|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 11, 2012, 02:50 PM | #176 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
Do you think this might be what Gura was waiting for in MD, NY and NJ?
|
December 11, 2012, 05:29 PM | #177 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I don't see how Moore helps Woolard, unless it just convinces King and Davis of the futility of their anti-gun sentiments and they give in and just interpret Heller/McDonald without massaging it in some anti-gun tactic.
|
December 11, 2012, 05:33 PM | #178 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
split circuits don't help in obtaining cert to the Supremes?
|
December 11, 2012, 07:00 PM | #179 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
February 16, 2013, 11:17 PM | #180 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
When I last looked at Ezell (Dec. 13, 2012), the plaintiffs had motioned for leave to file a SAC (second amended complaint). Doc 194 is the motion and the reasons for the motion. Doc 194.5 is the intended SAC.
Of course, Chicago came up with all kinds of specious reasons why the plaintiffs should not be allowed a SAC and also why the court should effectively stop the plaintiffs from pursuing the full breadth of their challenge (see Doc 188 for the motion and Doc 197 for the reply). After some shuffling of times and schedules, a hearing was held on Feb 4, 2013 before Judge Kendall where she denied Chicagos 188 motion and granted plaintiffs 194 motion. Plaintiffs promptly filed their SAC (Doc 200) before the court clerk could even file the Judges orders (Doc 202)! Quite frankly, the way things had been going, I was stunned that Judge Kendall sided with Gura and Sigale. But perhaps I shouldn't been. Back on Dec 11th, Luger_Carbine had this to say about the news from the Moore decision: Quote:
The full docket is on the Internet Archive, but here is the relevant portions and links: Quote:
|
||
February 18, 2013, 03:50 PM | #181 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
In Chicago the Police superintendent is the mouthpiece for the mayor, and the police chief has said that if Chicago has to allow carry - it should be similar to New York laws, and one of the representatives introduced a bill in the general assembly: may isssue, if applicants can show good cause, for a fee.
So it seems to me that Chicago basically takes the paths that the courts haven't aleready shut off. Or another way of looking at it is they're trying to go down the path of Kachalsky/Woollard/Kwong unless and until those avenues are closed down by the court. |
February 18, 2013, 05:52 PM | #182 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Again: passing may-issue in Illinois is politically impossible. They need a certain percentage of the pro-gunner legislators to go along. Those pro-gunners don't need to go along, because if they don't Vermont Carry happens by court decree.
__________________
Jim March |
February 18, 2013, 08:09 PM | #183 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I only said they're trying
I just think it's interesting that you can practically predict what the proposed anti-gunner legislation in Illinois is going to be by following the 2A cases that the antis haven't already lost... |
February 19, 2013, 08:19 AM | #184 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
|
Quote:
|
|
February 19, 2013, 10:09 AM | #185 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
There's no way they'll want to go there.
__________________
Jim March |
|
February 19, 2013, 10:28 AM | #186 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As I recall, last year the pro-gun side lacked only 2 votes to establish not only pre-emption but also over-ride a veto by the IL Governor.
This year, as long as the Moore decision is intact, the pro-gun side holds all the winning cards. They can smash any legislation they don't like. The anti-gun side has to play ball, or they get nothing. Chicago can rant and rave all it wants (and they are, to be sure), they have lost the power at this particular political moment. ETA: Even anti-gun Judge Kendall sees the writing on the wall. |
March 8, 2013, 08:33 PM | #187 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another small update on this case. From the Docket:
Quote:
Here's an example of something that should be a settled matter, by now: Quote:
Starting on Pp. 14 of the Mandate from the circuit, the panel discusses the issue of standing. In its analysis, the court notes that the individuals do have standing and therefore, so do the organizations (footnote #3, Pp. 17). On Pp. 19, the panel addresses the irreparable harms the plaintiffs suffer. On Pp. 26, the panel decides that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. On Pp. 48, the panel addresses the Balance of harms and concludes in the plaintiffs favor by remanding the case back to the districts with the mandate to issue the injunction. I bring this up, because when I read the City's Affirmative Defenses, it struck me rather odd: Quote:
Fact is, the entire "Answer" is a childish attempt to rehash everything that has went before. I could be wrong, as I'm sure the real attorneys here will educate me. Pettifoggery is a word that comes to mind. |
|||
March 8, 2013, 09:32 PM | #188 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Affirmative defenses are waived unless raised in the Answer. Common practice is to throw in the kitchen sink.
|
March 9, 2013, 09:38 AM | #189 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
|
|
March 9, 2013, 10:35 AM | #190 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
March 9, 2013, 11:08 AM | #191 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
At what point do Chicago and its attorney's violate rule 11 with their answer?
It seems to me that the answer is: Quote:
When you have a controlling Circuit court opinion in the very same case it seems to me that some of Chicago's contentions and statements are frivolous. |
|
March 9, 2013, 11:24 AM | #192 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I am reluctant to defend Chicago's position in this, but I have to be fair to them. While Chicago's answer may seem deceptive or frivolous, let's take a lawyer's look at how paragraph one is written, and the response:
Quote:
This case has been around for 2+ years now. It's unlikely that Chicago's lawyers have kept tabs on Ms. Ezell's residence and citizenship. Accordingly, they may well not have enough information to admit or deny those allegations. Could Chicago have formatted a clearer, more precise response? Sure, but it's not necessarily required to, and it's not necessarily dishonest to answer a question as it was written.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 9, 2013, 11:45 AM | #193 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Spats, with no disrespect intended to you, Frank, or Bartholomew, those kinds of word games and parsing are why most of us laymen:
1) don't hold lawyers in the esteem the profession may once have enjoyed; and 2) would really, really like laws to be passed in plain, understandable English, and limited in length, so as to be legible and comprehensible to a high school graduate. |
March 9, 2013, 02:53 PM | #194 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
While I don't want to side-track this thread anymore than it is necessary, I'm beginning to understand why Chicago answered the SAC the way they did (I suppose that comes with the territory of reading all these briefs for the last 5 years).
What we have to remember (at all times) is that any particular attorney must present his clients case (in this instance, their defense) in the best manner possible, leaving as many options open as possible. To say that they have no knowledge of the allegation, is to leave open the idea that they may later admit to the truth of the allegation. To admit that truth now, kills the opportunity to deny it later (if that case can be made later). As esqappellate has already indicated, those affirmative defenses (even though we all think them rather bogus) have to bwe included, else they lose the claim, right at the outset. Remembering that the law changed between the time the circuit mandate was given and the district received the case from the circuit. In essence, this is akin to starting from scratch. The extra delay in the discovery, is not really a delay, as now that the formal charges of additional law has been made, the discovery now proceeds on those additional charges. Not the older allegations in the FAC. Those are done. We are now looking at the added allegations of the SAC. |
March 9, 2013, 07:06 PM | #195 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
As for parsing, well, I guess it is parsing. However, the burden of proof remains at all times on the Plaintiff. Why would anyone expect a Defendant to admit to things, when they really don't know if such things are true? Especially with the constitutionality of laws and hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line? Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
March 9, 2013, 07:45 PM | #196 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Spats, the city may not know whether Ms Ezell is still a city resident, but as they have already dealt with her in court, they should very well know whether she is a "natural person."
If they gain ANY benefit from denying knowledge of that, at this point, then it is indeed a word game. |
March 9, 2013, 07:59 PM | #197 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I'll grant you that a more precise answer could have been given. ("Admit that she's a natural person, but without knowledge . . . ") It's also entirely possible that it's just a cut-and-paste oversight.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 9, 2013, 08:14 PM | #198 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Just another word dance... Seriously like the city cant determine the address of its own residence.... disingenuous in every way... It seems all these questions could be solved by the city without even involving the court...
I think in such cases if it can be shown that records exist that the city could have used to satisfy these questions and that they could reasonably be expected to be know or found, then some one should be disbarred... This kind of tedium gives the whole process a blackeye..
__________________
Molon Labe |
March 9, 2013, 09:43 PM | #199 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Intuitively, it does seem like the city should be able to do "determine the address of its own residents," but that's only until you actually take a look at what records a city keeps. It's not like folks "register with the city" when they move in or out. I don't live in Chicago, but looking at my own situation, if I were a Plaintiff, how would my city "determine the address of its own resident?" It would have to go look at:
With the exception of the county real estate records, under what authority would the city request those records? Exactly how many places should a Defendant be expected to look to prove an element of the Plaintiff's case?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 9, 2013, 10:22 PM | #200 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would think that since Chicago has a pretty extensive regstration process for permitting, and most likely the people wanting to use Chicago ranges would be citizens in Chicago who legally own firearms - isn't it reasonable to assume that the city does have knowledge of Rhonda Ezell?
|
Tags |
alan gura , chicago , ezell v. chicago , rkba , saf , second amendment |
|
|