|
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 |
October 19, 2011, 01:25 PM | #126 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, the plaintiffs in Ezell filed their response to Chicago's objections to the Preliminary Injunction.
That 8 page brief is here. It is plain to see that Alan Gura is running out of patience and is tiring of the constant games that the City is playing. Quote:
|
|
October 19, 2011, 01:52 PM | #127 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
|
Quote:
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae |
|
October 19, 2011, 03:48 PM | #128 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
I've already run out of patience. Probably won't renew my carry permit when it runs out, but will continue to pack concealed where I want to, when I want to except for sensitive places. If I get apprehended, see you all at bar. Any bar.
This entire Second Amendment process reminds me of a Chinese pubic toilet, a sloped slit in the ground where people squat in line one after the other. Water being too scarce to expend unnecessarily in China, the entire mess just creeps along downhill of it's own weight, in no particular hurry to get to a final destination. |
October 25, 2011, 11:03 PM | #129 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Chicago has filed it's final reply on their Objection to the Preliminary Injunction.
File this one under; Here We Go Again! Here's a recap of what has happened with Ezell since their return from the 7th Circuit:
What Chicago is claiming is that the suit needs to start all over from scratch, because they have removed a single code section that banned firing ranges, all the while ignoring that the rest of the amended code sections still results in a virtual ban... At least until they can re-argue everything, including a new period of discovery. Chicago has come back to this court with unclean hands and I would hope that the Judge sees this. The 7th Circuit was very clear about what the Injunction should include. Simply removing the outright ban is not enough. If zoning and other licensing requirements virtually eliminate the possibility of a functioning firing range, the PI must be issued. So now we wait to see if the Judge will obey the Circuit, or will she simply allow Chicago to undertake another stalling action, by restarting the lawsuit from the beginning. If she does allow a restart, I strongly suspect that Gura will appeal and go straight back to the Circuit. Judge Kendall has to know this. Rock? Meet Hard Place! |
October 26, 2011, 07:41 AM | #130 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
Is Chicago just trying to run the defendants out of money by dragging their feet and trying to continue this?
I refuse to believe their is no one on the Chicago side of this who can not see the writing on the wall.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. Last edited by Uncle Buck; October 27, 2011 at 05:17 AM. Reason: Spelling |
October 26, 2011, 08:50 AM | #131 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Conventional wisdom holds that Rahm is much smarter than this. After the rather strong rebuke from the Circuit, it was expected that Chicago would concede and walk away from this.
They haven't. There are now 3 attempts at lawmaking (from June 6th to Sept. 18th), to seemingly comply with the ruling but still obstruct, as much as possible, the creation of public firing ranges. Go back and read the Judges order, dismissing the MTD. Judge Kendall signals Chicago that not only are the laws that the MTD were based upon deficient, but that it appeared that the current (iteration of the) laws were also deficient. Quote:
Ezell decided to keep the case in her Court, and filed the amended complaint, addressing the new codes. Instead of dropping the matter and going ahead and answering the new complaint, Chicago raises, once again, the very same issues that were already ruled upon. This time they add that the amended complaint is not understandable. This tactic did not work for Justice Stevens in McDonald, I don't see how Chicago thinks it will work here. Not in the light of the 7th Circuit's mandate to Judge Kendall. Chicago has until Nov. 15th to file a formal response to the amended complaint. I'm not entirely sure how Judge Kendall is going to handle all of this. She may just issue the injunction first or wait to see how badly Chicago acts in its response. In all of this, I think Rahm is being hamstrung by the City Council. I think we will see another round of tweaking the codes and then a motion to dismiss as moot, as the response to the amended complaint. If this should happen, expect to see the Pltf's file an immediate response as to what's wrong with this iteration and a move for Summary Judgment and a Permanent Injunction, based upon bad faith of the City. I'm not an attorney, nor do I have any schooling in the law. So these are mere suppositions. |
|
October 26, 2011, 10:34 AM | #132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
I am sure Rham is being hamstrung by the council, Rham seems to me at least to be unwilling to waste taxpayer money for the sake of his ego; unlike Daley. Unlike his predecessor I think he has no stomach to file lawsuits simply for his ego and he really does not have much to lose by not fighting this. The council on the other hand gains massive support from the "guns are the problem with Chicago" types so they have EVERYTHING to lose by not fighting this.
|
October 26, 2011, 11:32 AM | #133 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
One thing seems apparent: Chicago is playing this judge for a fool. It is her hands to reveal whether they are correct. Her next move better be a decisive one in accordance with the spirit of the order from the court of appeals.
Chicago does NOT want this going back up the chain, but they seem to be begging for it. They are acting as spoiled children, flaunting their insolence with imagined impunity. |
October 26, 2011, 06:21 PM | #134 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
October 26, 2011, 10:08 PM | #135 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I simply can't believe this Judge! See the last entry (#130) of the Docket.
Quote:
ETA: Quote:
So, between now and the 16th of November, should Chicago once again, change their code, will that necessitate yet another amended complaint? And another 30 days for response? Ad infinitum? At this point, I suggest that both Chicago and the district Judge are acting in bad faith. Last edited by Al Norris; October 26, 2011 at 10:32 PM. Reason: more data/rants |
||
October 26, 2011, 11:32 PM | #136 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
An outrage beyond words. It will be very interesting to see Gura's next move. It could not be any more clear that there will be no relief forthcoming from this court. I believe the circuit court will have to remove this case from the judge's hands completely.
|
October 26, 2011, 11:40 PM | #137 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
|
She and Vyshinskii would have gotten along famously!
Mr. Norris, thank you for your tireless work keeping us apprised of this and other key litigation. It's much appreciated.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat |
October 27, 2011, 11:14 PM | #138 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Gura has two choices: appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction or prepare for trial. I can't see either party moving to much off their positions.
|
November 16, 2011, 10:57 PM | #139 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Today, Chicago filed its response to the amended complaint. Read it here.
Ya jist gotta love the responses! Quote:
Quote:
|
||
November 16, 2011, 11:17 PM | #140 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Chicago puts people though a circle jerk like the best of them, interesting filing though.
|
November 17, 2011, 06:31 AM | #141 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
Are we to assume they believe their laws were passed by someone else? Willful ignorance and more bad faith on the part of Chicago..
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; November 17, 2011 at 08:31 AM. |
|
November 17, 2011, 07:15 AM | #142 |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
So, I read: they weren't hurt and we didn't do it.
Like, they didn't suffer under the Chicago law and we didn't write the law. Geez, what a bunch of numbskulls. Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA |
November 17, 2011, 10:44 AM | #143 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
Given the amount of information and knowledge the city is lacking, how did they have enough knoweldge to generate the regulation.
It appears the lack of knowledge makes the regulations arbitary and capricious. Might want admend the fileing and seek a summary judgement based on the admision that the City does not have enough information and knowledge to regulate the ranges. I think it is going to be fun in the courtroom. |
November 17, 2011, 12:21 PM | #144 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
The city is doing its best to drag it out.
They believe they have deeper pockets. |
November 17, 2011, 01:58 PM | #145 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
On August 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed for an MPI (Doc #4). In support of the Motion, the plaintifs filed Memorandums of Law for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc #5) with supporting declarations and a Memorandum of Law for a Permanent Injunction (Doc #6) with supporting declarations:
Declaration of Richard Pearson (Doc #'s 5.4 and 6.4); Declaration of William Hespen (Doc #'s 5.5 and 6.5); Declaration of Joseph I. Brown (Doc #'s 5.6 and 6.6); Declaration of Rhonda Ezell (Doc #'s 5.7 and 6.7) and Declaration of Chris Hart (Doc #'s 5.8 and 6.8). All of this established who the plaintiffs were. In its response to Motion 4 (doc #15), Chicago lists the plaintiffs by name and assumes they can "simply travel outside of Chicago" to get their mandated training. This is an explicit recognition of the plaintiffs and their standing. Nowhere in that document does the city entertain the idea that they don't know who the plaintiffs are. Further, Each and Every Plaintiff was deposed by the city. Now, 15 months after the start of this litigation, the Chicago finally responds to the complaint (there was never a response to the original complaint) and alleges they know nothing of the plaintiffs. The city apparently feels that the prior record doesn't exist. Even to the extent that the plaintiffs won at the circuit... The city responds that they won nothing of any significance. Let me break down the paragraph 22 text: Quote:
It's going to be interesting to read the reply. I wonder who will write it. David Sigale or Alan Gura? The docket can be seen here, to verify everything I just stated. |
|
November 17, 2011, 02:01 PM | #146 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 703
|
I thought they had no money to fight these cases?
Oh, right, tomorrow I have to make a payment on my parking tickets so they can spend money bantering back and forth for years in the courts. I am obviously no lawyer, but am just as fed up with Chicago's laws as anyone else. |
November 17, 2011, 05:01 PM | #147 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Chicago has a serious budget shortfall as does Cook County. Mayor Eman is short on cash but he won't raise property taxes for fear of being thrown out of office.
Tickets, fines and fees are becoming abother thing - like gun control, that only affects law abiding citizens in Chicago / Cook County. There is a whole class of people now in Chicago that just don't pay any fines, tickets or fees... they just say screw it. City Hall is willing to shut down the CTA to try to save a few bucks, but I guess it's OK to to pay the city lawyers in perpetuity for this kind of horse ****... . |
November 17, 2011, 05:24 PM | #148 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
November 17, 2011, 05:41 PM | #149 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Being a lawyer for the city or a law firm for the city is like getting a no-bid contract.
Big bucks $$$ There isn't much of a way to combat it except with public opinion. If the ISRA had the money they could run ads showing how much money is being wasted on the effort it might have a slight impact. The money being spent on this could be used to hire more police officers, fix the broken down sqaud cars or even add more sqaud cars to the fleet. A lot of ways the money could be spent to enhance public safety if that's what they're claiming that they're worried about. |
November 17, 2011, 07:39 PM | #150 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Let's look at the timeline of what's happened in this case:
Complaint was filed. Injunctive relief was motioned for (MPI). TRO was motioned for. MTD was motioned for. Fought off consolidation with Benson. MPI's denied. Appealed to 7th Circuit. That's the record. We now need to get into the record, the merits of the lawsuit. This will be done with MTD's and cross-MSJ's, after the ordinary Standing and Associational Standing and ripeness arguments are made (by way of the Reply to the Response) Expect an MTD from Chicago, right after the reply to the response is filed. Also expect Gura/Sigale to file an MSJ right after that. <- all of this before "discovery" starts, despite the orders from the court, setting up the timeline. Chicago will then file their cross-MSJ. Chicago has pretty much ignored the previous timelines/orders and I expect them to continue with this. On the other hand, Gura/Sigale have respected the timelines and look what it got them. I don't expect them to make that mistake twice. All of this will force Judge Kendall's hand. The rope being played out, is not just to Chicago. Gura/Sigale want to get back to the 7th again, but with more of a record than they had last time. Now, having said all of that, something has popped up in another case that some people think might have a (bad) bearing on Ezell II. In Benson v. Chicago, there is a joint statement where Benson and Chicago have stipulated that Count III is now moot and should be stricken from the complaint. Count III is the Gun Range Ban. Despite the hand-wringing (on other websites), I don't believe this will affect Ezell II one bit. The ILA attorney failed to amend that portion of their complaint when the laws changed, whereas Ezell did. That is their (Benson) mistake and Chicago is now properly enforcing a point of mootness. All this does is to show that the ILA is still not up to the task of properly strategizing civil rights litigation. Of course, I'm just an amateur at these things. What do I know about how the court works or of litigation strategies? |
Tags |
alan gura , chicago , ezell v. chicago , rkba , saf , second amendment |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|