your own house.

  • In Time Of War||

    My grandfather never owned a gun until someone broke into his house and shot him and his wife, killing her.
    After that he bought a shotgun and a very large dog. His second wife was not killed by anyone.

    Gun ownership was never really a question for me.

  • Cecil||

    Good point. In England, with strict restrictions on gun ownership, 'hot' burglaries taking place when residents are home are much more common than in the US, since the cahnces of getting shot during a break-in are much different.

  • ||

    isn't that the truth.

    I live on a rural island where gun ownership and concealed carry is very widespread. We had a rash of burglaries, all when homeowner was not at home. My home was burglarized while I was (typically) absent.

    A few days later, I stayed home on a night when I was usually gone. Armed to the teeth. The burglars came to the end of the driveway, saw my car, and could not turn around and squeal away fast enough.

    Later we found out they were meth-heads. But even meth addicts know when they are likely to get shot. Now imagine what would have happened if the meth-heads had a 99.999% probability that I was unarmed???

  • ||

    Also, sheriff response time is in the range of 10-30 minutes depending on where the two deputies are on our island (which is the size of Manhattan island).

  • GMT II||

    Jane, I think Mary is coming to live with you shortly, so have fun.

  • ||

    C'mon. Don't you get it? MaryJane???

  • ||

    The odds that any randomly selected person will own a gun, let alone be carrying it, even in the most gun-happy states, are remote. Offenders know this; they won't be deterred.

    Since they're obviously not being deterred by gun bans, seems pretty obvious, given that the perps aren't being deterred, that being prepared to defend oneself is the prudent thing to do.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Jane, you and your ilk are one of the reasons I no longer live in the Peoples Republic Of Illinois. Here in Florida we carry our guns most everywhere we go. We have a very low incidence of truly violent crime. Most of the arrests here in my area are for non violent crimes involving Drugs and Alcohol and petty theft. In essence, the Bad Guys know us and they leave us alone.

  • ||

    Criminals don’t think that far ahead, other than when they arm themselves, as they have made the decision to use a gun to take what is not theirs. As for the criminal having the drop on me I practice regularly they do not, I’ll take my chances. Which brings us full circle, in the state of Illinois, there are more legal gun owners than criminals. Therefore it is more efficient to register criminals than gun owners. Of course criminals will not obey a criminal registration law( they are criminals) where gun owners, who are law-abiding will obey a gun owner registration. Not to mention the revenue which can be wasted by the government and generated by fees collected from those law-abiding citizens who chose to exercise a constitutional right.

  • ||

    But I am certain the answer ISN'T making it easier for regular citizens to get guns.

    Please show your work.

  • ||

    To paraphrase: I'm certain the answer isn't making it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns. I agree whole heartedly. Better that only criminals have the weapons. Oh, and there's that whole 2nd amendment thing about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed.

  • ||

    24/7 curfews? Sequester everyone in separate rooms of their house all day, every day.

    Martial law; TSA stripsearch scanners on every street corner. Random no-knock searches of homes and offices.

  • Central Services||

    Hi, there. I want to talk to you about ducts.

  • Derp||

    Fucking love that movie.
    "Here's a receipt for your receipt"

  • ||

    "Where'd you get this from, eh? Out yer nostril?"

  • Mortgage Servicer||

    Does it have to be a signed affidavit from a living firearms instructor?

  • Alone and Afraid||

    Well, it is Chicago, so being alive is not a requirement for anything.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    I live in Chicago, and am a gun rights advocate. I don't own a gun, but would like to purchase a practical firearm for home protection. I have been waiting for this to be resolved before making a purchase... I'm still waiting.

    What the author of this article failed to mention is that in addition to the mandatory range training, you're required to register with the State (under state law) AND the city... but you only have to register with the city if you plan on owning a HANDgun. The city registration requirement put forth by Mayor Dailey during his post-ruling temper tantrum was "aimed at protecting first responders."

    Yes, that's right. According to Mayor Dailey, first responders are at greater risk of gun violence if the resident they are responding to owns a handgun...but not a tactical shotgun or a sniper rifle...etc. I would love to see evidence that supports this argument.

    The repercussions of such lunacy are still unclear. Does this mean that first responders will be alerted to whether or not the resident owns a HANDgun? If so, how will this affect their response? Does this mean that if I exercise my constitutional right to keep and bear arms (albeit a specific type of arm) that I am subject to second-class emergency services? Am I, in effect, sacrificing
    Also, the lift of the handgun ban only allows me to store the firearm in my primary place of residence. It cannot be stored on the porch or in my garage.

  • Rrabbit||

    The US have a gun problem, with 10,000 dead Americans (not counting suicide by gun) and millions of gun incidents per year. The simple approach of letting everybody arm up at will has been tried for a long time, and it has failed to resolve that gun problem.

    However, that is not a reason to pass laws and regulations that are insane.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    I disagree. The US does not have a gun problem at all, it has a violence problem. We can debate the causes of this problem all day but to claim that guns cause crime is naïve. Anyone who thinks that the right to keep and bear arms was written to protect the right to hunt is equally naïve.

  • Rrabbit||

    The US have a violence problem indeed, but contrary to other western countries which have a similar level of violence problems and violent crime, in the US that violence problem results in many more deaths.

    But as I wrote before, that is not a reason to pass laws and regulations that are insane.

    And I also was not making any statement about root causes. As for root causes, surely the US approach of sending pet criminals to professional criminal school (aka prison) has something to do with it.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    So help us understand which gun laws aren't "insane." I gather from your comments that you might have an idea of what specific laws you would put into place to reduce the millions of "incidents" per year without any negative consequences?

  • ||

    Oh, you mean the 80% of all violent crimes the government acknowledges to be committed by career criminals/gang members? USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009.

    You mean where the government fails to stop people using fake identification 100% of the time to buy a firearm? Congressional report 2001

    You mean where the government fails to prosecute over 1% of those 1.67 million rejected from buying a firearm by the Brady Background Check since 1994? USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer annual report 2008

    You mean where the government acknowledges that of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported that only 381,000 involved a firearm in FBI UCR database 2008? Oh, you actually acknowledge that in order for millions of incidents to occur, your count involves defensive gun uses, about time you admit that! Otherwise every single violent crime reported would involve a firearm, but they don't!

    You mean where since the mid 1980's concealed carry has been growing (now in 48 states) and wherever it is tried, gasp, violence never increases and in fact, the trend is that crime goes down faster! FBI UCR database

    You mean where any place gun control has been tried that violent crime stays the same or increases dramatically? Since the following gun bans in 1997, Australia 30% increase, Canada 48% increase, England 150% increase with murders and violent crimes involving a firearm not decreasing? aic dot gov, statcan, home office uk.

    Maybe you should review those lovely gun ban cities Chicago 1982, NYC 1982, Washington D.C. 1976 have all fared since their bans, (Wild West was actually WAY SAFER) Yeah we see how less guns doesn't EVER mean less crime.

  • Rrabbit||

    I wrote incidents, not crime.

    You are correct that self defense should not be counted as long as it is not excessive force. However, gun accidents have to be counted.

  • ||

    Actually, the approach of letting everybody arm up resulted in less violent crime. Hand gun bans and other strict measure have lead to INCREASED murder rates, according to the U.S. BJS.

    Care to share some sort of proof for your assertions, or are you talking out your ass like every other gun control lunatic?

  • LarryA||

    Does this mean that first responders will be alerted to whether or not the resident owns a HANDgun? If so, how will this affect their response?

    Down here in Texas, where guns are common, the LEO reaction to a concealed handgun license is, “Cool. Now I can relax.”

  • ||

    If it wasn't for Perry wanting to invade Mexico, Texas would be a great place to live.

  • ||

    If it wasn't for a lot of things, Texas would be a great place to live. Perry supposedly wanting to invade Mexico is at the bottom of that list.

  • Rob||

    It's that way in a lot of places that legalize CCW, the reason being that people with CCW permits are generally more law abiding than not only the general population, but commit crimes at lower rates than the cops themselves.

    It makes sense, given that only the law abiding would put themselves through a background check, pay out their nose, and waste a fair amount of time in training to get a carry permit. Someone up to no good is going to just say "fuck it" and carry illegally.

  • ||

    I take my pistols to the range and shoot paper targets, tin cans, milk jugs filled with water, and the occasional telephone book. I *have^ been known to assassinate cute little gophers, who dig nasty leg-breaking booby traps in my friends' horse pasture. I haven't gunned down any desperadoes. I haven't rescued any damsels in distress, or thwarted any bank robberies; I haven't singlehandedly put a stop to a deranged maniac's shooting spree.

    To be honest, if I found myself in any of those situations, more likely than not my unloaded pistol would be where it is right now- on the shelf above my desk.

    And yet this I say, to those who try to tell me I have no "legitimate need" to own a gun: fuck off.

  • ||

    milk jugs filled with water

    Water ballons. I need to buy a highspeed camera though, before I start spending all my time at the range.

  • ||

    (...I ended up skipping the comment with the joke handle, and it still got me. *Shaken Fist*)

  • ||

    I suspect that those who say that no one has a legitimate need for a gun are really compensating for the fact that they personally feel completely inadequate for the responsibility of owning a gun.

  • ||

    I would like to anecdotally confirm this suspicion. I used to feel completely uncomfortable around guns, and so didn't understand how people could be so into them. I've since made it as far as Not Uncomfortable, and their utility now seems beyond obvious. Hence the pump-action in my closet.

  • nekoxgirl||

    I concer. My parents didn't own guns and I was afraid of them until I started dating my now husband who collects them.

    Although I'm still uncomfortable with me handling them, because I tend to be clumsy and absent-minded, I'm very comfortable being around them and having them in the house, whereas before I pretty much watching them suspiciously waiting for them to jump up and attack.

  • Rrabbit||

    I know a few guys who perfectly legally own a gun but actually *are* completely inadequate for a responsibility of owning a gun.

  • GMT II||

    I know a few guys who are perfectly legal to live but actually *are* completely inadequate for the responsibility of living.

    I know of a few "richard taters" that think like you. Hmm, I love me some good old french fried taters.

  • Pimpin||

    I know a few hoes who perfectly legally own their bodies but actually *are* completely inadequate for a responsibility of getting regular AIDS test.

    Don't worry, Rrabbit. That girl was clean, promise.

  • ||

    OT: I think this is my favorite image from the London tantrums riots over the tuition increases.

    I don't think any amount of education will help that level of skullfuckery.

  • Trespassers W||

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

  • ||

    See, what happens is they flip that over, and on the other side is

    "YOU Are OUR Slaves."

  • ||

    "The already existing ranges for government employees at the local Postal Service"

    It's nice to know that Postal employees in the city of Chicago have a McDonalds on site

  • ||

    Isn't it good to know that since they have a shooting range on the premises, McD's has to make an extra effort to make sure they get the orders right? God help them if a postal employee got the wrong meal and went postal on them...

    Just sayin'...

  • Robert Desnos||

    TO MAX MORISE

    Chicago
    The trams make a noise like doughnut batter
    dropped in oil.
    In the prairie there's a cowboy:
    He bursts the stars with revolver shots to eternalize the birth of his son.
    Hidden behind a carob tree he sleeps
    the pirate of the forgotten savanna in a novel by Gustave
    Aymard.
    In the Chicago prison there's a consumptive assassin three women with white hands with enamel eyes a doctor with tortoise shell glasses a clergyman shaved with a star razor nurse him
    Courage! said the three women with white hands
    Courage! said the doctor with tortoise shell glasses
    Tomorrow he can get up
    Courage repeated the clergyman shaved with the star razor
    Tomorrow he can get up
    and when he can get up
    he’ll be taken to get himself electrocuted.

    translated by Amy Levin

  • cynical||

    So, what are the odds that SCOTUS starts looking at the windy city like a belligerent Southern town in the Civil Rights Era and just starts laying down some heavy mandates?

  • Citizen||

    We need guns in Chicago to protect us against the diversity and enrichment our "equals" bring us.

  • ||

    Whatever they need to do to get guns under control in my town, I say do it.


    So random unannounced searches of your home are fine with you then.

  • Gun Control Weenie||

    No no no!!! Just random unannounced searches of the homes of those crazy gun nuts!!!

    Here, I have some addresses right here...

  • ||

    You're an idiot. The police in Chicago are ignoring the problem with the criminal underclass. However, they are doing their utmost to insure that honest, law-abiding citizens can not protect themselves.

    You may not even get an opportunity to vote again for the Marxist in the White House in 2012 the way things are going. But you may, of course, continue making absurd statements.

  • ||

    CA made similar dick move when they passed the trigger lock law. The CA DOJ issued a list of approved locks and safes which resulted in a shortage, thereby creating a six month moratorium on gun sales. Nothing the gun grabbers do surprises me any more.

  • ||

    "existing ranges for government employees at the local Postal Service"

    I can't believe I'm the first one to make a joke about this, but do we really want Postal employees to be more accurate when shooting people?

  • LarryA||

    The range is off-limits to most employees. It's for the USPO SWAT.

  • ||

    The only way to beat these bas**rds is to sue them, sue them and beat them into the ground.

    The 2nd Amendment says that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..."

    The politicians and police in Chicago are "infringing" on the Peoples' 2nd Amendment Rights. It's quite simple.

    DESTROY THEM POLITICALLY! Oh, I forgot - liberal Socialist-Marxist Democrats CONTROL Chicago just like the Communists controlled the Soviet Union.

  • ||

    Chicago & Illinois are broke, just like other big Democratic states California & New York and Democratic slum cities like Detroit, Camden, Newark, etc. The people in these cities keep voting for Democrats and look where that got them?
    Shouldn't the left be the ones fighting for rights and the right to own a gun? No, they are all about Nazi-state control of everything.

  • ||

    I read with great interest Gura's assertion that "Chicago cannot ban something it mandates as a condition of exercising a fundamental right." If this argument has traction in the court, maybe someone might want to apply it to the Federal government saying you can buy marijuana with the use of a government stamp, then never printing or making those stamps.

    Could have interesting implications, eh?

  • ||

    Wait a minute!

    Back in the 1970s and 1980s there was a public skeet shooting range on the Chicago lakefront. I discovered it, quite by accident, when I ignored a set of buoys that marked what I thought was the deep-water channel from Lake Michigan into a yacht basin. (Turned out the buoys marked the extents of the shooting range. "Oh, that's what that pinging sound is....")

  • ||

    My Grandfather brought me there back in the 80's. It was awesome. I think that it was closed down because some environmental protests about the lead shot.

  • ||

    On cold medicine, can't figure out the whole writing thingy.

  • ||

    Isn't this one more example of why the country is as effed up as it is today? People only wanting to enforce the Bill of Rights where it affects them personally? I don't own a gun, but I would not presume to say that anyone should not be allowed to own one, as it is a constitutional right.

    Where does it stop? Shall we also ban Freedom of Speech? Oh, wait...we're already working on that, aren't we?

    The framers of the Constitution included the right to bear arms primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to protect and defend themselves against the government.

  • jimbo||

    there is a major, hidden fallacy at work here....and it is an almost identical fallacy to the one commonly touted by gun-grabbers in Australia....

    "criminals" should be prevented from obtaining fire-arms;
    (i believe that several appeal cases by alleged criminals on the basis of either Heller or MacDonald have been dismissed!)

    the problem with this assumption is that it can be used, twisted and re-interpreted to restrict the access of law-abiding citizens to fire-arms!

    the *correct* premiss is: there should be NO restrictions what-so-ever on ANY-ONE (so long as they are over, say, 16-years old!) in acquiring a fire-arm.....

    it is *NOT* important that a tiny % of criminals will thereby acquire a fire-arm (because, irrespective of gun laws, they *WILL*. any-way!)

    the *ONLY* important criteria is that the overwhelming majority of guns are in the hands of the law-abiding majority!

  • jimbo||

    the problem with this assumption is that it can be used, twisted and re-interpreted to restrict the access of law-abiding citizens to fire-arms!

    they just make more & more stuff "a crime" and drop the thresh-hold of restricting access to fire-arms down to, say, low-level misdemeanours....like, for instance, jay-walking or, even, small fines for violating some arcane ordinance of local government!

    in 0zz, the current situation is that, after jumping through innumerable hoops and surmounting countless hurdles to obtain a fire-arms licence, said licence can be removed on the basis of little more than an anonymous telephone call by some anyonymous person alleging that, some-how or t'other, you "threatened" them!

    governments, quite simply, cannot be trusted to fairly and equitably enforce valid laws and uphold traditional rights and freedoms (they seem to be particularly un-happy and un-comfortable about citizens being armed!)....that is why you need *A BLANKET RIGHT" with no restricitons....in the case of the Second Amendment, it would have to be "improved" to a level equal to or better than the First Amendment

  • ||

    It's always the cities with the most gun control that have the highest crime. That's all I'll say.

  • ||

    The 2nd amendment has only one single purpose, to prohibit the govt from regulating weapons (guns).

    Amerika has become a nation of Nazis.

  • McCain||

    Not to mention a nation of whiners! The Nazi's I can deal with! But the whiners?! Oh, Lord. Now where did I put my SS uniform?!

  • PIL||

    Criminals aren't prevented from doing anything, that's why they're criminals. If I wanted to get a gun illegally all I would have to do is find me a crackwhore, get him to take me to his drug dealer, tell the dealer that I want to buy a gun and you can bet he'll either have a gun or know where to get one. It's the law-abiding citizen that has to put his life in danger with waiting periods, background checks, registration, concealed carry permits, and all that bullshit that criminals don't have to do.
    http://politicallyincorrectlib.....e-muslims/

  • shiroi neko||

    Talk of the town.

  • Kevin Durant Shoes||

    so perfect

  • wubai||

    How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.

  • jiusuan||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement