View Single Post
Old August 30, 2011, 10:23 PM   #82
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
As you know, the Ezell case has returned to district court. Chicago changed their laws and immediately filed their MTD. Yesterday, Alan Gura filed his Opposition to that Motion.

It starts with this little quip:

Quote:
The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness.
You see, Not only did Chicago change its laws, as regards gun ranges on July 6th, It amended those same laws on or about July 16th. Then the City is attempting to amend it laws, once again on a July 28th proposal. Yet the City filed its MTD on the original July 6th ordinances!

Quote:
Introduction of the July 28 proposal inherently concedes that the July 6 ordinance—the only one upon which the motion to dismiss must be based—was still constitutionally deficient, and that is reason enough to deny the motion.
Mr. Gura goes on to write:

Quote:
Alas, the third time is no charm either. The issue is not whether Chicago can be taken at its word that it will not re-enact the initial, defective ordinance. Plaintiffs agree that the former law is unlikely to return. The issue is whether the city’s revised gun range law, which is now something of a moving target, resolves the disputes among the parties. And the answer to that question is plainly “no.”
Another good quip by Gura:

Quote:
While the gun range law remains in flux, what is absolutely clear is that even in the face of Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit rulings, the City will do everything it can to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental rights to operate and access gun ranges. And if the Defendant can no longer achieve this improper goal through an outright ban, it will make legislation that renders Second Amendment rights so burdensome, expensive and complicated that people will not be able to get past the hurdles and roadblocks. The Defendant essentially says “trust us,” ignoring the fact that its legislative fig leaves have not addressed the basic issue in the case. It is perfectly clear the conduct at issue will persist until a Court finally puts a stop to it. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit’s guidance in this case guarantees such an outcome. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this matter as moot must be denied.
And again:

Quote:
Regardless of what version of the July 6 Amended Ordinance exists, ... the Defendant’s behavior will be repeated over and over so long as it thinks it can get away with it, and until a Court stops it.
Alan Gura concludes with:

Quote:
Defendant’s attitude regarding the Second Amendment has been, and continues to be, not “How can we respect Second Amendment rights while regulating in a constitutional way,” but “How much can we get away with?” The City bans first and litigates later, and if it loses on the ban, it will pass whatever effectuates a ban by other methods.

This case is not moot. Defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied.
In my fantasy, I see Judge Kendall granting the City's MTD, the case being brought back to the 7th Circuit, which will be with the same panel (they are familiar with the case, have ruled on it once before), who thereupon grants the injunction (thereby smacking the living daylights out of the district Judge) and holds the City in contempt.

Regardless, the City will respond on 09-12-2011 (it was originally set for 09-06-2011, but the Judge is giving the City an extra week). The Judge will issue her ruling by mail (Minute entry #117, made on 08-17 - this basically strikes her previous Minute entry #116, made on 08-11).

My conjecture at this point is that Judge Kendall is not taking the 7th's ruling on the injunction seriously. My reasoning is rather simple. Sixty days will have passed since the 7th mandated that the injunction be applied and this judge is taking all the time in the world to rule on a very, very weak MTD by the defendants, as if there is no injury to the plaintiffs. Contrary to the "irreparable harm" ruling by the 7th Circuit. Hence my fantasy, above.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05581 seconds with 7 queries