The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 4, 2011, 09:18 PM   #101
Indi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 214
Good Luck Chicago! I hope you get your rites back!

Edit - Rights - GM, professor.
Indi is offline  
Old January 21, 2012, 04:01 PM   #102
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 21, 2012, 06:46 PM   #103
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,738
The wheels of justice grind so slowly.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 22, 2012, 03:43 AM   #104
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
Completeing the quote. "...they grind exceedingly fine."
ltc444 is offline  
Old April 6, 2012, 08:56 AM   #105
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
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:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Clerk's Office informed the Court that Defendant filed only a paper version of its summary judgment filings, including the exhibits, and did not file electronically. Although the Court understands the potential time and expense of electronically scanning the box-full of exhibits, Defendant (like every other litigant) must electronically file all of its filings (even sealed or partially-sealed documents are filed electronically). And feeding the pages into a scanner can be accomplished without extraordinary effort. The electronic filing shall be completed on or before 03/14/12. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
Did you get that? The city dumped an entire box of documents off to the court! the Judge said, No, you must file electronically, like everyone else. and sent it all back!!

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!!
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 6, 2012, 12:03 PM   #106
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 668
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.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 07:48 PM   #107
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
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:
  • Firearm possession on one's property, but outside the "HOME", ie yard and front porch, etc...
  • Restrictions on firearm transfers (sales).
  • More than 1 functional firearm in the home.
  • Possession of firearms in one's business.
The gun range prohibition was dropped in favor of letting Gura fight that out in Ezell.

Giving the NRA credit, where credit is due, I give this briefing 2 Thumbs Up! It is very, very well done.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 08:02 PM   #108
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 08:14 PM   #109
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Quote:
Chicago claims that the ban also reduces the incentive for criminals and gang members to carry firearms
OMG For someone to write this - they have to believe that the end justifies any means - because this is a flat out lie.

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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 09:50 PM   #110
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
Yes they are.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 08:58 AM   #111
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
This case is still dragging on:
Quote:
05/21/2012 182 MOTION by Defendants Richard M Daley, The City of Chicago to stay , MOTION by Defendants Richard M Daley, The City of Chicago for extension of time to file response/reply (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - C, # 2 Exhibit D - H)(Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/21/2012 183 NOTICE of Motion by Andrew W Worseck for presentment of motion to stay,, motion for extension of time to file response/reply, 182 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 5/24/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
The 6 page motion (linked above) is to (1) stay the proceedings until after Moore and Shepard are decided, or in the alternative, (2) extend time to file from May 28th to June 29th.

Oh, and it's signed by:

Quote:
/s/ Andrew Worseck
One of Its Attorneys
Is this an Illinois thing? That's twice now that we've seen this.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 22, 2012, 09:04 AM   #112
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,119
Delay and conquere maybe?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old July 22, 2012, 05:31 PM   #113
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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:
The mayor's response represents the type of compromise he has had to make as the NRA and other gun-rights groups chip away at the new law, targeting Chicago as the primary battleground in the fight over Second Amendment rights. With deep financial pockets, the NRA has been unrelenting in its fight to force the city to do away with most restrictions on who can pack heat, and where.
A compromise? It's not a compromise! The laws were ruled unconstitutional !!!

It's funny that the city thinks this will make SAF and NRA go away...

Quote:
Though Patton said he believes the litigation will end soon, NRA lawyers said they have no intention of easing their all-out offensive.

ETA: Moved to the proper thread.

Last edited by Al Norris; July 22, 2012 at 07:05 PM. Reason: Moved post
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 18, 2012, 08:28 AM   #114
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
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:
Reminder that this case is fighting:
- Gun Store (sales) ban in Chicago
- Possession restriction outside home yet on own property (ie porch, backyard, etc)
- Possession of Handguns in place of business
- One operable gun limit in the home
Docket
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 11:02 AM   #115
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
We may finally have a resolution (at district) to the Benson case:

Quote:
09/25/2012 199 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motions for summary judgment are fully briefed. Status hearing of 09/26/12 is reset to 12/03/12 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

10/25/2012 200 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: At the request of the parties, the status hearing of 12/03/12 is reset to 12/05/12 at 9:45 a.m. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
So....

on 12/5 we may have the case submitted.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 07:34 PM   #116
Warrior1256
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?
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 07:46 PM   #117
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior1256
Does it strike anyone as strange that the places that have the most strict gun laws have the highest rates of violent crime?
Not really.

Welcome to The Firing Line!
__________________
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
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 05:31 PM   #118
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 201
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?
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 09:04 AM   #119
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
The .pdf of the ordinance is available . . . FNC is not exaggerating. The highlights:

No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago
Even so, anyone who wants to register a firearm will be required to pass a 4-hour class and a 1-hour range exam
Only one handgun per month may be registered. Move to Chicago with three handguns, and you'll need to decide which one you're keeping.
$100 every three years for the right to register, $15 per gun annually to register, $10 for Chicago's knockoff of the Illinois FOID card
Only one firearm may be stored in the home in a functional state. All others must be locked up AND broken down into a non-functioning state (field stripping will suffice.)
If the registered owner has reason to believe there's at least one minor "present," he must carry the one functional gun on his person at all times to keep it away from the minor.
Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards. While you're carrying that gun to keep it away from your kids, don't step out to the mailbox or try to mow the yard, you filthy gun nut.
Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.
Anyone got a link to that pdf or any source for the actual wording of Chicago's law? I can't find it.
publius42 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 01:01 PM   #120
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by publius42
Anyone got a link to that pdf or any source for the actual wording of Chicago's law? I can't find it.
I haven't had time to dig up the particular ordinance, but some rummaging might be fruitful if done here: http://amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il
__________________
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
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 03:44 PM   #121
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,885
Thanks, Spats. I found it here.

Quote:
Chapter 8-20: Weapons

Definitions...

“Home” means the inside of a person's dwelling unit which is traditionally used for living purposes, including the basement and attic. A “home” does not include: (i) any garage, including an attached garage, on the lot; (ii) any space outside the dwelling unit, including any stairs, porches, back, side or front yard space, or common areas; or (iii) any dormitory, hotel, or group living, as that term is defined in section 17-17-0102-A.

...

Unlawful possession of handguns.

(a) It is unlawful for any person to carry or possess a handgun, except when in the person's home.
publius42 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 09:44 PM   #122
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
Meanwhile, there's some significant movement in this case (thanks to krucam for this):

Quote:
2012-11-30 202 0 NOTICE of Motion by Andrew W Worseck for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 201 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/5/2012 at 09:45 AM. (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

2012-12-04 203 0 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Changefendant's motion to cite 201 additional authority is granted. Plaintiffs may, if they choose, file a concise response to the two additional cases. No reply is needed. Status hearing of 12/05/12 is reset to 02/07/13 at 9:00 a.m., as the summary judgment motions are still under consideration. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

2012-12-10 204 0 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Michael Hall, Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler to order on motion for miscellaneous relief, set/reset hearings,, 203 (Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 12/10/2012)

2012-12-18 205 0 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On or before 01/04/13, the parties may each file a supplemental memorandum addressing Moore v. Madigan, USCA Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012). The parties may file cross-responses on or before 01/15/13. (Assume, just for purposes of analysis, that rehearing en banc will not be granted.) Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

2013-01-04 206 0 MEMORANDUM text entry, 205 by Michael Hall, Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler Supplemental Memorandum Addressing Moore v. Madigan, USCA Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Moore v. Madigan Slip Op.)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

2013-01-04 207 0 MEMORANDUM by Richard M Daley, The City of Chicago (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
What does the above mean? Back on Dec. 11th, The defendants motioned the court to present additional (Supplemental) authority. The court agreed with two stipulations. First, that both sides submit supplemental briefs addressing Moore v. Madigan. The second being that they were to treat the briefs as if the en banc hearing would not be granted.

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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 6, 2014, 06:51 PM   #123
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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:
Chicago does all this in the name of reducing gun violence. That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens. [sic] on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm. For the specific reasons explained later in this opinion, the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Chang opinion Benson.pdf (165.7 KB, 16 views)
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old January 6, 2014, 07:03 PM   #124
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old January 6, 2014, 07:16 PM   #125
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Also, Judge Chang addresses level of scrutiny, citing Ezell:

Quote:
one thing is sure: the standard of judicial review is always stricter than rational basis review
and citing Moore:

Quote:
The Seventh Circuit then went on to assess the State’s public-safety rationales for banning public gun carriage, concluding that the State’s empirical evidence did not provide a justification for a complete public-carriage ban. Because the State thus failed to “provide [the court] with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety,” the Seventh Circuit remanded to the respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality
If only King and Davis would have done their jobs, gone by the clear meaning of the law instead of jerrymandering word meanings to cook up an opinion to keep society the way they personally think it should be in regards to people carrying firearms.

Well, no use dwelling on the negative - this is a positive for Illinois and people in Chicago.

Chicago loses again.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Reply

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 06:02 PM.


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 0.14851 seconds with 8 queries