Via Of Arms and the Law we get the oral arguments in Ezell v. Chicago regarding the banning of Gun Ranges in the city of Chicago but imposing a training requirement as part of getting a gun license. I do no know the name of the lawyer for the city, but he got creamed by the judges.

If anything serves to give you an idea of what Chicago Anti Gunners (or most anti-gunner for that matter) think about gun owners, the following transcript (made by me so my apologies for inadequacies) shows it all.

-Chicago Lawyer: “If people gather with guns as they are likely to do around firing ranges……”
-Judge: “Have you been at a firing range? An indoor firing range?”
-Chicago Lawyer: “I haven’t personally, no.”
-Judge: “And my guess is by the reading of these briefs, a lot of people who prepared this have never been to a firing range.”

-Chicago Lawyer: “Sargent Bartolly (sp?) who was the former range master of the Chicago Police Department, testified and what he said was that people inevitably congregate with guns and one of the risks is that when people congregate with guns, things that just might be casual disagreements or fights can end up causing injury…”
-Judge (interrupting):”(inaudible) in police ranges casual disagreements or fights?”
-Chicago Lawyer: “No. The Police Ranges are very strictly governed by the City of Chicago…”
-Judge: “Exactly!.”
-Chicago Lawyer: “…itself. They have completely (inaudible) and they are not open to the public and they are not open to anybody that just comes in but only to police officers. And in addition to having a firing range open to the public where people are known to gather with guns, could be attractive to criminals…”

Specially the last part is mongo stupid. That would be like saying that cows and pigs are attracted to slaughterhouses.  I get the feeling that the male Judge knows a bit about guns and almost fell insulted by the barrage of BS coming out of the City of Chicago Lawyer which, in my very limited legal experience, is a bad thing to do for your case.