The City of Chicago feels so good about it's new ordinance that on Friday (29 July), they filed a motion to moot the case
In doing this, they also filed a separate document containing Exhibit A (the new range ordinance) and Exhibit B (the decision by the 7th Circuit). Since that decision was certified in the Mandate #112
and a certified copy was also sent (#113 - not downloaded) to the court, I am left wondering why the City deemed it necessary to include it as an exhibit in their motion?
Oh, and this extra document #114.1 is 85 PDF pages in length, but weighs in at a hefty 4.4MB (good thing I was only charged for the first 30 pages!). Normally, such a PDF would be a photocopy of the pages, to account for its size. Not in this case. It is all text. That can only mean that the person who compiled it, intentionally did so without any of the normal compression that PDF's are compiled with (you have to manually turn off the normal compression, before the document is compiled).
Now why do you suppose that they did this? This has got to be one of the most juvenile acts I've ever seen.
Those of you, familiar with normal business licensing and permitting procedures, may want to take a look at the actual ordinance, as passed. It is in that 4.4MB document
I note with awe that the requirements just to file the application amount to the expenditures of 10's of thousands of dollars in capital. Even then, you are not guaranteed acceptance. The commissioner has extensive (and arbitrary) discretion to deny your application, before you even begin to lay the foundation stones or modify an existing structure.
Add to this, that failure to adhere to even the most minute details of operation (assuming you get the permit) will cause your permit to be revoked and you can be fined and jailed.
I don't know of any business that would be willing to take these kind of risks.
Of course, that's the whole purpose of this new ordinance, isn't it?