185 replies to this topic

[Molly B.]

GarandFan, on 07 July 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

You know, given how quickly the Tribune and Suntimes picked up on Rahm's new ordinance, their silence on this circuit court ruling is deafening!  Chicago just got their butt kicked ... you'd think that would be hot news in Chicago.

Wouldn't you though?!! Not a peep, hardly.

[ishmo]

[quote name='Molly B.' date='07 July 2011 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1310055919' post='281137']
[quote name='GarandFan' date='07 July 2011 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1310055685' post='281134']
You know, given how quickly the Tribune and Suntimes picked up on Rahm's new ordinance, their silence on this circuit court ruling is deafening! Chicago just got their butt kicked ... you'd think that would be hot news in Chicago.
[/quote]
Wouldn't you though?!! Not a peep, hardly.
[/quote]
I sent the email below to most of the Chicago media outlets yesterday and got the response below, so far ABC is the only one. Hopefully they'll give it some coverage.

[quote]To: WLS-TV News

Subject: Chicago Gun Range Ordinance

Comments: In the interest of fairness regarding the new gun range ordinance the city passed you might want to have someone read today's ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Ezell vChicago, against the city and report it so the people of Chicago know what's really going on and where their money is going.
[url="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9C0NWF4M.pdf"]http://www.ca7.uscou...mp/9C0NWF4M.pdf[/url][/quote]

[quote]fromWLS-TV News WLS-TV.News@abc.com
to
dateThu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:26 AMsubject

RE: Chicago Gun Range Ordinancemailed-byabc.com

I've passed this along to our planning department. Thanks for watching!

Donetta Thomas
BUSINESS MANAGER
WLS-TV NEWS [/quote]

[SAF]

Tvandermyde, on 06 July 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

I did an interview with WBEZ this afternoon. At the end I was asked about this being an NRA suit. I told them it was not, that it was brought by SAF, ISRA and Alan Gura and they should be commended for their win today.

Many know that I have my disagreements and differences with SAF and Gura. That should not detract from what they accomplished today. This is not just about gun ranges. The 7th Cir court of appeals stepped out of the shadows of the Supreme Court and started a new path for the 2A.

When a judge writes:

"ROVNER, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court. The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits. That residents may travel outside the jurisdiction to fulfill the training requirement is irrelevant to the validity of the ordinance inside the City. In this I agree with the majority: given the framework of Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald, the City may not condition gun ownership for self‐defense in the home on a prerequisite that the City renders impossible to fulfill within the City limits. The plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of that claim and the district court should have granted an injunction against the operation of the ordinance to the extent that it imposed an impossible pre‐condition on gun ownership for self‐defense in the home. There are two obvious ways for the City to remedy this problem: it may either drop the requirement for one hour of live range training or it may permit live‐range training within the City limits. "

You take notice. The city has been told, you repsect what the Court said or else you do so at your own peril.

there are issues of standing, the core right, outisde the home, and such that this opinion adresses. The anti-gunners should be cleaning their drawers out after this. The opinion is 59 pages plus 25 of the new ordinance which I do not believe will stand the Ezell standard.

this has implications on RTC and more. It is a good day and Alan Gura and SAF And ISRA deserve the chance to take a bow for what they achieved today. The war is not over, but we just scaled the walls of Normandy with this decision.

Todd, thank you for the kind words.

[mauserme]

Congratulations to everyone behnd that SAF logo, and thank you for your efforts.

[howie]

Just read the decision, and I gotta say, I haven't had that much fun since I read "McDonald", and "Heller" before that.   Congratulations to all involved!

[GarandFan]

Well, I am still tickled pink that one of the judges called Chicago's ordinance "too clever by half."  What a smack in the face of Daley and most of his council!

Too clever by half is a British idiom ... it has many meanings, but among them are:

To be "too clever by half" means that you are overly-confident in your own intelligence to the point of arrogance and annoyance.  It also means that you did something you think was really smart, when it was in fact utterly foolish.  Anyway, it is certainly a smack-down on Chicago's post-McDonald scheming.

[sctman800]

GarandFan, on 09 July 2011 - 06:16 AM, said:

Well, I am still tickled pink that one of the judges called Chicago's ordinance "too clever by half."  What a smack in the face of Daley and most of his council!

Too clever by half is a British idiom ... it has many meanings, but among them are:

To be "too clever by half" means that you are overly-confident in your own intelligence to the point of arrogance and annoyance.  It also means that you did something you think was really smart, when it was in fact utterly foolish.  Anyway, it is certainly a smack-down on Chicago's post-McDonald scheming.

Thanks for the definition it fits vewry well.   Jim.

[Yas]

If following the thoughts on the the latest suits based on Ezell justifying right to carry, wouldn't ccw's from other states have standing to file here in illinois as their rights are impeded every time they travel thru illinois and have to stop and store their firearms in compliance with Ill's current requirements?

[colt-45]

Yas, on 09 July 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

If following the thoughts on the the latest suits based on Ezell justifying right to carry, wouldn't ccw's from other states have standing to file here in illinois as their rights are impeded every time they travel thru illinois and have to stop and store their firearms in compliance with Ill's current requirements?

O. that is a good ? a guy asked me that one day last week. i said yea they could. but he needed to talk to the nra first.

[ishmo]

Yas, on 09 July 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

If following the thoughts on the the latest suits based on Ezell justifying right to carry, wouldn't ccw's from other states have standing to file here in illinois as their rights are impeded every time they travel thru illinois and have to stop and store their firearms in compliance with Ill's current requirements?

That is an interesting thought Yas. Got anymore logs you want to throw on the fire they're roasting over?

[Yas]

Just wondering on which day next week we will see


Ohio CCW's v Illinois
Pa CCw's v illinois
Indiana CCW's v Illinois      Etc.


At the rate all the new filings have been submitted this week in Chicago.

If the pants are going to be scared the heck off of Madigan's  Rham, Richie.   The what the heck why not let other citizens file as their rights are being infringed every time they cross the states border. The more the merrier.


It might even hit the nightly news.


I can only imagine Daley's reaction to the events in the last 72 hours.  He must be livid.

[Danielm60660]

I thought it meant, "You're only half as smart as you think you are."
I guess that's pretty close too.

[Talonap]

Yas, on 09 July 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

Just wondering on which day next week we will see


Ohio CCW's v Illinois
Pa CCw's v illinois
Indiana CCW's v Illinois      Etc.


At the rate all the new filings have been submitted this week in Chicago.

If the pants are going to be scared the heck off of Madigan's  Rham, Richie.   The what the heck why not let other citizens file as their rights are being infringed every time they cross the states border. The more the merrier.


It might even hit the nightly news.


I can only imagine Daley's reaction to the events in the last 72 hours.  He must be livid.

I think they might have a problem with that just because each state can determine which other state's permits they will recognize. Without a national reciprocation, every state could sue every other state which does not accept their particular permit.

[abolt243]

Talonap, on 10 July 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

I think they might have a problem with that just because each state can determine which other state's permits they will recognize. Without a national reciprocation, every state could sue every other state which does not accept their particular permit.

True, but nearly every other state ( a few exceptions I know, also targets for future lawsuits) honor at least one other license that a person COULD obtain to carry in the desired state.  Illinois bans it completely, for everyone.

I'm thinking that a suit from a Non-resident that works/travels a lot in IL and is licensed in his/her home state might file a suit.  IN, MO, KY, IA residents living near the border.  After Nov 1, we can add WI.  

How about it Stu!??  Up for a plaintiff position??

AB

[bob]

There are enough lawsuits right now. One or more of them will likely eventually prove fruitful.

I don't see any utility in trying to claim that a non-residents inability to carry for self protection within the state is any worse than the residents' inability to carry. Why spend the money on the legal fees and muddy the waters? The courts are just not going to rule that any state has to provide for reciprocity WRT licensing. This has been litigated in the past and lost.  Think about business licenses such as doctors and plumbers. Just ain't gonna happen.

If the courts eventually force some kind of lawful carry in Illinois, it will apply to non-residents as well. Presuming we get some kind of LTC passed, it will almost certainly have some kind of reciprocity clause.

A better argument to litigate would seem to be with states that don't provide for a way for non-residents to carry such as CA or NY where there is no reciprocity and no issue to non-residents. And seeing as such litigation is already under way in CA, there seems no reason at present to bring it up elsewhere.

[Federal Farmer]

There is a case in Colorado involving non-residents.  See this thread.

[mauserme]

Tvandermyde, on 06 July 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

Just got off the phone with NRA lawyers. This has a lot of GOOD for us in other cases.

His words were, "Bloomberg's lawyers should be shi--ing bricks over this"

It would seem that the City got the decision leaked to them as some of their new ordinance tries to dance on the head of a pin to come within the ruling, but I do not beleive the new ordinance does this. There is much more trouble for the city ahead.

In a different town with admittedly different geography, it seems the city itself contemplated acting as an FFL to ward off additional suits.  The lone FFL can't find a location for his business because of their 300 foot ordinance:

http://www.washingto...k0sAI_blog.html

Quote

Charles W. Sykes Jr., the only person licensed to transfer handguns purchased in another state to the District (of Columbia), lost his lease earlier this year. Sykes has been searching for a new location, but has had difficulty finding a site that meets the city's zoning rules that require all gun-related businesses be at least 300 feet away from schools, libraries or certain other landmarks.

[mauserme]

I know the Ezell decision is about much more than locating a range in the city, but given the legal gymnastics DC is now engaging in, I wonder if Chicago's 1,000 foot ordinance could stand even without the depth the Appellate Court gave us.  

Again in regard to the near impossibility of complying with DC's 300 foot requirement:

http://www.nbcwashin...-125571718.html

Quote

On Wednesday, Mayor Vince Gray said that he wasn't comfortable having any D.C. government agency handling gun sales, but that he might allow them to lease space in government buildings. And Thursday night, the Zoning Commission was to take preliminary action on an emergency zoning change that would allow just that: Firearm sales within a "District law enforcement or licensing agency," which would mean police stations as well as 300 Indiana Avenue NW, where registrations are currently processed.

[Tvandermyde]

I have been speaking with lawyers at the capitol for varios "leaders" they agree with me on the impact of Ezell.

They are watching Shepard very closely.

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 19 July 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:

I have been speaking with lawyers at the capitol for varios "leaders" they agree with me on the impact of Ezell.

They are watching Shepard very closely.

So they're watching for the hand that's going to smack them down...sigh. It would be more appropriate for our 'leaders' to work towards a resolution to the problem, especially since the handwriting is on the wall.

I just hope those opposed to bringing carry to Illinois realize if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

[Howard Roark]

lol! Or win good prizes, like license-free constitutional carry, at least until the legiscreatures scramble to enact a licensing law.

[Sigma]

Howard Roark, on 19 July 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

lol! Or win good prizes, like license-free constitutional carry, at least until the legiscreatures scramble to enact a licensing law.

cant wait to see what that law would look like. think about how badly they dont want RTC, if they were forced to draft a bill what would it say?

[mauserme]

The City filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Case as Moot last Friday, 7/29/2011.  The motion states that the City repealed pertiinent sections of the offending ordinance and enacted an ordinance allowing ranges within the Chicago.  

No mention is made of the City's 7/28/2011 revision easing the new distance requirements, perhaps indicating a lack of confidence in their ordinance and their argument supporting it.

Attached Files

•  Ezell v Chicago Motion to Dismiss as Moot 7-29-2011.pdf   58.55K   60 downloads

[Molly B.]

I wonder if the court will deny the motion and take a position that the new ordinance is still onerous
and could still make it nearly impossible to have ranges inside the city.  I'm basing that on the 500 ft. required distance from "other public buildings" and not knowing what their definition of that term is.

[mauserme]

If I remember correctly the presence of police and other ranges in the city came up in testimony early on, and again in the Appelate Court's ruling.  The court questioned the safety issues raised by the City when their own expert testified that measures can be taken to mitigate those concerns (I'm paraphrasing here).

My hope is that the lower court will look at the proximity of those existing ranges to other buildings, commercial and residential, and continue that line of inquiry.

[masconfusion]

mauserme, on 01 August 2011 - 01:37 PM, said:

The City filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Case as Moot last Friday, 7/29/2011.  The motion states that the City repealed pertiinent sections of the offending ordinance and enacted an ordinance allowing ranges within the Chicago.  

No mention is made of the City's 7/28/2011 revision easing the new distance requirements, perhaps indicating a lack of confidence in their ordinance and their argument supporting it.

Me thinks it's not moot as many other questions the court had are not answeered fully by the new ordinance (at least the versions I saw)...

Quote

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. The plaintiffs have identified
several provisions of the Ordinance that implicate activities
integral to range training: CHI. MUN. CODE §§ 8‐20‐020
(prohibiting the possession of handguns outside the home),
8‐20‐030 (prohibiting the possession of long guns outside
the home or business), 8‐20‐080 (prohibiting the possession
of ammunition without a corresponding permit and registration
certificate), 8‐20‐100 (prohibiting the
transfer of firearms and ammunition except through
inheritance), 8‐24‐010 (prohibiting the discharge of
firearms except for self‐defense, defense of another, or
hunting). To the extent that these provisions prohibit
law‐abiding, responsible citizens from using a firing
range in the city, the preliminary injunction should
include them as well. Similarly, the injunction should
prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude
firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city.

not to mention the infringing level of the fees, etc. etc.

[soundguy]

Molly B., on 01 August 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

I wonder if the court will deny the motion and take a position that the new ordinance is still onerous
and could still make it nearly impossible to have ranges inside the city.  I'm basing that on the 500 ft. required distance from "other public buildings" and not knowing what their definition of that term is.

If the DC ordinance with a 300' required distance is onerous, I would hope 500' is as well.

[bob]

masconfusion, on 01 August 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

not to mention the infringing level of the fees, etc. etc.

I think the fee issue is a much tougher thing to litigate, being as every other business in Chicago pays onerous fees to do business.

[mauserme]

Ah, but very few of them deal in goods and services related to enumerated, fundamental rights.

[bob]

mauserme, on 01 August 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

Ah, but very few of them deal in goods and services related to enumerated, fundamental rights.

Book stores come to mind. they are not exempted from business taxes and fees. I do not see the fee side going anywhere as long as the fees are not out of line with other business fees.