The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 9, 2013, 10:53 PM   #201
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,127
I think you are missing something. Yes, Chicago has an extensive permitting process. So? According to the 2nd Amended Complaint, none of the eleven ranges in Chicago are open to the public. The City admits the ranges that it runs, admits the ranges that Brinks Security runs, and denies the rest. If the Plaintiff is correct, there are no public or private ranges at which she could have signed in. Even if there were some privately-owned ranged where she could have signed in, I'd be troubled by the prospect of the city rummaging through the records of every privately-owned range to see if she had ever signed in.

On top of the A4 implications of such a move, which are large, there's the problem of cost. That's the expensive way to find out if she's a resident. The cheap way is to just take her deposition and ask her where she lives. At that point, there's sworn testimony on the record about her residency and we can all move on.

The mere fact that something is "likely," as seems to be the case with Ezell's residence and citizenship, is not sufficient to admit something on your client's behalf. To do so could be malpractice, especially if it later turns out that the particular fact which you admitted could have, if denied, gotten the whole case against your client dismissed.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman

Last edited by Spats McGee; March 9, 2013 at 10:58 PM. Reason: Punctuation needed
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 9, 2013, 10:55 PM   #202
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Point taken.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old March 11, 2013, 10:24 AM   #203
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 83
The Chicago Card which entails a NRA class, FOID card and registration at a Chicago Police Station followed by a background check, should establish the individual is a person and a resident of Chicago (who else would want one?.
godot is offline  
Old March 13, 2013, 11:19 PM   #204
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 215
Jeez guys, let's make a mountain out of a molehill. An answer, unless verified, is not an evidentiary document; rathr its purpose is to delineate that which is in issue. If the defendant does not have personal knowledge of a particular fact, no matter how minor, the Federal Rules do not require that he admit such fact, even if the fact is probably true. A denial merely requires the plaintiff to prove that fact. And in federal practice, a lot of these thigs go by the wayside at the final pre-trial conference, where both sides have to specify those facts that are disputed--in detail. (It is a real pain to put together the required pre-trial statement.) That way the court streamlines the evidentiary and legal issues to be decided. It just happens at the end of the line, not qt the beginning, after discovery has been had. So don't fret about what the City put in its answer, including affirmative defenses that have already been ruled upon, as this then preserves the issue for appeal, should that be necessary.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old April 20, 2013, 11:17 AM   #205
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
2A Challenge to Gun Dealer Ban in Chicago Suburb Can Go Forward

Judge Thomas M. Durkin, US District Court for the Northern District (Eastern Division) of Illinois, denied in part the defendant, Village of Norridge's motion to dismiss. So the case can go forward.

http://ia801704.us.archive.org/15/it...56543.79.0.pdf


It seems like this case could resolve Ezell before Ezell resolves itself...

I think the part that was upheld (dismissed) was a claim by the plaintiff that Village of Norridge engaged in deceptive trade practices and jerked them around as they tried to open their business (not a 2A claim)

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/sec...an-go-forward/

Last edited by Luger_carbine; April 20, 2013 at 11:24 AM.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Reply

Tags
alan gura , chicago , ezell v. chicago , rkba , saf , second amendment

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10269 seconds with 9 queries