SAF SUES CHICAGO OVER GUN RANGE PROHIBITION ON 1A, 2A GROUNDS

[Southwest Chuck]

Am I reading this right? Is the District Court refusing to issue the PI as directed by the 7th circuit? Why are they even entertaining Chicago's motions ????

 

[press1280]

We all this coming. I wont even read it in depth based on what you all summarize above.

Combine Ezell and Renton and Chicago is going to have a tough time of it. It is rare for a court to step in and work zoning issues - it is not their expertise and they like to defer to local officials. But it is not unheard of in recent times, from churches to abortion clinics we have seen courts step in and fix egregiously wrong zoning systems meant to discourage the exercise of a right.

Any chance the court would get tired of this crap and just tell Chicago that the gun range can operate at any place zoned for business, as long as all safety regulations for ranges are followed? None of this within 20 miles of a school crap..........

 

[jrosenberger]

Any chance the court would get tired of this crap and just tell Chicago that the gun range can operate at any place zoned for business, as long as all safety regulations for ranges are followed? None of this within 20 miles of a school crap..........

Yes. Take a look at http://www.google.com/m/url?client=...QQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNG3WS-ZoqGhoaRJDTpsXr21f5QrEQ
For an idea how it could go.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

[krucam]

There WAS supposed to be an 8/15/2011 Hearing to discuss Chicago's recent MTD saying Ezell is now moot.

From Calguns:

Per a Minute Entry (#116) posted this morning:

1) Hearing scheduled for Monday 15-AUG-11 is cancelled
2) Ezell's response to Motion to Dismiss due Monday 29-AUG-11
3) Chicago's reply to Ezell's response due Friday 09-SEP-11
4) Judge's ruling to follow
5) Next status hearing set for Tuesday 25-OCT-11

I'm eagerly awaiting the SAF/Gura/Ezell response on 8/29/2011.

 

[jrosenberger]

So even after CA7 says there's an irreparable harm, it takes >3.5 months for anything to happen?

 

[krucam]

So even after CA7 says there's an irreparable harm, it takes >3.5 months for anything to happen?

These are the games we're likely to see in a post-Daley world. Daley would stomp his feet and hold his breath like a child which made dealing with him...child's play.

Rahm came out with his "concessions" ONE DAY before the Ezell CA7 opinion. He knew it was coming and had a strong idea of what it would say. He tried to do some 11th hour Damage Control and it will have to be dealt with.

114 is the MTD. Read the short 5 page document.

115 is their attempt to steamroll a hearing on their MTD for 8/15.

The good news is the Judge is at least going to allow Plaintiffs to provide a formal response to the MTD. This is a good thing for us. The timeline isn't terrible.

 

[press1280]

"WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ case as moot, and grant the City such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate."

Did I read this as Chicago thinking they're due monetary relief???????

 

[paulstitz]

Someone has to pony up for the payoffs.

 

[Afield]

"WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ case as moot, and grant the City such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate."

Did I read this as Chicago thinking they're due monetary relief???????

Thats actually standard boilerplate text, more or less.

 

[Boxcab]

Calguns is talking about Gura's response to MTD. Anybody following it?

 

[krucam]

It is a Plaintiff MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS

The case is now back in the Illinois District (Northern) after CA7 granted the PI that was originated from the IL District...following this? We won a PI ruling at CA7, but the underlying issues still exist at District, we must sweep up the mess that remains there.

Recall, Chicago tried to moot the case by coming up with some hasty codes allowing for a gun range in City limits. Voila, case is moot, right?

Gura doesn't believe so.

The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness.

It is a very entertaining and quick 12 page read.

 

[Patrick]

He tells the district court that Ezell guarantees the outcome. In other words...don't play games like Chicago. Just enter the injection and wait to see what else Chicago comes up with.

Nobody here would take a bet that the district court will do the right thing, so why bother asking for takers.

 

[Al Norris]

It starts with this little quip:

The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness.

You see, Not only did Chicago change its laws, as regards gun ranges on July 6th, It amended those same laws on or about July 16th. Then the City is attempting to amend it laws, once again on a July 28th proposal. Yet the City filed its MTD on the original July 6th ordinances!

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.

Mr. Gura goes on to write:

Alas, the third time is no charm either. The issue is not whether Chicago can be taken at its word that it will not re-enact the initial, defective ordinance. Plaintiffs agree that the former law is unlikely to return. The issue is whether the city’s revised gun range law, which is now something of a moving target, resolves the disputes among the parties. And the answer to that question is plainly “no.”

Another good quip by Gura:

While the gun range law remains in flux, what is absolutely clear is that even in the face of Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit rulings, the City will do everything it can to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental rights to operate and access gun ranges. And if the Defendant can no longer achieve this improper goal through an outright ban, it will make legislation that renders Second Amendment rights so burdensome, expensive and complicated that people will not be able to get past the hurdles and roadblocks. The Defendant essentially says “trust us,” ignoring the fact that its legislative fig leaves have not addressed the basic issue in the case. It is perfectly clear the conduct at issue will persist until a Court finally puts a stop to it. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit’s guidance in this case guarantees such an outcome. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this matter as moot must be denied.

And again:

Regardless of what version of the July 6 Amended Ordinance exists, ... the Defendant’s behavior will be repeated over and over so long as it thinks it can get away with it, and until a Court stops it.

Alan Gura concludes with:

Defendant’s attitude regarding the Second Amendment has been, and continues to be, not “How can we respect Second Amendment rights while regulating in a constitutional way,” but “How much can we get away with?” The City bans first and litigates later, and if it loses on the ban, it will pass whatever effectuates a ban by other methods.

This case is not moot. Defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied.

In my fantasy, I see Judge Kendall granting the City's MTD, the case being brought back to the 7th Circuit, which will be with the same panel (they are familiar with the case, have ruled on it once before), who thereupon grants the injunction (thereby smacking the living daylights out of the district Judge) and holds the City in contempt.

Regardless, the City will respond on 09-12-2011 (it was originally set for 09-06-2011, but the Judge is giving the City an extra week). The Judge will issue her ruling by mail (Minute entry #117, made on 08-17 - this basically strikes her previous Minute entery #116, made on 08-11).

My conjecture at this point is that Judge Kendall is not taking the 7th's ruling on the injunction seriously. My reasoning is rather simple. Sixty days will have passed since the 7th mandated that the injunction be applied and this judge is taking all the time in the world to rule on a very, very weak MTD by the defendants, as if there is no injury to the plaintiffs. Contrary to the "irreparable harm" ruling by the 7th Circuit. Hence my fantasy, above.

 

[Oreo]

Can a higher court hold a lower court in contempt for these kinds of shenanigans?

 

[Al Norris]

In theory, yes. Has it ever been done? I don't know.

I would think that it would be a career ender for that particular judge, if it happened.

Here's the deal. Chicago no longer has "clean" hands. As long as they keep playing these type of games, they are essentially making it easier and easier for our side to win where it counts.

I would actually prefer that Judge Kendall grant the motion for mootness. The 7th has already signaled that they are not going to play nice with Chicago. They will grant and issue the preliminary injunction... At this point, they might make it a permanent injunction. [Supposition-->] They may (it is within their authority) appoint a Special Master to oversee the whole process of allowing gun ranges. That would strip Judge Kendall of any remaining authority in this case (and that is a Judicial back-hand).

Regardless, onerous zoning issues will be off the table. Precedent will be set that will affect several other cases. If it happens fast enough, it could very well tip the Supreme Court in its decision to grant cert in Williams and/or Masciandaro.

 

[Patrick]

In theory, yes. Has it ever been done? I don't know.

I would think that it would be a career ender for that particular judge, if it happened.

Here's the deal. Chicago no longer has "clean" hands. As long as they keep playing these type of games, they are essentially making it easier and easier for our side to win where it counts.

I would actually prefer that Judge Kendall grant the motion for mootness. The 7th has already signaled that they are not going to play nice with Chicago. They will grant and issue the preliminary injunction... At this point, they might make it a permanent injunction. [Supposition-->] They may (it is within their authority) appoint a Special Master to oversee the whole process of allowing gun ranges. That would strip Judge Kendall of any remaining authority in this case (and that is a Judicial back-hand).

Regardless, onerous zoning issues will be off the table. Precedent will be set that will affect several other cases. If it happens fast enough, it could very well tip the Supreme Court in its decision to grant cert in Williams and/or Masciandaro.

Your fantasy is a Seventh Circuit smackdown. Mine is the highlighted portion of your last post. That would be the example to follow nationwide: play nice or we'll run your town for you.

Once the court starts managing the application of laws and reviewing legislation before it gets passed, we are looking at some potentially strong outcomes in other suits. I imagine some municipalities would cave rather than lose the ability to legislate (NYC, for one but probably not DC).

I honestly think this is where the outcomes are going in some of the states and cities. Maryland may roll over a little easier and avoid it, but other states are going to have issues. As will some cities.

If you want to really think about an interesting turn of events, imagine a Justice Department Civil Rights Division suing nationwide to protect the right. That makes it real hard for liberal circuit courts to get away with their games. Obama would never do it...but a guy like Perry might do it if he were President*.


* Not advocating his candidacy. I honestly know little about him other than the fact the gun prohibitionists absolutely fear him, apparently with good reason.

 

[press1280]

If the city's smart(which I doubt they are), they would simply defer to IL state law regarding ranges. That way they could hide behind the state if there are still problems.

 

[krucam]

Defendants claim Ezell is now 'Moot' because the originally challenged statute, has been remedied and no longer exists. They file a MTD on these terms on 7/29 (mere weeks after the Ezell CA7 ruling).

Plaintiff's argue against this on their Objection/opposition to MTD on 8/29.

Today, the Defendants chime back in, sticking to their original story:
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AS MOOT

They make immediate attempts to poke the hornets nest:

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum...in Opposition to Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss...is long on rhetoric but short on substance.

To the Defendant's credit, there is a revised statute in effect. It went into effect on 7/6/2011, the SAME DAY as the CA7 Ezell Ruling.

Plaintiffs need to attack the restrictions on this new statute as unsatisfactory, quickly...or they risk losing Ezell I and would then have to refile an Ezell II to clean up this mess.

Are Defendants playing games and "thumbing their noses" at the Circuit? You betcha. Might it work if we continue to play this by their rules?

This MTD could bite us. We'll see how the Judge sees it. It would be very entertaining to reappeal this to Circuit...

 

[Patrick]

Defendants claim Ezell is now 'Moot' because the originally challenged statute, has been remedied and no longer exists. They file a MTD on these terms on 7/29 (mere weeks after the Ezell CA7 ruling).

Plaintiff's argue against this on their Objection/opposition to MTD on 8/29.

Today, the Defendants chime back in, sticking to their original story:
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AS MOOT

They make immediate attempts to poke the hornets nest:


To the Defendant's credit, there is a revised statute in effect. It went into effect on 7/6/2011, the SAME DAY as the CA7 Ezell Ruling.

Plaintiffs need to attack the restrictions on this new statute as unsatisfactory, quickly...or they risk losing Ezell I and would then have to refile an Ezell II to clean up this mess.

Are Defendants playing games and "thumbing their noses" at the Circuit? You betcha. Might it work if we continue to play this by their rules?

This MTD could bite us. We'll see how the Judge sees it. It would be very entertaining to reappeal this to Circuit...

The original MTD will apply. The government can shuffle the deck as much as they like, but the federal courts will see past that. Maybe not the District Court, but the Circuit will. Nothing they are doing is new. It's all been tried time and time again, and each time they do it they make it easier to beat them. The concept of "unclean hands" is real in the federal courts. They will get to the point (if not there yet) that anything they say and do will be automatically assumed to be wrong.

Even today you cannot even move a voting booth in some states without getting approval under a decades-old consent decree.

 

[press1280]

From plaintiffs: "4-151-010, 4-151-030 – requiring a federal firearm license, a CFP, and a FOID
card for all managers, employees, and “applicants,” which according to 4-151-010
includes all persons who are “required to be disclosed pursuant to section 4-151-
030(b),”— meaning, individuals, partners of partnerships, LLC managers and/or
members, corporate officers and directors, and their attorneys, accountants,
consultants, expediters, promoters, and lobbyists."

No response from Chicago on this. And an IL FOID cannot be obtained by any non-IL resident, and if I'm not mistaken a CFP is only available to Chicago residents. So no one who has anything to do with the range whatsoever can live outside of Chicago.
In fact Chicago doesn't address any(except the 1000 foot rule) of Gura's contentions.