Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« public reaction to allowing firearms in bars | Main | alive »

Interim ruling in one of the Chicago II cases

Posted by David Hardy · 14 October 2010 06:58 PM

Discussion of the evidence and ruling here. This isn't a final disposition by any means. A lot of test cases do get disposed of at the prelim injunction stage, but the judge rules that this is not one of those. To get a preliminary injunction, which would bar enforcement of the statute during the time while trial is pending, a party must show that they are likely (tho not sure) to win, and also that they will suffer irreparable harm if made to wait for trial, plus two other things. Otherwise, the usual rule of you win after trial and not before applies.

· Chicago aftermath

7 Comments | Leave a comment

rspock | October 15, 2010 7:05 AM | Reply

I personally don't see how banning gun ranges within the city limits is a violation of anything - even if the city requires a visit to get a permit.

How many ranges are there in Az again? Certainly many towns don't have one. Of course, they also don't require a visit to one to get a permit to possess a gun either.

Jim | October 15, 2010 1:01 PM | Reply

I would love to see someone challenge the range trip requirement for getting the permit on the grounds that they prohibit ranges, placing an extra burden on the exercise of the RKBA. That might be a more effective way to get the range ban lifted.

desertrat | October 15, 2010 6:46 PM | Reply

...Of course being allowed to transport the arm to the range wouldn't either/

Alice | October 16, 2010 12:14 PM | Reply

For friends of Dave: Dave is in the hospital right now, with a bad rattlesnake bite.

James | October 16, 2010 7:59 PM | Reply

Alice - sorry to hear that, hope he's feeling better soon.

Critic | October 16, 2010 9:59 PM | Reply

The reason range bans are an infringement of the 2nd is that there is no good reason for the bans other than to harass shooters. The city has no problem with the safety or noise issues of the indoor police shooting ranges in the city. There is no significant problem with the many ranges in other cities. Chicago can't ban printing presses in Chicago for no reason just because presses are available in nearby cities or rural areas.

475okh | October 18, 2010 6:00 AM | Reply

Remember folks the Second Amendment only applies if you have a badge or uniform.

Leave a comment