|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 4, 2011, 09:18 PM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 231
|
Good Luck Chicago! I hope you get your rites back!
Edit - Rights - GM, professor. |
January 21, 2012, 04:01 PM | #102 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Benson v. Chicago
On January 19, in the case of Benson v. City of Chicago Judge Edmond Chang ruled that plaintiffs be allowed to move ahead with a challenge to that city’s laws that ban anyone from possessing or carrying a handgun except in his or her home, and that ban possession or carriage of a long gun anywhere outside his or her home or place of business.
Other issues contested in the case include the city’s ban on nearly all firearm transfers and on the operation of gun stores, as well as its law that allows each Chicago license holder to keep only one “assembled and operable” firearm within the home. In the ruling, Judge Chang pointed out that Chicago’s ordinance actually was more strict than state law: Illinois does allow people to possess and carry guns in their places of business, or in another person’s home. |
January 21, 2012, 06:46 PM | #103 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,297
|
The wheels of justice grind so slowly.
|
January 22, 2012, 03:43 AM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
Completeing the quote. "...they grind exceedingly fine."
|
April 6, 2012, 08:56 AM | #105 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A bit of an update.
Back on Mar. 2nd, the defendant, City of Chicago, motioned to submit their Statement of Facts and exhibits (doc #159). Then on Mar. 7th, the Clerk enters the following: Quote:
Then on Mar. 12th, the city sent in the data: Doc #164, their Statement of Material Facts; doc #165, 7 attachments with 25 exhibits; doc #166, 9 attachments with exhibits 26 thru 38; doc #167, 1 attachment with exhibits 39 and 40; doc #168, thru doc #170 with a total of 90 exhibits. If you can't beat the opposition on the merits, smother them (and the court) with paperwork!! |
|
April 6, 2012, 12:03 PM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 703
|
And with the City being broke, who paid for all those man hours of scanning and filing these documents?
I did see the copy of a check paid for legal fees. This should be shown to the greater public - not just gun rights advocates. |
April 28, 2012, 07:48 PM | #107 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
If you remember, back on Mar. 2nd, the City of Chicago filed their MSj and supporting documents, by way of paper. This ticked off the court clerk and the Judge ordered everything filed by ECF on or before Mar. 14th.
So what's new? On Apr. 6th, the plaintiffs motioned for an extension to file their response, on or before Apr. 27th. That motion was granted. So Friday, the plaintiffs filed their response. This is a MSJ and opposition to the defendants MSJ (deja vu? Yes, we've been here before). You can read that pleading here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.175.0.pdf Remembering that this case is a virtual plate of spaghetti on the wall, the arguments are done very well. They utilize most all of the pro-2A dicta and rulings, most especially Ezell and McDonald. The case is fighting:
Giving the NRA credit, where credit is due, I give this briefing 2 Thumbs Up! It is very, very well done. |
April 28, 2012, 08:02 PM | #108 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
On page 32 it talks about Chicago's restrictions on possession of firearms outside the home, but when CPD encounters anyone outside of their home with a firearm (such as in the passenger compartment of their vehicle), they charge them under Illinois UUW law - not some Chicago municipal code.
I beleive that if someone is on their front porch with a firearm, CPD still charges them under state law. Is there a case where someone was charged instead with an ordinance violation? I guess I don't totally understand this part of it. It seems to me that what they're talking about on page 32 is what is at issue in Moore & Shepard v Madigan. |
April 28, 2012, 08:14 PM | #109 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Quote:
Gang members carry guns because at any given time they're carrying $15,000 - $30,000 worth of stuff, not coutning their personal jewelry. They also are carrying because at any given time they may be the target for a revenge killing. They are NOT carrying for fear that law abiding citizens are carrying. They certainly don't carry less because they think the average law abiding citizen is not carrying, and they're not going to carry MORE if Illinois were to pass some sort of carry legislation. I know it's only one point of many many stupid arguments that the city made - but this one angers me. What a bunch of fricken communist liars. |
|
April 28, 2012, 09:50 PM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,840
|
Yes they are.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer |
May 22, 2012, 08:58 AM | #111 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This case is still dragging on:
Quote:
Oh, and it's signed by: Quote:
|
||
May 22, 2012, 09:04 AM | #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Delay and conquere maybe?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
July 22, 2012, 05:31 PM | #113 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Chicago post McDonald, Ezell and Gowder
Interesting article on Rahm Emanual's new legal tactics following the repeated defeats that Chicago has had in court:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2492746.story Quote:
It's funny that the city thinks this will make SAF and NRA go away... Quote:
ETA: Moved to the proper thread. Last edited by Al Norris; July 22, 2012 at 07:05 PM. Reason: Moved post |
||
August 18, 2012, 08:28 AM | #114 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Back on May 21st, the City of Chicago filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings in light of the Moore and Sheppard cases. The City also Motioned for an extension of time to file a reply to Benson.
On May 24th, the Court denied the stay but granted the extension. The City then filed its response on June 29th. This response was essentially an MSJ. After some more legal rope-skipping (by both parties), the Plaintiffs filed their reply to the City, which is also an MSJ, on Aug. 3rd. So we once again have dueling MSJ's. Krucam, at MDShooters has laid out the essential claims of the plaintiff: Quote:
|
|
November 15, 2012, 11:02 AM | #115 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
We may finally have a resolution (at district) to the Benson case:
Quote:
on 12/5 we may have the case submitted. |
|
November 16, 2012, 07:34 PM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
|
Does it strike anyone as strange that the places that have the most strict gun laws have the highest rates of violent crime?
|
November 16, 2012, 07:46 PM | #117 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Welcome to The Firing Line!
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
November 26, 2012, 05:31 PM | #118 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
A ruling must be close
Today in Chicago both the Tribune and CBS ran stories with headlines similar to this:
Father Pfleger And Coalition Don’t Want Concealed Carry To Pass In Illinois _________________________________________________________________ They reference the legislature instead of the judiciary as the branch that will usher in CCW. Why would they do this unless they had advanced notice that CCW is near the cusp of being reality one way or another? |
January 14, 2013, 09:04 AM | #119 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|
January 14, 2013, 01:01 PM | #120 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 14, 2013, 03:44 PM | #121 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Thanks, Spats. I found it here.
Quote:
|
|
January 14, 2013, 09:44 PM | #122 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Meanwhile, there's some significant movement in this case (thanks to krucam for this):
Quote:
A hat tip to NRA Attorney, Charles Cooper. His brief is excellent and tracks Moore completely. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.206.0.pdf (14 pdf pages) Chicago's brief tries to get the court to recognize that Chicago is just plain different than anywhere else in the country, let alone the State. Chicago is basically saying, "Ignore the man behind the curtain" (Judge Posner). http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.207.0.pdf (10 pdf pages) So what is going to happen next? I suspect the Judge Chang will wait and see if the en banc request is granted. If it is, Benson will likely be stayed. If not, the decision for the MSJ will be rather easy, as Moore controls. |
|
January 6, 2014, 06:51 PM | #123 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Judge Chang finds for Plaintiffs in Benson v Chicago
Now known as Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers v The City of Chicago and Rahm Emanuel, ) Mayor of the City of Chicago
Quote:
|
|
January 6, 2014, 07:03 PM | #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Judge Chang's opinion reads like a laundry list of Illinois and Chicago's legal defeats, and not because this is a Chicago case, but because Illinois and Chicago continued to keep unconstitutional laws on the books after Heller. Judge Chang cites Heller, McDonald, Ezell, and Moore v Madigan.
Last edited by Luger_carbine; January 6, 2014 at 07:16 PM. |
January 6, 2014, 07:16 PM | #125 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Also, Judge Chang addresses level of scrutiny, citing Ezell:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, no use dwelling on the negative - this is a positive for Illinois and people in Chicago. Chicago loses again. |
||
|
|