time good morning everyone just rover will be with us obviously by video first case it's morning is is over says city of chicago are constitutional these provisions should be upheld under the framework the set up this court set out and has now won and time permitting i will address a substantial protest regulations as well promotes public safety during the course of the mission of evidence your expert witnesses didn't seem to have any evidence our role thirty six witnesses well they were t witness and what contacts are we oh wow to attribute her testimony to merely her personal opinion reasons for the age restriction but she also testified about how she thought the law should be changed and the reasons that she gave were that the city does not want children and guns in the same place or children how it should be changed do not bear on the city's reasons for the age restriction that testimony words are relevant and to the extent it was offered as a legal conclusion it's not appropriate subject of any witness testimony that's for the courts to decide the problem is that it's your obligation to support your reasons with evidence and the record doesn't demonstrate that that burden was carried well hopefully you'll give me regulations such as you know noise buffers in terms of the building itself and other safety precautions with regard to environmental concerns and those aspects of the city's ordinance were upheld and are not being challenge here the question is whether they justified this kind of use restriction we submit that the city is permitted to take more than one precautionary measure when you're dealing with such dangerous activity right my point is that use restrictions use zoning is prohibitory not merely regulatory i'm sorry building codes are regulatory requirements like lot size and set backs and building size those are regulatory what we're talking about is you something here which is prohibitory i would say this is this is a is a regulation it's a use regulation and regulation regulates the plight of it of a different kind of so there is there's areas owning and there's uses owning use owning is restricted it's prohibit scheme is a regulation that the place and all its in chicago is assigned in different zones to try to foster development of all kinds my point is that the city's reasons its concerns about theft its concerns environmental contamination its concerns about fire hazards can't be addressed by more narrowly tailored regulations that are aimed at those concerns rather than these u restrictions which have so minimized the locations where it ranges can be cited that you know and if i might add on i am not at all sure that the range don't warmers i don't know that we have to show that we do show that that gun ranges and shooting ranges with gun stores as we learned most of them generally do have gun stores does they do we have ten here is the evidence that we have we have evidence of fourteen examples within a couple of years about shooting ranges and gun stores did you read through that list and see how many times shooting range was mentioned as opposed to gun o stores they were shooting ranges involved once well one time the testimony in this case shows that shooting ranges and gun stores go hand in hand mr lieutenant falser talked about all the ranges and  chicago area that he knew about also sold bridges and we heard testimony from plaintiff's experts talking about a shooting ranges in chicago are only for government for police and in the chicago area chicago area the ones that produce collateral crime in the immediate neighborhood no we do not have evidence of that but nevertheless we do have evidence that you know gun stores and gun ranges shooting range perspective now that gun ownership is permitted within chicago with what it not be better to have places where citizens can be trained in the sa you continue to well placed we have we have put in regulations many of which are no longer a challenge and many of which have been changed we are not simply putting in cabinets before shooting ranges and as for  the opportunity to open a range there is still plenty there is if there's there are plenty of places that shooting ranges can can find a place to set up a shooting range and open their business there's over thirty three thousand acres one thousand eight hundred parcels of land and moreover the one person we know who has made an effort to find a place that meets those requirements found a spot that's mr dion robot has his deposition is it two are two twenty seven four he shopped around in and districts he made a few phone calls to the sony administration office to check on compliance and he found a spot which he did not he had other business opportunities he put this plan on the back burner but that was  test this is not an insurmountable burden there's plenty of land available fruit for development and shooting ranges in chicago well the fact that there is no range in the city limits entire time regulations have changed a lot along the way and we'd pose we actually deposed several witnesses who were identified as people who want to open range in chicago to find out what their plans were and what the  defense how does that impact your argue about the dangers of guns in residential areas well you know i don't think it affects that because our reasons for for the zoning of gun ranges involves the attraction of gun faffed like contamination at ranges the potential for fire when you're you have large volumes of ammunition stored there and noise pollution that so there is you know reason to take safety precautions and why can't those concerns be addressed by merely tailored regulations aimed at those specific problems as opposed to these used restrictions they can't even again we submit they can in rent and and out of box of secondary crime effects on the immediate neighborhood where adult bookstores an adult entertainment was located and there is no such record stores we have anecdotal evidence that i think have we have fourteen examples also have a t f through and that's not proof of secondary effects because you don't have any evidence to show that gun stolen theft that's going to occur anywhere and what we're talking about is whether there's a record of collateral crime in the immediate vicinity because we're talking about again use something store our case would not would not be as strong but here we have an ordinance that there are still you know gun ranges do attract that we do still have evidence of that but we also have a situation where gun ranges pan and from my understanding from from the testimony in this case is that they often do or will because that's considered how you can run a range  from my house and so to bass pro shops that are located in near normal commercial districts all over the country well i don't i can't speak to those specific examples i don't know that my can and some of those gun sellers have ranges right and offer permitting classes in safety and training and other cities i don't know i don't know whether those are industrial districts that hurt near commercial areas i don't i can't comment on the details of those specific examples but we do know that there are a number of cities around the country that states with similar types and orlando for example one thousand foot offer between schools parks churches and residential areas a conditional use and she were industrial strength so and don't know that there's any evidence to support that judgment well because that well we haven't seen that that's because those are the more populated areas where these particular dangers that occur a shooting range is i mean if we were just looking at this in terms calumet very limited obviously there aren't very many places appropriate for honey in the city of chicago can a sixteen year old hunt there we have not prohibited minors from hunting there we view the problem as very different it's wide open not not as much congestion or potential for distraction and of course not the same potential for like contamination you're not old enough to remember with their wish skeet shooting on lake shore people at the saddle and psycho club pollution because well and lead pollution is a serious concern when it comes to you know minors and that's especially and i don't think that can be minimized maybe we've learned something since since that range i think so however there are a range that most of the problems would be different the ability to mitigate the deer deleterious effect of lead pollution is  improved considerably since that was an ok and yet it still exists and for one cannot be addressed by a narrowly tailored environmental regulation as opposed to a plan studied three by full teams use one of the ranges that turned up have extensive blood contaminations in the students at elevated levels are called that location did not have appropriate environmental controls that is true my point is that i don't claim problems are going to solve all the problems those children's head those children have lead contamination and i will write because it was it was not appropriately but to deal with that's correct but i think the last example example shows that problems but i'll give you three minutes learn something new every day and since courtroom they should probably have some training and some familiarity with firearms that are not a danger to themselves and to other people in the city commissioner crumple understood that because she took her son to a shooting class for hundreds safety when he was twelve years old and she testified as the city's expert witness so it's the thirty six witnesses that she believes it's appropriate to start teaching firearm safety to children ages of fourteen and fifteen we would any and the city needs very little justification friendship pum whatever rights they have the fact that children can hot carry weapons elsewhere doesn't mean that the city and needs to allow them to fire guns into range issues with lead and the anecdotal evidence and children being killed or killing  may very well be sufficient justification your honor we would agree that the children do not have the same second or rights as adults instruction and some training of familiarity in the use of arms of course the city has an interest in it firearm safety when it comes to children and there's no speed about that but this is a law that simply goes way too that type of class involving the actual use of firearms has at least a first amendment protection the conveying of information the training a practical experience is is the conduct that is inherently  with first amendment protection is no way to teach someone how well you can even teach a class on firearm safety and usage right can anyone do that people can teach the class yes but they can't teach out and such a class can include as much as you can see about gun rights is you main one the class can advocate that everyone should carry an assault ruff all rifle  now i do not understand where the restriction of expressive speech comes in your honor i really don't your honor all those subjects are not at issue in that case we're not claiming people to do something is is not conduct it is speech the government had this had this argument in the holder case most recently that providing instruction and training in how to do various things was merely conduct an odd speech or disagreed it upheld the regulation but it said the training aspects were speech and the fourth circuit we had cases about teaching a class in fiber arts there was a claim made by homeschool parents as access government syllabus so they can have a fiber arts club meet at a facility the court upheld the regulation but upheld it as a restriction on speech because it understood that that classroom involved teaching involved training involved communication and of course in edwards where you had a person who was teaching a class a firearms safety class necessary to obtain a permit and that involves not just speech oral speech but it also involved the training in the use of firearms and when people go to a range when someone were to go to the american legion range here in morton grove and see mr brown teaching his students how to use firearms how to shoot firearms everyone would understand that i that that is a form of learning which is going on now it's true that this regulation is not written in the sense that they're targeting a class specifically the city can say with with some support the relation targets conduct that is the concept of having young people visiting a range but that conduct undeniably burtons and the form of expression because it prohibits access to the place to the places where people would go into dangerous learning in this training and so we have to at the very least by by alarm companies by federal judges perhaps in this courtroom we know that it's not an issue and it's not an issue because those gun ranges have some rules involved with them and because they're built to modern  standards now the city says well the the government ranges are those are government ranges and so we know those are going to be really good the private ranges might be a little bit more dangerous we would dispute that we don't we're not so sure that this is the case in which to litigate that everything the government doesn't necessarily going to be is a higher class of what the private sector is going to accomplish but we do know as a matter of fact that ranges are simply not a problem when they occur not just in other cities but also in this city the idea that  that the zoning has not been an issue here i don't think the evidence supports that there's absolutely no evidence to to justify any of you sending assertions whatsoever it's not just at the evidence is insufficient it doesn't exist at all and i would also suggest that when the witnesses for chicago were asked about their lack of evidence they also said something else they also admitted that all their concerns were speculative so it's not just the  to have even a deep belief in something as anecdotes that have occurred other places but their concerns itself or speculate a crime once happens somewhere it could happen here and from there if you go on to a gun range of going up a liquor store four hundred feet away from we are not reviewing the same ordinance here army or the ordinance may be different but i'm there are two ways we can do a substantial burden test i think this course for cause both of those one way to do a substantial burden test and i believe this is the way that the second circuit doesn't is now a circuit country does it is it does it is sort of a a preemptive test a sort of a threshold test that if the if the burden is considered to be not substantial then then they don't even address anything beyond rational basis another way to think of it and that's iran yes for reasons i think they were explained very adequately by this court and one the other way to do substantial burden test is to sort of wrap it into the one analysis which is to say that we adjust the standard of review based upon the level of the burden so that a very strong and heavy burden gets higher level scrutiny and here we submit that level should be strict scrutiny given the very heavy burdens that are imposed whereas an incidental burden one that's more ten general perhaps would go down no further than intermediate scrutiny but there's no court in the country that's held  as at the second step analysis that the courts should apply anything other than intermediate scrutiny and even under intermediate scrutiny it's the government that bears the burden of showing some close fit between its interests and the regulation that hand and chicago hasn't come close to doing that as ours is going through this de castro second circuit style undue burden test which is i think where the city was going where you want to say well these birds are insubstantial let's just have rational basis i don't think that's appropriate and yes it is it's just point law of the case because this case will never end if every time there's an appeal the city can try and try and try can't rewrite the rules if there were just succeed and they can go back to the beginning rifle that would have well it is it is this judge sykes had a band at least a band of having a range in some places but even if it were viewed even if we were to view it as or as a regulatory case under his l one you would look to the severity of the the regulation as it were the regulation here is very severe district courts and we thought it was severe excluding ninety percent of the city's land of the city's commercial land from gun ranges ninety eight percent perhaps of all the land is a severe restriction it's one that that's caused a lot of problems here as we've seen as the record has demonstrated and so even if we were to view this as a regulatory measure we would still wind up in strict scrutiny and as far as the age of strictures concerned that is a total ban it's a ban on the rights of the people who would exercise those rights but they can't access the range at all for people under eighteen or for the parents of those people who want to exercise their right to teach their children how to shoot that doesn't work as a total ban as well in any event i you know even if you were to go to intermediate school which is as low as you can go there is still zero evidence here you still have witnesses who said repeatedly over and over and over again i don't know how many times no data no data no data was speculative that you had one witness who said that the law should be written because it's a tariff while we agree with her and you know it's hard to see how you can survive any form of constitutional scrutiny when your own witnesses the government come in and say thank you thank circuit well i'm not so sure about that the case in the first circuit had to do with the federal law banning juveniles from possessing firearms but it has all kinds of exceptions and the historical evidence that was marshaled in that case did not address itself to what's at issue here which is the right of the juveniles minors to engage in target practice controlled target practice well i would examples address target practice by minors control target practice supervised target practice they do not they do some do contain exceptions other words have no second rights at all or have do not have to have the second amendment right that's implicated in this case which is the right to receive range training and target practice at a range and i would submit these broad prohibitions on minors having guns for a blanket of admission of any possession there were and i remember exceptions the others were from the patients on sales and so forth