Ezell v. City Of Chicago

Facts

The day after the Supreme Court decided McDonald, Chicago (D) explored possible legislative responses to the decision. Just four days after McDonald was decided, D repealed the laws banning handgun possession and unanimously adopted the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. The Ordinance prohibits handgun possession outside the home and the possession of long guns outside the home or the owner's fixed place of business. It forbids the sale or other transfer of firearms except through inheritance or between peace officers. A person may have 'no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable.' It bans certain kinds of firearms, including assault weapons and 'unsafe handguns,' as well as certain firearm accessories and types of ammunition. It prohibits the possession of any firearm without a Chicago Firearm Permit. All firearms must have a registration certificate, and to register a firearm, the owner must have a valid Permit. To apply for a Permit, a person must have an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Only those 21 years of age or older may apply for a Permit, except that a person between the ages of 18 and 20 may apply with the written consent of a parent or legal guardian if the parent or guardian is not prohibited from having a Permit or a Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Persons convicted of certain crimes may not obtain a Permit. Persons convicted of any violent crime, a second or subsequent drunk-driving offense, or an offense relating to the unlawful use of a firearm do not qualify for a permit. Permits are conditioned upon completion of a certified firearm-safety course. Applicants must submit an affidavit signed by a state-certified firearm instructor attesting that the applicant has completed a certified firearm safety and training course that provides at least four hours of classroom instruction and one hour of range training. The Ordinance prohibits all 'shooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged.' The Ordinance also prohibits the 'discharge of any firearm within the city, making no exception for controlled shooting at a firing range-because, firing ranges are banned throughout the city. Ps sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction against D's ban on firing ranges, and corresponding declaratory relief invalidating the ban. The parties conducted expedited discovery, and the court held a two-day hearing on the preliminary injunction motion. It was discovered that D's zoning code prohibits all property uses not expressly permitted and contains no provision for gun ranges. D's claimed that such a use could pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of city residents and therefore may be located only in a manufacturing district and allowed only by special-use permit, not presumptively. D admitted that the governmental firing ranges within the city are not limited to manufacturing districts; they are located near churches, schools, university buildings, residential housing, a county courthouse, retail stores, and parks. D has not received any complaints from the public about these ranges. D introduced evidence that there are 14 firing ranges open to the public and located within 50 miles of its borders. Seven are located within 25 miles of D, and five are located within 5 miles of D. The court denied the preliminary injunction. Ps were neither irreparably harmed nor likely to succeed on the merits. Ps appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.