|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 6, 2011, 03:14 PM | #51 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Some of my favorite quotes:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; July 6, 2011 at 07:44 PM. |
|||||
July 6, 2011, 03:31 PM | #52 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I've said it more than once. All of the arguments being made at district level, are not directed at that court. They have been and are directed to the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court. We have just seen the first of this strategy hitting pay-dirt.
I've spent all morning pouring over this decision. Forthwith, here's my take: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The panel then took on the matter of the preliminary injunction itself and cautioned the lower court on how it should be implemented. With that, the panel reversed the lower decision and remanded with instructions to enter the injunction, consistent with their finding. I should also add that nothing the City can do, short of repealing the various ordnances, will now moot this case. Kanne, Rovner, and Sykes were the Judges. You might remember Judge Sykes. She was the original writer of the Skoien decision that was later removed upon en banc (she does make one brief mention of this in the above decision - yes, that means she wrote this one). Judge Rovner writes a nine page concurring opinion. While he concurs with the decision, he writes to oppose the method of scrutiny. Although, rather weak in arguments, he does end his opinion on a positive note: Quote:
This decision, if Chicago doesn't appeal, is very broad and very wide. Sykes has gone after the flag here. After serious study on this decision, it does now create a split in the Circuits (9th - the Nordyke opinion). |
||||
July 6, 2011, 03:58 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
I say wow also, now the only question is how many hours before Chicago enacts some other ordinance to the same or similar effect.
I hope they (the city of Chicago) have learned from this that Guns are a Right, I doubt they will learn but we shall see..
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; July 6, 2011 at 09:09 PM. |
July 6, 2011, 04:01 PM | #54 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
It is a big win I think - and I also think it is encouraging to see the Seventh Circuit continue to get into the details of scope and standard of scrutiny questions. I'll have to go back and read Nordyke and Skoien again to compare how they reached their standards of scrutiny; but I'm liking the Seventh Circuit approach here - as well as the clear guidance to the lower courts to stop passing the buck along with an appropriately highlighted copy of the Heller and McDonald decisions.
|
July 6, 2011, 04:04 PM | #55 |
Member
Join Date: July 26, 2009
Posts: 65
|
The city council has already passed a new ordinance allowing ranges, but with rather onerous restrictions.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...ordinance.html |
July 6, 2011, 04:17 PM | #56 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Well, that was quick.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
July 6, 2011, 04:43 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
|
They had to be quick. With this injunction in place anyone could open a shooting range this afternoon with no licensing, oversight, restrictions, etc from the city. They couldn't have that.
|
July 6, 2011, 05:37 PM | #58 |
Member
Join Date: July 26, 2009
Posts: 65
|
Word is that the city administration wanted to avoid the ruling it heard was coming down and thought passing the ordinance would do so. Nice try but no such luck.
|
July 6, 2011, 05:44 PM | #59 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Josh Blackman has his analysis, here. And another over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
|
July 6, 2011, 05:44 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
Obviously this is a great decision, but remember, it is only an order granting an injunction.
This decision merely says that Chicago can't ban gun ranges while the litigation is pending. It certainly looks favorable, but don't count your chickens... |
July 6, 2011, 06:42 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
That district court judge is going to need therapy. That was quite a smack-down, cutting at the core of her judicial acumen. That has got to be an experience that I can't imagine she would wish to repeat. |
|
July 6, 2011, 06:54 PM | #62 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
From the link to the article about the new ordnance:
Quote:
One might almost think the Circuit Court didn't like the fact that Chicago tried to thumb its collective, municipal nose at the SCOTUS. I don't think the ordnance will hold up. Just for starters, they treat the "license fee" like an application fee. You have to pay it up front ($4,000!!!), and if your application is deemed "incomplete" or is denied -- the "license" fee is forfeited, even though you never got the license. They give the Commissioner authority to deny an application if he deems the business Quote:
Quote:
No one under 18 allowed. God forbid a Chicago resident might want to teach his kids how to, like ... shoot a gun. Love this part: Quote:
Last edited by Aguila Blanca; July 6, 2011 at 07:20 PM. |
||||
July 6, 2011, 07:10 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
It is interesting that the decision was issued on the day on which the Chicago City Council was scheduled to vote on their new ordinance.
|
July 6, 2011, 08:14 PM | #64 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
This decision also affirms not just a right to own guns, but to use them as well.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe Last edited by Tom Servo; July 6, 2011 at 08:24 PM. |
|
July 6, 2011, 08:48 PM | #65 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In case anyone missed the split circuit decision, I will reprint it in whole, from page 37:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for the new ordinance, it fails the operation of the preliminary injunction that the District Court will have to issue: Quote:
|
||||
July 6, 2011, 09:22 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Seriously you would think at some point the court system would have some sort of recourse to basically forbid Chicago from continuing on the never ending path of over regulation. Is there anything other than a injunction that a court can do when a city, town or other division of government fails to learn from order after order?
__________________
Molon Labe |
July 6, 2011, 09:31 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Chicago's revised ordinance cleverly includes exemptions from the Chicago Firearms Permit [8-20-110(f)] and Firearms Registration Certificate [8-20-140(f)] requirements, but only for the required one-hour training and only using a range gun.
|
July 6, 2011, 10:52 PM | #68 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
I don't often lapse into such banal clichés, but they've handed us a potential circuit split, and I'd like to see the Supreme Court rule on a standard of review while we've still got the Justices we need to get it right.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 6, 2011, 11:46 PM | #69 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Did you catch that swipe she took at the whole Circuit for vacating her Skoien decision?
Should some unnamed Judge call for en banc on this one, blood will fly, I tell you! |
July 7, 2011, 10:41 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
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. |
July 7, 2011, 10:46 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Methinks a birdy whispered in someone's ear. Now which Judge would do such a thing? Hmmm.
|
July 7, 2011, 01:45 PM | #72 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
fixed broken link to Bensen
The "new" ordinance wouldn't have taken effect for ten days. Now add to this that the injunction (as used by the circuit court) will prohibit much that the ordinance was designed to do. So the case is not mooted. Expect Alan Gura to read that ordinance and apply for an injunction that would make it null and void. Strictly according to the opinion of the appeal, mind you.
The injunction is a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order, as was first applied for. Gura will prevail on the merits and the injunction will become permanent. As these things go, if a prelim is ordered, it almost always means that the plaintiffs will prevail. In the same sense, a prelim is almost always permanent. This SAF/Gura case has won. Even if Chicago now revises its Range Ordinance, to be compliant with the injunction, it is after the the win at Circuit. There is nothing that the District Judge can do to change this. Gura gets his fees. ETA: With this case, it just gave a big boost to the NRA case, Bensen v. Chicago. Plus, there are two other cases in Illinois that will be helped: Moore v. Madigan and Sheppard v. Madigan. These cases are carry cases. With the current ruling of Ezell, it just became much easier to show that carry for self defense is a central component of the core right. Last edited by Al Norris; July 7, 2011 at 01:53 PM. Reason: Added insights |
July 9, 2011, 09:50 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
I had to tag this thread. Very interesting discussion and I would like to thank everyone who has been involved in keeping us all informed.
Some of it is heavy reading for a country boy like me, but I am learning to understand it.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. |
July 10, 2011, 12:09 AM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
Remember that what is truly important here is the circuit split, not the reasoning of the 7th Circuit's holding.
A circuit split helps assure that the Supreme Court will hear the case and if they do, nothing the 7th Circuit said will matter. |
July 31, 2011, 09:41 AM | #75 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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? |
Tags |
alan gura , chicago , ezell v. chicago , rkba , saf , second amendment |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|