View Single Post
Old October 26, 2011, 08:50 AM   #131
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,550
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.

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  
Page generated in 0.03450 seconds with 7 queries