The Second Amendment Foundation and Alan Gura are proud to have won another 
 landmark Second Amendment case. Stay tuned as more legal filings are on 
deck  this week.
 
Alan Gottlieb
 
 
In a message dated 7/6/2011 10:51:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

The Seventh Circuit backs the RKBA against Chicago's hysteria.
 
 
_http://is.gd/3wjwAI_ (http://is.gd/3wjwAI)   
Labels aside, we can distill this First Amendment  doctrine
and extrapolate a few general principles to the  Second
Amendment context. First, a severe burden on the core
Second  Amendment right of armed self‐defense will require
an extremely strong  public‐interest justification and a close
fit between the government’s  means and its end. Second,
laws restricting activity lying closer to the  margins of the
Second Amendment right, laws that merely regulate  rather
than restrict, and modest burdens on the right may be more
easily  justified. How much more easily depends on the
relative severity of the  burden and its proximity to the core
of the right.
In Skoien we required a “form of strong showing”—a/k/a
“intermediate  scrutiny”—in a Second Amendment challenge
to a prosecution under 18 U.S.C.  § 922(g)(9), which
prohibits the possession of firearms by persons  convicted of
a domestic‐violence misdemeanor. 614 F.3d at 641. We  held
that “logic and data” established a “substantial relation”
between  dispossessing domestic‐violence misdemeanants
and the important  governmental goal of “preventing armed
mayhem.” Id. at 642. Intermediate  scrutiny was appropriate
in Skoien because the claim was not made by a  “law‐abiding,
responsible citizen” as in Heller, 554 U.S. at 635; nor did  the
case involve the central self‐defense component of the
right,  Skoien, 614 F.3d at 645.
 
Here, in contrast, the plaintiffs are the “law‐abiding,
responsible  citizens” whose Second Amendment rights
are entitled to full solicitude  under Heller, and their
claim comes much closer to implicating the core of  the
Second Amendment right. The City’s firing‐range ban is not
merely  regulatory; it prohibits the “law‐abiding, responsible
citizens” of Chicago  from engaging in target practice in the
controlled environment of a firing  range. This is a serious
encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency  in
firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful
exercise of the  core right to possess firearms for self‐defense.
That the City conditions  gun possession on range training
is an additional reason to closely  scrutinize the range ban.

All this suggests that a more rigorous showing than  that
applied in Skoien should be required, if not quite  “strict
scrutiny.” To be appropriately respectful of the  individual
rights at issue in this case, the City bears the burden  of
establishing a strong public‐interest justification for its ban
on  range training: The City must establish a close fit between
the range ban  and the actual public interests it serves,
and also that the public’s  interests are strong enough
to justify so substantial an encumbrance on  individual
Second Amendment rights. Stated differently, the City  must
demonstrate that civilian target practice at a firing range
creates  such genuine and serious risks to public safety that
prohibiting range  training throughout the city is justified.
 
 
 
 
****************************************************************************
*************
Professor Joseph Olson, J.D.,  LL.M.                               o-   
651-523-2142  
Hamline  University School of Law (MS-D2037)        f-    651-523-2236
St. Paul, MN   55113-1235                                                 
c-   612-865-7956
[email protected]                     
_http://law.hamline.edu/constitutional_law/joseph_olson.html_ 
(http://law.hamline.edu/constitutional_law/joseph_olson.html)                   
   


_______________________________________________
To post, send  message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change  options, or get password, see  
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please  note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.   Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 
people can  read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) 
forward the  messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to