City of Constitutional Contempt

Second Amendment attorney Alan Gura filed an appeal on Dec. 14 in the case of Ezell v. Chicago, which not only challenges the city's ban on gun ranges, but seeks to answer two fundamental questions:
Do the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution apply in Chicago?
Must Chicago adhere to rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Apparently, the Chicago City Council doesn't think so.

Only days after the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago last summer that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional -- and that the right to bear arms does apply to states and their subdivisions (counties, cities) -- the city council unanimously approved the "Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance." This ordinance, among other things, requires Chicago residents seeking a gun permit to present a signed affidavit from a firearms instructor that they've completed a training and safety course that includes at least one hour of range time.

"There's just one problem," writes Amanda Carey in the Dec. 15 Daily Caller. "The city of Chicago bans gun ranges. The only ranges in the city are available to federal employees and police."

The city maintains that the ban is warranted because gun ranges "pose considerable public safety, health and environmental concerns," a bizarre claim usurped by its own requirement that gun permit applicants be trained at a gun range.

Gura filed a suit challenging the ban in 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in August. In October, Judge Virginia Kendall denied Gura's request for a complete injunction of the ban on the grounds that the gun-permit applicants could go outside the city to access a gun range. On Dec. 14, Gura filed an appeal of that ruling, arguing it is too severe of a burden against a Constitutional right.

Several legal pundits say this case could "be one of the first important appeals court decisions to define the new shape of Second Amendment jurisprudence."

Photo: lol19