The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 29, 2011, 06:34 PM   #101
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,752
Stupid question - this "Special Master", let me guess that this is an outside individual who is appointed by the court to oversee application of a specific law/remedy and only that with some unspecified level of authority over the agency/Dept/political subdivision this Special Master is appointed over for an unspecified amount of time? I really don't know, curious. Would this Special Master have to be appointed from Chicago, thus rendering him/her subject to the Chicago Machine, or come from anywhere in the country? I know the possibility of one being appointed is low, as you stated, but if it does happen I would like some basic info if at all possible.
Thank you!
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old September 29, 2011, 06:56 PM   #102
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
See this article from Cornell about the duties and authority of a Special Master.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 10:07 PM   #103
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
OK. On the 28th, Judge Kendall required that by Friday Sept. 30th (today), for the parties to submit an agreed upon order for a preliminary injunction or separate proposed orders if they could not agree.

So guess what happened?

Quote:
09/30/2011 123 OBJECTIONS, Defendant's Objection to the Entry of a Preliminary Injunction (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
In true Chicago style, if you ask them what time it is, they will ask to build a watch, but only if you supply the plans.

The Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligation:

Quote:
09/30/2011 124 Notice of Submission of E-mailed Proposed Injunction Order by Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
Judge Kendall? Give Chicago some more rope, please?!
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:37 PM   #104
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
Judge Kendall? Give Chicago some more rope, please?!
I think Chicago has been given quite enough rope. It's time to pull the lever connected to that little square on the floor under their feet.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 1, 2011, 02:24 AM   #105
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,079
Interesting.They OBJECT? Bwahahahaha! Well, since the plaintiffs have provided a proposed injunction as ordered, and the defendants have not, let's just use the one that was filed according to the court's order. I'll take the injunction that's behind door number one.

I can't wait to read it. Wouldn't that be the shizzle if she just issued the Ezell version as is? Time's a wasting Chicago, we have irreparable harm here.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 11:54 AM   #106
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,079
It seems really strange to me that the judge would want Chicago to have a hand in crafting the injunction at all. Sort of like sending an errant child out to cut a switch for his own lashing. Invariably, I always came back with the most pathetic, meager, twig I could locate. In this case, the errant child (Chicago) objects to the order to cut the switch!
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 12:52 PM   #107
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Is it common for citys to change law or delete laws to try to avoid a lawsuit or the consequences to future legislation based on the lawsuit? I really dont know but to me this kind of thing one would thing would have to be illegal and yet I have no clue if it really is or isnt...

It seems contrary to the general good to even be able to do such a thing once the case has begun...

The other end of it is if the court was to throw the case out what is to stop the city from enacting the very same exact ordinance again two weeks later or some slightly modified version and then having to do through all the same steps again. It seems like a city could leverage this tool forever to deny constitutional rights...
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; October 2, 2011 at 01:05 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 02:59 PM   #108
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
It seems really strange to me that the judge would want Chicago to have a hand in crafting the injunction at all.
By giving the City that option, the court can see if they are serious about mitigating the harm... Can you guess what that objection told the court?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BGutzman
It seems like a city could leverage this tool forever to deny constitutional rights...
You really need to look at the phrasing of the order. There is no need to read between the lines.

In the order denying the MTD for Mootness, Judge Kendall was pretty clear that there was something still wrong with the Chicago ordinances. In the City's briefs (after the original motion was made), they made much about how they were amending that (newly made ordinance) to make it even more palatable to the Court. Remember also, in the plaintiffs opposition briefs, they detailed not only what was wrong with the proposed amendments, but the proposed amendments to the amendments (and the proposed amendment of the amendments to the amendments?).

That's why she invited the plaintiffs to file a new brief - detailing what is wrong and why.

The City knows exactly what the plaintiffs want in the injunction. As per the order, they absolutely have to know, because Gura would have submitted it to them for an agreed proposal (any bets that it wasn't pre-written and he didn't hand it over to Chicago the day of the order?). Chicago rejected it and Gura emailed the proposal to the Judge on the due date as a separate proposal.

Therefore, the Chicago "objection" was no real objection. If they firmly believed what they wrote (and had the grounds to stand upon), then they would have simply went back to the 7th Circuit (and the same panel that ruled against them, BTW) to voice what was wrong with Judge Kendall's order. That would have been a slam-dunk appeal. That they didn't is quite telling.

This is the point at which we get to see if Judge Kendall has been properly chastised by the 7th, or if she thinks she can still salvage the City's arguments and allow them to further stall the case (and that's all this "objection" really is).
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 03:28 PM   #109
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Thank you AL I appreciate you spelling this a little further out for me. I guess its time to get out the popcorn and see which way it goes...

Thanks again!
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 07:42 PM   #110
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,079
Quote:
This is the point at which we get to see if Judge Kendall has been properly chastised by the 7th, or if she thinks she can still salvage the City's arguments and allow them to further stall the case (and that's all this "objection" really is).
Agreed. Chicago has effectively backed her into a corner now. Which master is she going to obey? I think she'll obey the 7th's order to issue an injunction. Chicago declines the invitation to have input in that injunction.

She has extended every opportunity to Chicago to get on board and their answer is 'we object'. This is going nowhere good for Chicago. Your move, judge. No-one would blame her if she just gave Ezell everything requested and a bag of chips.

Time to open a few ranges. Any punitive action by the city against new range operators is going to be viewed with a jaundice eye by the circuit court of appeals. Range operators in Chicago will be operating under federal protection from the court.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 09:35 PM   #111
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I spoke with the owner of Article II Gunworld in Lombard a while back. Lombard is not an anti-gun village, but I will tell you , it is quite an ordeal to open a range. It is a long, drawn out process. It is expensive and time consuming, and this is in a city that doesn't really have any objections to ranges.

I think it would take at least two years to build out a range in Chicago, get it inspected and approved, and that's without the inspectors being especially difficult or uncooperative.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Didn't Chicago go after gun makers with a nuisance lawsuit?

I could see that happening too - maybe not by the city but by Father Phleger types.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 2, 2011, 09:44 PM   #112
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
C0untZer0? How long would it take for a mobile range to roll in and set up? Hmmm?
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 3, 2011, 06:01 PM   #113
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
^ That would be funny.

I don't think you'd need a building permit for that...
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 3, 2011, 06:29 PM   #114
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,079
That plan has been in the works. It will likely happen soon.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 3, 2011, 09:43 PM   #115
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
And to add to Maestro's statement, this mobile range was contracted a year ago and was part and parcel of the original injunction.

Oh, as far as I can tell, it (the mobile range) is still under contract with the SAF.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 4, 2011, 06:53 AM   #116
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Interesting factoid, in the year after SCOTUS struck down the Chicago gun ban, Chicago saw the biggest one year drop in murder it has ever seen since it enacted the gun ban in 1982. Correlation does not equal causation of course; but interesting all the same.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 13, 2011, 11:59 AM   #117
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
The Ezell case has made at least one publication. Court House News has reported on the ongoing controversy over Chicago's Gun Range Laws: Quick Fix Didn't Moot Chicago Gun Law Suit

We expect the amended complaint from [i]Ezell]/i] on Oct 15th (which is a Saturday), so it could actually be filed by close of business tomorrow.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 13, 2011, 03:56 PM   #118
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I would like the mobile range to look like the Oscar Meyer Weiner Mobile.

Only bigger - like 54 feet long.

But I still want the outside to look like Oscar Meyer Weiner Mobile.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 13, 2011, 05:06 PM   #119
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,160
Semi-trailers don't normally come in a 54 foot length.
We can come close though with a 53 footer. AFAIK, 57 footers are illegal in IL.

Yeah, I used to drive them old trucks.
__________________
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 October 16, 2011, 09:21 PM   #120
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
The Amended Complaint for Ezell is in.

If you thought that the (very) wordy ordinances that Chicago had passed were hard to follow (and make sense of), then have no fear!

In an easy to read, double spaced 14 page complaint, Alan Gura shows how the old gun range ban is still a ban. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Here's the sum of the complaint and relief sought:

Quote:
An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Chicago Municipal Code §§ 4-151-010 and 4-151-030, requiring all range managers, employees, and “applicants” have a Chicago Firearms Permit (“CFP”) and an Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card (“FOID”); 4-151-030(f); 4-151-090; 4-151-100(d); 4-151-120; 4-151-170; 8-20-110 as applied to firearms temporarily borrowed or rented by shooting range patrons, 13-96-1200(b)(2) and 13-96-1200(b)(7), or any other law, as against the ordinary operation and use of gun ranges open to the public and the loan or rental of functional firearms within gun ranges open to the public;
The way the law is currently written, we have a classic Chicken & Egg question. You have to have an FOID before you can get the CHP. So the only people who can use the range are those that already have an FOID and a CHP

That also means that any non-resident of Chicago (visitor - instate or out of state) may never use the range, thus depriving the business of ... well ... business.

Oh, and you can't bring your own ammo to the range. You must purchase your ammo at the range and consume it all. You cannot leave the range with any range purchased ammo.

To back up these ordinance, failure to comply is a criminal offense.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 16, 2011, 11:14 PM   #121
vytoland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 614
could this be considered "Restraint of trade"?
vytoland is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 06:34 AM   #122
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,561
WOW! The city of Chicago just does not get it.

They are not going to give up easily, are they?
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 11:12 AM   #123
scpapa
Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 68
Obviously, the council believes that the Chicagoans are of inferior intellect and/or morals than the rest of the country. The people in Chicago can't be trusted to behave like the millions of other citizens.

scpapa
scpapa is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 11:27 AM   #124
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Sorry I meant 53'

typo.

When I first got out of college I worked as a receiving clerk for an import export company. Mostly dealt with 20 & 40' containers.

I am curious about all the steel plating it's going to need and wondering if the steep plating would make it over weight for a normal 18 wheeler and how many axles they have on that thing.

I wouldn't put it past Chicago to make then go through a weigh station as a last resort to delaying the range opening.

I think we should get together and have GIGANTIC party when that range finally opens. I mean get a band - play "Happy Days Are Here Again", have a pot luck.

I can't wait.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 02:11 PM   #125
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
I may drive from Mn just to be there and join the celebration...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Reply

Tags
alan gura , chicago , ezell v. chicago , rkba , saf , second amendment

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 03:53 AM.


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 0.13435 seconds with 7 queries