View Single Post
Old October 2, 2011, 03:35 PM   #244
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,524
Originally posted September 12, 2011 by Al Norris:

The goings on are quite entertaining today.

In Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago, they were supposed to have filed their Second Amended Complaint, last Wed., the 7th. Yes, there was two notices of the filing, but it was not actually filed until Fri. the 9th. This won't endear them to the Judge. If you can stomach it, read it here.

In Shepard v. Madigan and in Moore v. Madigan (the SAF and NRA cases over the Il complete ban on carry), the State has made motions of supplemental authority. That authority? The NY case, Kachalsky.

Meanwhile, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, the SAF has appealed the district court opinion to the 2nd Circuit. I suspect that the appeal is already written and Alan Gura is merely waiting for the records form the district court to be formally transferred.

In Ezell v. Chicago, the defendants made their reply to the plaintiffs response on their Motion to Dismiss as Moot.

Chicago is now claiming that their most recent change in their ordinances, moots the case... This is change number 3 or 4?

The Motion to Dismiss as Moot, is based entirely upon the changed ordinance of July 6th, the same day that the 7th Circuit issued their opinion. It doesn't much matter how much else the City has changed the ordinance(s) since the motion was made. The court must rule on the ordinance as motioned:

Originally Posted by Response to Motion
The introduction of yet another revision to the gun range ban is unsurprising. This new revision, like the previous one, was not proposed out of benevolence. The City plainly lacked the benefit of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in this case when drafting the July 6 ordinance, upon which its motion to dismiss is based. Introduction of the July 28 proposal inherently concedes that the July 6 ordinance—the only one upon which the motion to dismiss must be based—was still constitutionally deficient, and that is reason enough to deny the motion.
If the City wishes its Motion to Dismiss as Moot to have any significance, it must withdraw its prior motion and refile a new motion.

I say go ahead and let Judge Kendall dismiss the case. That would constitute plain error. The panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Kanne, Rovner and Sykes, will simply impose the injunction and all further proceedings will be at the Circuit level (most likely through a Special Master). Judge Kendall will lose all control of the case; Chicago will lose control of its own legislative acts.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.04244 seconds with 7 queries