How Appealing



Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Chicago misses avoiding adverse Seventh Circuit gun range ruling by that much: Today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune contains an article headlined “Council set to OK firing ranges, with limits; Plan to legalize practice shooting facilities designed to head off federal court ruling against city” that begins, “Firing ranges could soon be legal inside Chicago city limits as Mayor Rahm Emanuel is fast-tracking a plan designed to head off a federal court decision that could force the city to accept them. A panel of aldermen Tuesday recommended approval of the ordinance, which would permit ranges, but with serious restrictions. The City Council is expected to follow suit at its Wednesday meeting.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “City Council panel OKs gun range ordinance.”

If Chicago’s goal in authorizing gun ranges within city limits was intended to avoid an adverse Seventh Circuit ruling, the effort has not achieved its desired result. Today a three-judge panel issued this ruling holding that plaintiffs are entitled to the entry of a preliminary injunction under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enjoining enforcement of Chicago ordinances that condition gun possession on gun range training but simultaneously forbid gun range training everywhere in the city.

Posted at 1:47 PM by Howard Bashman



Do you oppose prostitution? The majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a ruling that strikes down as unconstitutional a provision of a federal statute that denies federal monetary assistance in the fight against AIDS to any organization “that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”

According to the majority opinion, this requirement constitutes an unconstitutional condition because “[c]ompelling speech as a condition of receiving a government benefit cannot be squared with the First Amendment.” The majority opinion also condemned the requirement as “viewpoint-based, because it requires recipients to take the government’s side on a particular issue. It is well established that viewpoint-based intrusions on free speech offend the First Amendment.”

According to the dissenting opinion, today’s Second Circuit ruling conflicts with a ruling that the D.C. Circuit issued in 2007. For that and other reasons, this case may present a strong candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review should the federal government so request.

Posted at 11:11 AM by Howard Bashman