Ezell v. City of Chicago
846 F.3d 888
7th Cir.2017Background
- After this court’s decision in Ezell I invalidating Chicago’s citywide ban on firing ranges, Chicago adopted a complex regulatory scheme including zoning, distancing, operational, construction, and environmental rules; litigation followed challenging many provisions.
- Remaining contested provisions: (1) zoning rule limiting ranges to manufacturing districts (special use permit); (2) distancing rule barring ranges within 100 ft of another range and 500 ft of residential districts, schools, places of worship, etc.; (3) a rule banning anyone under 18 from entering a firing range.
- The district court permanently enjoined the manufacturing-district restriction but upheld the distancing and age restrictions; both sides appealed.
- This panel applied the Ezell I Second Amendment framework: (1) whether the activity falls within the Amendment’s scope; (2) if so, a heightened means-end review whose rigor depends on proximity to the core right and severity of the burden.
- Court found combined zoning and distancing restrictions leave only ~2.2% of city acreage theoretically available for ranges (10.6% of business/commercial/manufacturing acreage) and no public ranges exist, constituting a severe burden on the Second Amendment right to train.
- City relied on asserted secondary harms (gun theft, lead contamination, fire) but produced little or no empirical evidence linking those harms to the zoning scheme; many operational/technical safeguards remain in force and law-enforcement ranges operate in commercial areas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limiting ranges to manufacturing districts (zoning) violates the Second Amendment | Ezell: Relegation to manufacturing districts severely restricts ability to obtain range training; burden requires close fit and strong evidence | Chicago: Restriction protects public safety (theft, lead, fire) and is a permissible zoning classification | Invalidated. City failed to produce evidence connecting restriction to asserted harms; zoning and distancing evaluated together and city’s proof was speculative |
| Whether 100-ft/500-ft distancing rule is constitutional | Plaintiffs: In combination with zoning it severely limits access and lacks evidentiary support | Chicago: Protects sensitive places and vulnerable populations; similar to longstanding "sensitive places" rules | Invalidated. Distancing cannot be assessed in isolation; in tandem with zoning it unduly burdens training rights without adequate evidence |
| Whether blanket ban on under-18s entering ranges violates Second Amendment | Plaintiffs: Prohibits supervised training for adolescents; no historical or legal basis for categorical exclusion | Chicago: Minors lack Second Amendment rights or may be subject to greater regulation for safety and health | Invalidated. No historical foundation for categorical exclusion; City failed to justify the overbroad ban; narrower regulations could address risks |
| Standard of review for Second Amendment challenges | Plaintiffs: Apply Ezell I two-step with heightened scrutiny whenever activity falls within the Amendment | Chicago: Heightened scrutiny should apply only to regulations that substantially burden the right | Court: Reaffirmed Ezell I; if activity is protected, government bears burden under heightened scrutiny (sliding/scale test) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self-defense and noted "sensitive places" exceptions)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Second Amendment against the states)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (Ezell I) (held range training is protected and articulated the two-step/hybrid means-end framework)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 70 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (Ezell II) (district court rulings on Chicago’s revised regulatory scheme)
- City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425 (2002) (municipal evidentiary demands for content-neutral secondary-effects regulation)
- Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 581 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2009) (government must support secondary-effects regulation with evidence rather than conjecture)