Out of Range

Chicago's gun training trap


After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban in 2010, the city adopted new rules that continue to circumscribe its citizens' Second Amendment rights. The most maddening may be Chicago's demand that gun owners complete at least one hour of range training, which sounds reasonable—except that Chicago also prohibits gun ranges from operating within the city. The only exceptions are open solely to government employees.

Now Alan Gura, the lawyer who successfully challenged Chicago's gun ban and won D.C. v. Heller, the 2008 case recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, has launched a lawsuit challenging the city's regulations. In Ezell v. Chicago, Gura, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, argues that the combination of the range requirement and the range ban violates Chicagoans' Second Amendment rights.

Gura asked U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall to enjoin the city from enforcing the range ban until the case is settled. Kendall denied that request in October, on the grounds that Chicagoans could go outside the city to meet the requirement. Indeed, Gura's lead client, Rhonda Ezell, had done so, even though she is suffering from kidney failure and awaiting a transplant.

In December, Gura asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to reverse Kendall's decision. "Chicago cannot ban something it mandates as a condition of exercising a fundamental right," he argued, adding 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."

It seems no other city has such a range ban, and Gura mocked Chicago's claim that it is justified by fear of gunfights in range parking lots. Ezell may end up being the first federal case to establish whether the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller goes beyond self-defense in the home.

NEXT: Registry Creep

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.

  1. Is this really much different from the DMV’s forbidding you to practice on the street course used for the road test for a driving license, as at least NY does? Doesn’t look like a strong case as long as it’s just a matter of a trip out of town. I bet it’s the same for a blaster’s permit.

    1. I would imagine that there is a very large difference between prohibiting practice on the actual test course, and banning any practice facilities whatsoever.
      Not to mention that the SCOTUS has already ruled that owning a gun is a right, while having a vehicle license is not.
      The Chicago case is probably closer to the old “literacy test”, if this case is decided against the city I would not be surprised to see a new zoning requirement for all shooting ranges to be located five miles from any school or some such nonsense.

  2. The stupidity of Chicago/Illinois…I live in Illinois and I wish we could adopt statehood for Chicago. Now Illinois’ Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, wants to publish a public list of all gun owners, including the type of guns they own. It’s being challenged, but her wish will probably be granted in the near future.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.