42 replies to this topic

[THE KING]

EnjoyLife, on 07 July 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

Drylok, on 07 July 2010 - 08:14 AM, said:

If this stuff is still being fought in court when our RTC law comes into affect Jan 1 of 2012, how will Chicago residents be able to carry if they haven't even got the "keep" part settled yet?

Did I miss something?  What RTC law is going into affect Jan 1, 2012?

No you didn't miss anything.  Drylok is being overly optimistic on a RTC law.

With this lawsuit as I read it, the courts could find that to "Keep and Bear" arms would not be just in someone's home. It could include public property. On the flip side, the legislators down state, (with Todd's help) might just realize how wrong they have been all of these years by infringing on our RTC.

If the latter of the two happens, then Drylok could be correct if Springfield finally passes a RTC law as they should and finally acknowledge the Constitution as they should.

[Drylok]

EnjoyLife, on 07 July 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

Drylok, on 07 July 2010 - 08:14 AM, said:

If this stuff is still being fought in court when our RTC law comes into affect Jan 1 of 2012, how will Chicago residents be able to carry if they haven't even got the "keep" part settled yet?

Did I miss something?  What RTC law is going into affect Jan 1, 2012?

The one that we're going to pass next spring and governor Brady is going to sign

[THE KING]

Drylok, on 07 July 2010 - 09:37 AM, said:

EnjoyLife, on 07 July 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

Drylok, on 07 July 2010 - 08:14 AM, said:

If this stuff is still being fought in court when our RTC law comes into affect Jan 1 of 2012, how will Chicago residents be able to carry if they haven't even got the "keep" part settled yet?

Did I miss something?  What RTC law is going into affect Jan 1, 2012?

The one that we're going to pass next spring and governor Brady is going to sign

I DO HOPE YOUR RIGHT !!

[Drylok]

I am We are

[1957Human]

Federal Farmer, on 06 July 2010 - 08:26 PM, said:

I guess I am used to the more artfully crafted lawsuit such as Heller and McDonald were.

I find the choice of plaintiffs in some of the complaints to be odd:
Brett Benson, lives in Chicago and owns a farm 2 hours out of the city.  Wants to carry his handgun between his home and his farm.  Wants to buy a gun and train in Chicago.  Huh?  Seems like he gets out of town enough why can't he shop outside the city (pay less taxes) and train there too.

I'd think you'd want a Chicagoan without out-of-city residence and even better without a car.

I've seen a multi-billion dollar class action lost because the lawyers used a single plaintiff who was later found not to have standing. But this guy is OK, and there are several other plaintiffs so that the bases are covered if any one named plaintiff falls away.

Without a car is a good point. Or perhaps a guy with a car would be even one better... a guy with a car as his home, that is!

Seriously, I would have added a homeless plaintiff to really give the ol' Second Amendment Tree of Freedom a good shaking. The ordinance says no to possession on one's porch? or garage? That's just curtilage stuff, easily dispensed with. Take one measure of a "presumption of  intent"; divide by two parts statutory interpretation; and viola, the ordinance can be "read" properly to include curtilage.  But a man or woman living in a card board box has Second Amendment rights too, which the ordinance absolutely denies. When is their day in court coming? I'd have added him or her now. Who's a more sympathic plaintiff than a young woman  living on the mean streets with no ability to defend her virtues from being overpowered? All citizens have the right to self-defense, not just the homeful.

(And, again, I'd like to thank Buzzard for the suggestion on the rights of the homeless.)

[w00dc4ip]

Seems to have hit the MSM, just saw reports on WGN and ABC, also heard about it on 560AM and 780AM while driving today.

[GarandFan]

w00dc4ip, on 07 July 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

Seems to have hit the MSM, just saw reports on WGN and ABC, also heard about it on 560AM and 780AM while driving today.

If anyone gets word of Daley's reaction, please post here.  All I have seen so far is "Chicago's Corporation Counsel Mara Georges defended the ordinance, saying it was a reasonable balance between second amendment rights and public safety."

I LOVE it when they talk like that ... because the Justices emphatically rejected an "interest-balancing" approach to scrutiny.

Frankly, I just think that Chicago is clueless.  They aren't listening to the right people.

[Buzzard]

1957Human, on 07 July 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 06 July 2010 - 08:26 PM, said:

I guess I am used to the more artfully crafted lawsuit such as Heller and McDonald were.

I find the choice of plaintiffs in some of the complaints to be odd:
Brett Benson, lives in Chicago and owns a farm 2 hours out of the city.  Wants to carry his handgun between his home and his farm.  Wants to buy a gun and train in Chicago.  Huh?  Seems like he gets out of town enough why can't he shop outside the city (pay less taxes) and train there too.

I'd think you'd want a Chicagoan without out-of-city residence and even better without a car.

I've seen a multi-billion dollar class action lost because the lawyers used a single plaintiff who was later found not to have standing. But this guy is OK, and there are several other plaintiffs so that the bases are covered if any one named plaintiff falls away.

Without a car is a good point. Or perhaps a guy with a car would be even one better... a guy with a car as his home, that is!

Seriously, I would have added a homeless plaintiff to really give the ol' Second Amendment Tree of Freedom a good shaking. The ordinance says no to possession on one's porch? or garage? That's just curtilage stuff, easily dispensed with. Take one measure of a "presumption of  intent"; divide by two parts statutory interpretation; and viola, the ordinance can be "read" properly to include curtilage.  But a man or woman living in a card board box has Second Amendment rights too, which the ordinance absolutely denies. When is their day in court coming? I'd have added him or her now. Who's a more sympathic plaintiff than a young woman  living on the mean streets with no ability to defend her virtues from being overpowered? All citizens have the right to self-defense, not just the homeful.

(And, again, I'd like to thank Buzzard for the suggestion on the rights of the homeless.)

You're quite welcome, sir! And I am compelled to ask the question, Is it too late to add a homeless citizen as a plaintiff?
As you suggest, a homeless family or female would be perfect plaintiffs!

[GarandFan]

They might make good plaintiffs, but the suit has been filed already, and that with little help from armchair litigators!

Charles Cooper is one of the top civil litigators in the nation.  I suspect he's got things covered.

[wazzle]

http://www.thesouthe...1cc4c002e0.html




BY BECKY MALKOVICH, The Southern | Posted: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:21 pm | No Comments Posted



A Carbondale-based firearm retailers group is one of the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in response to a new gun control ordinance in the city of Chicago.

The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers is one of five plaintiffs - the other four are Chicago residents - in the lawsuit that asks the ordinance be declared null and void because it infringes upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"We joined the lawsuit because of the new ordinance passed by the city of Chicago that prohibits the establishment of firearm retailers in the city of Chicago," said Whitney O'Daniel, executive director of IAFR, an organization representing firearm retailers statewide.

The ordinance was passed last week, just days after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made the city's ban on handguns unenforceable.

Among other things, the new ordinance prohibits firearm retailers from setting up shop in Chicago.

O'Daniel said the city is overstepping it bounds by preventing the establishment of such shops since firearm retailers are licensed by the ATF, a federal agency.

Also, by not allowing such shops in the city, residents are forced to travel to make firearm purchases, he said, which could be a burden for some.

"The city just picked out a federally legal product and made it a part of this lawsuit. That is not right," he said.

"We support the other four plaintiffs as well as the whole mission of the case," he said. "We want people to be able to have firearms for self-defense or sporting purposes."

[1957Human]

GarandFan, on 07 July 2010 - 07:21 PM, said:

They might make good plaintiffs, but the suit has been filed already, and that with little help from armchair litigators!

What's an "armchair litigator"?  And how do you know Mr. Cooper didn't have help from one?

And by the way, plaintiffs can be added to an already filed suit.

[Buzzard]

1957Human, on 07 July 2010 - 07:55 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 07 July 2010 - 07:21 PM, said:

They might make good plaintiffs, but the suit has been filed already, and that with little help from armchair litigators!

What's an "armchair litigator"?  And how do you know Mr. Cooper didn't have help from one?

And by the way, plaintiffs can be added to an already filed suit.

In this instance, I suspect WE are the "armchair litigators", Fifty Seven. And I believe a homeless plaintiff is a perfect plaintiff. Why must we take the mumbly-peg approach when these cases can take years? A homeless person COULD have brought us Constitutional carry. Unless - the thinking is that such a bold move may have been more than even the conservative justices are ready to deliver in a decision. I suspect that's what is afoot here. Baby-steps. Unfortunately, some of us are more advanced in years than others. And also suffer from patience deficiency.

[Tvandermyde]

Drylock, we'll take care of that in the draft.