Chicago motion to dismiss gun law case denied - More Backlash To Come

[DonP]

Chicago tried to "get cute" (per the judge) and changed it's gun range laws again, the same day they lost the Ezell case. They moved for a motion to dismiss the entire case since they "changed" their laws and basically stall the review process for a few more months and get another judge that might be more "Daley friendly".

The judge said "no" ... probably because saying "no fuckin way" wouldn't be dignified in court proceedings.

<snip>

In Ezell - Chicago's New Range Ordinance Doesn't Moot Case

Another win for Rhonda Ezell and the team of Alan Gura and David Sigale.

Full text here: http://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.122.0.pdf

In a decision released today, Judge Virginia Kendall said that despite the rewriting of the Chicago Gun Range Ordinance, it doesn't moot the case and denied the City of Chicago's motion to dismiss the case.
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.
She then set Friday, September 30th as the deadline for the parties to submit an agreed proposed injunction order or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree. The plaintiffs have until October 15th to submit an amended complaint which her attorneys have indicated they will doing. Finally, she set a status hearing for October 26th.

<snip>

[We_Have_A_Problem]

1. You'd think by now...

...Chicago would learn.

How many more cases are necessary? How many judges have to tell the city it is being "too cute by half"? How many millions of taxpayer dollars need to be wasted before the city accepts that it is not going to win?

[DonP]

4. Well, Rahm isn't as totally batshit crazy as Daley about this

At some point he's going to look at the legal bills he's running up on this and call it quits and try to bail out with "something" to save face. Property values continue to fall but property taxes are going up about 3.5% this year. The state income tax went up 67% last year and now thy are doubling all the tolls on the tollroads. That's not going to be popular with anyone. It's hard to claim that a multi-failed lawsuit is worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions of more tax $ to indulge a former mayor's deranged obsession when you're closing police stations to save money.

He's struggling to minimize the cuts to services now and is even telling the aldercritters they are losing some of their perks.

I really think that at some point Rahm's going to quietly reach an agreement to just allow the shooting ranges and actually start the permit process and let the case quietly drop.

In the meantime the separate concealed carry cases against the state are moving along as well.

[jeepnstein]

11. He'll rid himself of this issue...

just as quickly and quietly as he can. Rahm Emanuel is a very pragmatic kind of politician. He has plenty of cover on this issue. All he has to do is throw up his arms and say "It's Dick Heller's fault." and go on his merry way. Considering the financial shape that Chicago is in right now I can't see him eager to spend money on litigation. This is Daley's fight, not Emanuel's. There are always institutional forces in play and Chicago is a bastion of gun control so it won't happen instantly but it will happen.

[Hoyt]

46. Gunners willing to break a city financially to open the gun pipeline further. Jeeeez.

[DonP]

47. No, citizens willing to fight a corrupt city hall

I'm betting that any one of the plaintiffs has put more of their own money and time behind this suit than you have behind more gun control or than your buddy Daley put any of his own money behind it.

Once the voters realize what their elected officials are wasting money on, they replace them.

See how that works in a Democracy?

Don't like what they are doing? Replace them.

That's why we have a Congress, many Governors and most (as in 49 out of 50) state legistlatures that support 2nd amendment rights.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Don't you have some reasearch you should be doing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=465333&mesg_id=465703

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=465333&mesg_id=466089

Guess it slipped your mind after your Mom made you take the recyclables out to the curb...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

3. How long will Chicago get by saying 'fuck you' to the constitution

and federal courts?

Church-bell sized brass balls, eh?

[-..__...]

5. "This town needs an enema".

I'm thinking a $1,000,000 per day fine for each day Shitcago plays their silly mind fuck games should set them in order.

[Hoyt]

6. Please don't cheer every little procedural "victory" the corporate gun lobby achieves.

I won't cheer Chicago standing up for what is best for a civilized society in the 21st century, particularly a populated area.

[rl6214]

7. Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The backlash cometh.

The King certainly won't be happy about this.

[one-eyed fat man]

8. You got some balls!

Using "civilized" and "Chicago" in the same sentence!

Chicago hasn't come one iota closer to being civilized since the day in 1924 Al Capone threw the Mayor down the steps of City Hall right in full view of the Mayor's security detail.

[PavePusher]

9. "corporate gun lobby"?

Perhaps you can point to the gun corporations that were plaintifs or funders in this legal action.

P.S. You'll find them right next to the laser sniper sights.

Jesus fucking wept....

[oneshooter]

10. You could sound more ignorant, but you would have to work on it.

Have you disposed of your firearms yet? Do it in the name of a more "civilized" environment.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. Ignorance is...

...the absence of knowledge.

Stupidity is when you are aware of the facts and choose to disregard them.

Guess which one he is demonstrating?

[badtoworse]

39. +1 Great descriptionof a truly ridiculous post!

I'm filing this away for future use.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

12. What corporate gun lobby?

Chicago is "standing up" for the deprivation of civil rights under color of law in the face of the Supreme Court and the US Constitution.

They are so completely in the wrong it isn't even funny.

Hoyt, when you have a judge saying things like "too cute by half" to the city of Chicago, its pretty clear cut that the city is wrong.

[DonP]

14. That's "funny" - "what is best for a civilized society"

I'm assuming you haven't tracked Chicago's record of students killed in or near schools, or the number of gang shootings every year. Enough that they have a chart that tracks trends on a quarterly basis in the police department. All of this in a city that has provided your utopia of gun control.

No concealed carry, no "assault" weapons, no magazines over 10 rounds, no legal ownership of any handguns - even in your own home. Rifles and shotguns must be registered every year and a fee paid to keep them in your home. We even had incidents of forced confiscation by Daley's CAGE unit (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement). You'd love living here.

So how many cities and states that allow concealed carry with major urban areas actually have to keep track of their dead students in the media?

Or are you going to be as stupid as Daley is and blame Indiana for all the gun violence in the city?

[oneshooter]

16. "you going to be as stupid as Daley is " I don't know, maybe,

YA HE IS GOING TO DO IT!!! We now have our very own "Daley Supporter"

Congratulations Hoyt, you have made it to the top of your class!!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. If society was civilized we wouldn't need guns

Maybe if people spent more time deriding criminals than they do trying to disarm honest citizens the honest citizens would feel the need to arm themselves against undisturbed criminals.

[Hoyt]

17. Vigilantism is not civilized, but seems popular here. Nor is arming up to shoot your neighbor when

times get rough. But, that seems popular among gunners as well.

Apparently Chicago thinks they have a case. I do too because I don't believe federal troops are going to enforce the Supreme Court decision (which is not as final as you gun scholars think or want to believe)and allow more guns in the streets. God bless reason.

[DonP]

18. SCOTUS decision is "Not as final" - WTF does that mean?

Do you think they'll change their mind next week, when they re-open this years sessions?

Maybe issue an "Oops, we didn't really mean McDonald and Heller, we were just kidding around judgement"?

Or do you honestly think that if the President gets to appoint a liberal judge to replace one of the conservatives on the court that they will immediately start looking for another test case to reverse themselves?

While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why you equate allowing the law abiding to protect their home as equivalent to "vigilantism". That's what we're talking about in Chicago, not concealed carry or "guns in the streets" ... yet.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. Even if....

a single gun-hating judge were appointed, there is still the simple fact that the ruling on it being an individual right was unanimous.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Vigilantism is hunting down a presumed criminal after the fact of the crime

Stopping someone in the midst of the crime is self-defense. Would you seriously call a woman who scratched an attacker's eyes with her fingernails a "vigilante?"

[oneshooter]

21. I do truly believe that he would. After all, according to some Canadians here

there is no harm committed in a rape.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Well, I did say "attacker" so as to not specifically confine the subject to rape

However, I hope what you're saying is hyperbole.

[rl6214]

26. I have seen the same posts from "the canadian"

and she indeed says there is no injury done in a rape.

[Hoyt]

25. Nope I would not call a woman a vigilante in that case. In fact, I think woman are better toters.

Men go friggin crazy with guns and some buy one or more for every situation they can dream up. They practice in front of mirrors drawing; they shoot silhouette targets; they push for more guns in public; they dream up all kinds of things that can happen requiring a gun or two; many dream of being a cowboy; some try to intimidate with their guns; some sell guns to private parties without background checks and don't care who buys it; many sleep with em; some have said plainly they would shoot an unarmed teenager leaving the scene of breaking into an unoccupied care and maybe stealing a buck or two; etc.

Women usually put a gun in their purse and unless some asshole gets out of line, aren't likely to pull it. They typically don't obsess over the things or drool over every new apparatus designed to kill more people with less effort.

If that were where we are with respect to guns in public, I wouldn't be too concerned. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is with most here and it's even worse with the right wingers that see guns as a means to political intimidation.

Carry on.

[rl6214]

27. WOW, you hit every one of your talking points

The Shtick is in full force tonight:

Practice in front of mirrors drawing: Still waiting on the photo of that

Shoot silhouette targets

A gun or two

Dream of being a Cowboy: Is that a Dallas Cowboy or the old time cowboy that only exists in the movies because in real life cowboys didn't ride around with a sidearem acting like Wyatt Earp

Intimidating with guns

Selling guns to private parties without background checks

Sleep with them

Now, your homework for tonight is to find on the interweb, a citation for each and every one of those. And you can't say you just dreamed them up in your head.

OK, hurry up and get started before you mom says you have to turn off the computer and go to bed.

[tortoise1956]

30. Earth to Hoyt...

:banghead:

I don't know what type of people you hang out with, but I have never seen or heard of other ADULT gun owners using a mirror to practice a quick draw.

I do have to admit that I used to do that, though - when I got a pair of "Fanner 50" cap pistols for my sixth birthday. However, when I given a .22 rifle later, all my toy guns were taken away so I wouldn't confuse playing with toys and using real guns.

I know we're not supposed to talk bad about other posters, but your posts tend to sound rather trollish. If that is not your intention, I apologize. However, it would help if you actually included facts and wrote in a less biased tone.

Just sayin'...

[PavePusher]

41. You still haven't defined what is wrong with "silhouette targets".

I would enjoy reading that....

[PavePusher]

42. 14+ hours and no answer to my question.

I'm starting to suspect there won't be one... because there isn't one.

[oneshooter]

43. His answer is forming in his mind, and soon he will squat and show it to the world. n/t

[SteveM]

20. Better check the difference between "vigilantism" and self-defence. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

22. Oh good lord...

Self defense is not vigilantism.

Chicago thinks they have a case because they're delusional. The Gun Control Reality Distortion Field is very strong in that city.

Will federal troops enforce the decision? At this rate, they very well might. However, it is likely to be unnecessary as the people of Chicago may do so first.

Yes Hoyt, the decision by the USSC is final, short of an amendment to the Constitution - and that ain't gonna happen.

[Hoyt]

29. You ought to read the decision, actually read it not listen to the NRA and ghosts of C Heston.

[tortoise1956]

31. I have read it

in great detail. I made a hard-copy of the entire transcript and pored over it until my eyes started hurting. It's been awhile, so I refreshed my memory from one of my Favorites links.

I was especially struck by the duplicitous nature of Justices Stevens dissent. Justice Stevens came up with three different definitions of what the term "the people" meant in the first, second and fourth amendments. He also made an argument that a preamble can be used to clarify a statute if the main body of that statute is ambiguous. Here is the footnote from his dissent:

The sources the Court cites simply do not support the proposition that some “logical connection” between the two clauses is all that is required. The Dwarris treatise, for example, merely explains that “he general purview of a statute is not . . . necessarily to be restrained by any words introductory to the enacting clauses.” F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (emphasis added). The treatise proceeds to caution that “the preamble cannot control the enacting part of a statute, which is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms, yet, if any doubt arise on the words of the enacting part, the
preamble may be resorted to, to explain it.” Id., at 269. Sutherland makes the same point. Explaining that “in the United States preambles are not as important as they are in England,” the treatise notes that in the United States “the settled principle of law is that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.” the Sutherland on Statutory Construction §47.04, p. 146 (rev. 5th ed. 1992)(emphasis added). Surely not even the Court believes that the Amendment’s operative provision, which, though only 14 words in length, takes the Court the better part of 18 pages to parse, is perfectly “clear and unambiguous.”

So the trick is to say that the phrase "the people" doesn't really mean the people, then call the whole main body ambiguous because the majority took so long to explain exactly what the meaning was, and then FINALLY you can use the preamble to declare the amendment only applies to militias. What part of " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is ambiguous? Attempting to limit it to militas is a much more ambiguous line of reasoning.

I'm sorry, but that is sophomoric reasoning driven by a desperate attempt to justify a specious argument. If I were a judge, I would be ashamed to be associated with drivel like that.

[Hoyt]

33. Now there's an objective review. Did the Court say Chicago had to allow guns willy nilly?

Don't think so. The "willy nillyistness" you guys promote ain't there.

[tortoise1956]

34. You still haven't read it, have you?

The Chicago ordinance is a "de facto" ban, which was specifically addressed as being unconstitutional.

I suggest you get off your keister (or sit on it in front of your computer), put on reading glasses, and go to the following link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

After you are done, then come on back and talk to me.

I'll be happy to debate anyone who provides a reasoned, rational argument. However, I'll lift a virtual leg on crappy illogical screeds.

[Hoyt]

35. Has Chicago said, "go ahead, bring your guns to the city." Nope, why is that?

[tortoise1956]

36. Still haven't read it yet?

Your posts have become exceedingly trollish. When you have a point, or even a simple coherent argument, let me know.

[PavePusher]

38. Hoyt does not believe in letting facts and evidence get in the way....

of his righteous moral eliteism.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

44. I have read it

Can you say the same?

[oneshooter]

45. He can't. But he heard the names, and they sounded important. n/t

[PavePusher]

40. Please, cite this endorsement of "vigiliantism" you accuse some of.

[gravity556]

37. Yes, Chicago stands as a completely safe city,

wherein there's no chance of violent crime occurring to someone who wanders into the wrong neighborhood. Those silly gang wars are just kids having fun, right?

[Tejas]

28. Absolutely appalling waste of taxpayers money.

:(

[tortoise1956]

32. I agree completely

The city of Chicago should have never wasted taxpayer money trying to defend this blatantly unconstitutional statute.