View Single Post
Old November 18, 2011, 08:47 PM   #155
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,546
Both Judge Kendall and Chicago are relying upon the technicality that the Firing Range Ban has been dropped from the law.

Judge Kendall knows that the mandate from the 7th puts her on notice. That's why she dismissed Chicago's MTD for mootness. She knows that the current ordinances are a virtual ban, but she wants the suit to play out.

Chicago, on the other hand, has played a very stupid hand by responding to the complaint as if there is no record before the court.

I suspect the Plaintiffs can play this in one of several different ways. None of which bode well for Chicago. All of which will force Judge Kendall's hand. Look at what she is up against:

The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforcement of Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-280—the prohibition on “[s]hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged.” They are entitled to a preliminary injunction to that effect. ... ... To be effective, however, the injunction must also prevent the City from enforcing other provisions of the Ordinance that operate indirectly to prohibit range training. Similarly, the injunction should prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city.
The above is from pg 49 of the Certified Decision. It is the second part that the judge virtually ignored. All the plaintiffs have to show is that the current ordinances indirectly prohibit ranges, by being so burdensome that a range could not operate as a business.

Considering the onerous requirements, it will be a cakewalk. Comparatively speaking.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03700 seconds with 7 queries