Just read the opinion today and said "Wow!" There might be a few nits to pick but I'm not going to do that.
Onto a more mundane but critically important matter. Does the issuance of a preliminary injunction, rather than a final judgment, entitle the plaintiffs to attorney fees? Does the mootness argument play into this? And, to what extent does the exact timing of the passage of the new ordinance play into the attorney fee question? If it was passed a couple of hours before the decision, does this play into the attorney fee question?
I'm sure Chicago had been drafting some sort of ordinance for awhile but does anybody find it just a bit too coincidental they passed a new ordinance the very day the opinion came out? Some might wonder if they had a bit of a heads up on this.
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
no guns = might makes right