Apparently not, as recently the 7th Circuit court of appeals blocked the citys total ban on firing ranges also in Ezell v. City of Chicago. The day after Macdonald was decided by the Supreme Court, the City of Chicago decided that an appropriate legislative response to the case would be to ban firing ranges instead. In response to this a number of plaintiffs, Ezell included sought a preliminary injunction against the city to stop the legislation from taking effect. I have no idea who their attorney was or if they listened to him, but a 1st year law student would have cautioned them to temper their regulations in this area in light of the recent decisions. Reasonableness should have been the order of the day, which in the city of Chicago apparently with regards to 2nd amendment issues is a foreign concept.
In order to satisfy the standard for an injunction or temporary restraining order of this type the plaintiff must show that there is no adequate remedy available at law, Immediate irreparable injury is taking place, there is a likelihood of success on the merits of their case, public policy considerations, and finally Balance of the harms. Even then, there is no entitlement to an injunction even of the above is satisfied Weinberger v. Romero Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982).
That being said, the fact that the 7th circuit granted the injunction, that the city of Chicago was merely trying to repackage its earlier firearms ban in a new form of legislation, and lastly that this supreme court is very likely to find against Chicago if the case ever gets that far it will be very interesting to see how the city reacts.
However, local licensing authorities should prepare for a new round of appeals for license to carry denials based on this case. I’d simply reiterate what I said last June when MacDonald first came out. Blanket prohibitions are going to be ruled unconstitutional, however regarding the local licensing authorities ability to regulate who is a “suitable person” I refer to what Justice Scalia said in the MacDonald decision:
“It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”
Attorney Ronald A. Sellon