Ezell v. Chicago -- major win!
Pdf of today's opinion here. It cuffs the district court, tells it had better issue an injunction against the new Chicago ordinance (and dictates what the injunction should contain), treats standard of review in terms very, very favorable to anyone making a right to arms challenge, rebuffs the City's attempt to moot the case by changing the ordinance, rules broadly on standing to sue, and does a few other things along the way. Standard of review -- early Circuit case applied intermediate standard to prohibition on DV misdemeanant. This ruling does the same, but says that since the people here are entirely law-abiding, it should be a stricter form of intermediate, close to strict scrutiny. City must show that an entire ban on ranges is actually vital to public safety, which it has not come close to showing; all it could produce was speculation about safety. I'm sure it didn't help that the City does have police ranges and also two ranges for private security companies (despite the ordinance saying nothing about allowing private security companies to have ranges).
It responds to Chicago's argument that there are ranges outside city limits with a comparison to the city banning free speech and practice of religion, and arguing that's allowed because you can do both by leaving city limits.
UPDATE: what I meant by rebuffs is that Chicago this morning hastily passed a revision of the shooting range ban, plainly meant to moot the case [I had a link, but it's just been broken]. Perhaps they got word of the opinion that was coming down? In any event, they were pretty obvious. The news story notes, "the city wanted an ordinance in place so appellate judges might be less inclined to intervene with a less restrictive ordinance." It was a television site, NBC Chicago; likely hit the news this morning.
So the Seventh rebuffs the attempt by releasing its opinion, and gets the last laugh. The panel probably recall that the City similarly changed its handgun ban after the Supreme Court ruled, and then used that to argue against an attorneys' fees award.
And here's Josh Blackman's analysis.