On appeal the City raised but did not dwell on its concern about lead contamination. For good reason: It cannot be taken seriously as a justification for banishing all firing ranges from the city. To raise it at all suggests pretext.
Perhaps the City can muster sufficient evidence to justify banning firing ranges everywhere in the city, though that seems quite unlikely. As the record comes to us at this stage of the proceedings, the firing-range ban is wholly out of proportion to the public interests the City claims it serves. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim has a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion.
Diane S. Sykes
July 6, 2011
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO
[See also other QOTDs I have posted from this same judgment here, here, here, and here.
The response of the Chicago and Washington D.C. reminds me of the response of politicians in the deep south confronted with civil rights laws telling them they had to treat people with dark colored skin the same as those with white skin. They became very creative in their methods of discrimination and the Federal courts were kept busy for years putting them in their place.
But the courts can only do so much. What has to happen is for these people be shamed and shunned for their persistence in discriminating against people exercising a specific enumerated right. Treat them like the scumbags they are and tell them that to their faces.—Joe]