Federal Farmer Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:29 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:29 PM Feldman didn't do well arguing McDonald, why do you suppose Chicago employed Fledman's services to argue this one? They knew, at least in McDonald, that they were going to lose so Feldman was hired to take the whipping for them. I suppose that means they feel he is good at taking a whipping for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezil Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:36 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 02:36 PM Feldman didn't do well arguing McDonald, why do you suppose Chicago employed Fledman's services to argue this one? They knew, at least in McDonald, that they were going to lose so Feldman was hired to take the whipping for them. I suppose that means they feel he is good at taking a whipping for them. In that case I hope to see more of him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nocaster Posted April 7, 2011 at 09:45 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 09:45 PM My only fear is that posner or eaterbrook grab a good decision and take it enbanc to try and muck it up My main fear is that they decide that the harm alleged is compensable with money damages (for travel) and therefore not irreparable, and therefore, not entitled to TRO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM My only fear is that posner or eaterbrook grab a good decision and take it enbanc to try and muck it up My main fear is that they decide that the harm alleged is compensable with money damages (for travel) and therefore not irreparable, and therefore, not entitled to TRO. Dont see it the judges stomped on the travel arguement and properly reframed the debate and issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nocaster Posted April 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM Share Posted April 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM My only fear is that posner or eaterbrook grab a good decision and take it enbanc to try and muck it up My main fear is that they decide that the harm alleged is compensable with money damages (for travel) and therefore not irreparable, and therefore, not entitled to TRO. Dont see it the judges stomped on the travel arguement and properly reframed the debate and issue I am just saying that the irreparable harm aspect seemed like one easy way for the justices to avoid deciding the issue. Feldman's attempts on that issue were feeble at best, though. I am keeping my fingers crossed. Even if the appeal fails, there is no way the city can succeed on the merits. First time I actually listened to Gura in action, and he is impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:32 AM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:32 AM Its funny because he finished this case and filed another the following day. does this guy ever get any rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted April 8, 2011 at 03:30 AM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 03:30 AM Its funny because he finished this case and filed another the following day. does this guy ever get any rest. He doesn't need any, apparently. I like this case a lot. I cannot believe Chicago will appeal their loss. I think they'll do weird stuff with their zoning laws, and abandon their ban on public ranges. Even on this narrow issue, I think it will take 10 years of litigation before normal public gun ranges operate in Chicago. I would very much like to shoot at the mobile gun range in Chicago, once we get permission for that in Chicago. All the best to the people working on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackTripper Posted April 8, 2011 at 01:03 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 01:03 PM Its funny because he finished this case and filed another the following day. does this guy ever get any rest. He doesn't need any, apparently. I like this case a lot. I cannot believe Chicago will appeal their loss. I think they'll do weird stuff with their zoning laws, and abandon their ban on public ranges. Even on this narrow issue, I think it will take 10 years of litigation before normal public gun ranges operate in Chicago. I would very much like to shoot at the mobile gun range in Chicago, once we get permission for that in Chicago. All the best to the people working on this. I live in Lakeview. If I don't time the traffic patterns just right, it can easily take me 90 minutes to get to the nearest range. And I am lucky enough to have a car. A large portion of Chicago residents don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezil Posted April 8, 2011 at 01:18 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 01:18 PM Its funny because he finished this case and filed another the following day. does this guy ever get any rest. He doesn't need any, apparently. I like this case a lot. I cannot believe Chicago will appeal their loss. I think they'll do weird stuff with their zoning laws, and abandon their ban on public ranges. Even on this narrow issue, I think it will take 10 years of litigation before normal public gun ranges operate in Chicago. I would very much like to shoot at the mobile gun range in Chicago, once we get permission for that in Chicago. All the best to the people working on this. I live in Lakeview. If I don't time the traffic patterns just right, it can easily take me 90 minutes to get to the nearest range. And I am lucky enough to have a car. A large portion of Chicago residents don't. I live in lakeview too, and we both have cars... Imagine how long it would take you to take public transportation to the nearest range? wait a minute? can you transport firearms aboard cta/rta? Even though "transportation" was not an issue the court felt required defining, but one must conclude transportation METHODS could make for a compelling argument..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted April 8, 2011 at 01:26 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 01:26 PM wait a minute? can you transport firearms aboard cta/rta? Even though "transportation" was not an issue the court felt required defining, but one must conclude transportation METHODS could make for a compelling argument.....since chicagoans cant own a gun until they complete the training transporting a firearm on public transportation is moot regarding the training requirement since i dont live in chicago im not familiar with all the complexities of their licensing, is re-qualification necessary to renew the CFP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackTripper Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:00 PM Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 02:00 PM is re-qualification necessary to renew the CFP?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 10, 2011 at 02:39 PM Share Posted April 10, 2011 at 02:39 PM Anyone have any idea when the ruling will come out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted July 2, 2011 at 04:43 PM Share Posted July 2, 2011 at 04:43 PM My link Mayor Rahm Emanuel will introduce an ordinance next week to allow gun ranges to operate in Chicago. To obtain a gun permit in Chicago, residents must now travel to a suburban gun range to complete a mandated firearms training course. The city is currently facing a federal lawsuit saying the city’s ban of gun ranges in the city has created a burden for those seeking a Chicago gun permit. The new ordinance should address the concerns raised in the lawsuit, officials say. The proposed ordinance limits gun ranges to areas zoned for manufacturing. Outdoor ranges would be banned. Anyone opening a gun range would have to obtain a gun permit from the city and obtain approval from the Chicago Police Department for a safety plan.... So when one of Rezko's friends buys an abandoned factory near one of our gun ranges to convert into $900,000 $450,000 studio condos, we ain't moving the range! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted July 2, 2011 at 07:00 PM Share Posted July 2, 2011 at 07:00 PM Our friends in the NRA tell us of one plan to have the city turn over one or more vacant schools for a "gun education" center and indoor range. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 2, 2011 at 09:49 PM Share Posted July 2, 2011 at 09:49 PM that was to settle lawyers fees for winnng at SCOTUS..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted July 2, 2011 at 10:32 PM Share Posted July 2, 2011 at 10:32 PM That would be totally awesome. I have identified a property that might suit the needs of our citizens, and is located centrally.My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted July 2, 2011 at 11:08 PM Share Posted July 2, 2011 at 11:08 PM Imagine how long it would take you to take public transportation to the nearest range? wait a minute? can you transport firearms aboard cta/rta? Even though "transportation" was not an issue the court felt required defining, but one must conclude transportation METHODS could make for a compelling argument..... I think you may well be screwed on the trains as they certainly fall under the current IL law on places guns are banned without written permission. I did some digging and found that the CTA has an ordinance on this specifically banning firearms but exempting security while traveling to and from work. It appears the ordinance only covers the trains and not buses, but I did not look real close. http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/ordinances/Ordinance_006-75.pdf See section 2.15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.