Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017

Home

March 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that the "combined effect" of the manufacturing -district classification and the distancing restriction violated the Second Amendment because those zon- ing regulations "severely restrict[ed] the right of Chicagoans to train in firearm use at a range." In so holding, the court explained that constitutional challenges under the Second Amendment require the following inquiries: (1) whether the regulated activity falls within the scope of the Second Amendment; and (2) if it does, whether the government's justification for restricting or regulating the exercise of Second Amendment rights withstands a heightened standard of scrutiny. With regard to the second inquiry, the court explained that the government has the burden of justifying restric- tions and regulations on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. That burden, said the court, requires a "very strong public -interest justification and a close means -end fit" (i.e., regulatory means and public -benefits end). With regard to the first inquiry, the court held that firearm range train- ing fell within the scope of the Second Amendment. The court said that the "core individual right of armed defense . . . includes a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in firearm use through target practice at a range." Turning to the second inquiry, the court first determined that it was an error for the district court judge to analyze the two zoning restrictions separately. The Seventh Circuit found that the two zoning restrictions worked "in tandem to limit where shooting ranges may locate" and therefore would "stand or fall together." The court then returned to analyz- ing whether the City's justification for restricting shooting range locations demonstrated a strong public -interest justification and a close fit between the regulations and the intended public -interest benefits. The court found that the City failed to provide any evidentiary support for its claims that firing ranges attract gun thieves, cause airborne lead contaminants, and carry a fire risk. While the City and its witnesses made those assertions, the court found they failed to point to any data or empirical evidence to support those claims or establish that the zoning restrictions had any con- nection to reducing those claimed risks. Having found that the City failed to satisfy its burden of justifying the shooting range zoning restrictions, the court concluded that the manufac- turing and distancing restrictions were unconstitutional in violation of Second Amendment rights. See also: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). See also: Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 E3d 684 (7th Cir 2011). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that the City had "room to regulate the construe- 4 © 2017 Thomson Reuters