The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 19, 2011, 01:25 PM   #126
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
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:
Plaintiffs do not have to prove, at this stage, that they will absolutely prevail in proving the challenged provisions effectuate a complete ban and/or unconstitutional infringement on gun ranges. Plaintiffs have to establish only a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, which include that the challenged provisions go too far in restricting Second Amendment rights. The other prongs—irreparable harm, the public interest, and the balance of harms—are not even addressed in the City’s objections.

Respectfully, the challenged provisions should be preliminarily enjoined as set forth in the proposed Order. If the City wishes to litigate its burden of proving that the laws are not unconstitutional, it is of course free to move for summary judgment.
If Gura gets his PI, then this would most likely forestall an Ezell II, which seems to be where Chicago wants to go. The City has until 10-25-2011 to file a reply to this response.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 19, 2011, 01:52 PM   #127
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
It is plain to see that Alan Gura is running out of patience...
Good grief! At what point does the presiding judge run out of patience?
__________________
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
Hardcase is offline  
Old October 19, 2011, 03:48 PM   #128
secret_agent_man
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.
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old October 25, 2011, 11:03 PM   #129
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
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:
  • July 29th, Chicago moves to dismiss as moot.
  • Aug. 29th, the Ezell crew respond to the MTD.
  • Sept. 12th, Chicago replies.
  • Sept. 28th, Judge Kendall denies the MTD and orders the parties to submit a stipulated proposal for the PI or in the alternative, separate proposals by Sept 30th. Additionally, Judge Kendall allows for an amended complaint from the Pltf's.
  • Sept. 30th, Chicago submits an objection to the Courts orders - a rehash of their MTD on mootness that has already been ruled upon. Meanwhile the Ezell crew submits their proposal via email.
  • Oct. 4th, Judge Kendall decides to give Chicago some room. She orders a response from Pltf's by the 18th and a reply from Chicago by the 25th.
  • Oct. 15th, Pltf's file their Amended Complaint, based upon the new laws passed in Chicago.
  • Oct. 18th, Plt's file their response to Chicago Objections.
  • Oct. 25th, Chicago files it's reply, once again raising the already ruled upon MTD.

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!
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 07:41 AM   #130
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,559
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
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 08:50 AM   #131
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
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:
Though the Court cannot conclude that the new ordinance is the same as the old without further litigation, as the Supreme Court did in Northeastern Florida, it is consistent with that case not to dismiss the instant litigation as moot and instead to let the parties litigate the issue of whether the new ordinance is a de facto ban on firing ranges or so burdensome as to infringe on Chicagoan’s Second Amendment rights. Moreover, as a practical matter, Ezell is either going to: (1) challenge the constitutionality of these restrictions by filing an amended complaint as part of this case; or (2) file a new case attacking the same restrictions. The Court sees no upside in making the parties start over with another judge who has less familiarity with the issues and facts of the case than this Court.
Ezell complied and sent the proposed order for the injunction. Chicago has done nothing but complain, using the same arguments that were already ruled upon and dismissed.

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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 10:34 AM   #132
Patriot86
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.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 11:32 AM   #133
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 06:21 PM   #134
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
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.
They seem to believe the court has little real power to enforce the orders it gives and that the justice system is some kind of hustle or con job that only they can come out on top of through infinite bad faith.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 10:08 PM   #135
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
I simply can't believe this Judge! See the last entry (#130) of the Docket.

Quote:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
Not only is this Judge denying the PI, she is going to let Chicago stall for another year!

ETA:
Quote:
For the foregoing reasons, the City’s motion to dismiss the case as moot is denied. By September 30, 2011, the parties shall file an agreed proposed injunction order, or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree. Ezell must file her amended complaint by October 15, 2011. The parties shall appear for a status on October 26, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the schedule going forward.
That was a direct order. Chicago would not and did not comply. Yet, they are not in contempt? Of course not. The Judge never meant a word of what she wrote, after all!

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
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 11:32 PM   #136
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 26, 2011, 11:40 PM   #137
Mr. James
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
Mr. James is offline  
Old October 27, 2011, 11:14 PM   #138
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,454
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old November 16, 2011, 10:57 PM   #139
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Today, Chicago filed its response to the amended complaint. Read it here.

Ya jist gotta love the responses!

Quote:
Answer: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations [of who the plaintiffs are...]

...

7. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal entity organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois.

Answer: Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. [but we know who we are!]
And so it goes, throughout the entire "answer" to the complaint. What's even more interesting is the affirmative defenses:

Quote:
First Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Ripeness

Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the claims asserted in this case are ripe for adjudication.

Second Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Standing

Plaintiffs lack standing under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the Plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact and, in the alternative, the injuries alleged were not caused by the actions or conduct of Defendant.
In round 1, none of the above was ever settled, as the MTD's and MPI's were the immediate concern.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 16, 2011, 11:17 PM   #140
Patriot86
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.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 06:31 AM   #141
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Plaintiffs lack standing under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the Plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact and, in the alternative, the injuries alleged were not caused by the actions or conduct of Defendant.
Obviously they have a different grasp of english or are living on some alternate plane of existance. This sentence would be laughable under almost any other circumstances.

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.
BGutzman is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 07:15 AM   #142
scpapa
Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 67
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
NRA Benefactor Member
scpapa is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 10:44 AM   #143
ltc444
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.
ltc444 is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 12:21 PM   #144
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
The city is doing its best to drag it out.

They believe they have deeper pockets.
brickeyee is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 01:58 PM   #145
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
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:
Plaintiff: On July 6, 2011, Plaintiffs obtained a judicially-ordered change in the relationship among the parties to this litigation, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a preliminary injunction be issued against enforcement of the provisions initially challenged by this litigation.

Defendant: Defendant admits that, on July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a preliminary injunction be issued against the enforcement of certain provisions of the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance initially challenged by this litigation, but deny that any such relief remains appropriate now that the gun range ban has been repealed.

Plaintiff: Plaintiffs are therefore, as of July 6, 2011, prevailing parties for purposes of 42 USC §1983.

Defendant: Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 22.
That more than anything else in this response, tells me that the city is going to fight this, all the way to whatever court it gets into. Chicago has just thumbed its collective nose at the 7th Circuit. Further, they are going to fight paying out a dime... No matter what it costs (the taxpayers) to do this.

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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 02:01 PM   #146
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 667
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.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 05:01 PM   #147
C0untZer0
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 ****...




.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 05:24 PM   #148
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,640
Quote:
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 ****...
Ha! If only Chicago was just paying city attorneys. Chicago is going to hire outside law firms with that taxpayer money and pay them to fight this every step of the way. And doing my best imitation of a psychic, I predict that they mayoral campaign will receive generous donations from the lawyers at these firms.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 05:41 PM   #149
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 17, 2011, 07:39 PM   #150
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
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?
Al Norris 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 03:21 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 0.15741 seconds with 7 queries