55 replies to this topic

[TTIN]

JackTripper, on 28 September 2010 - 03:06 PM, said:

Beezil, on 28 September 2010 - 02:05 PM, said:

btw....


this aspect within the absurd unconstitutional ordinace is being challeged in benson vs. chicago.

can't wait.

Thanks!
This is what my original question actually was. It is the main piece of the ordinance that makes it difficult for me to comply (as a practical matter).
Well that and the 12 round limit
I just hate to throw away 3 perfectly good 17 rounders, that come in the box.

I will go lookup that case name, now.

Don't throw them away.....I'll take 'em.

[drdoom]

Perhaps they mean this?

[Molly B.]

Update: Case moves forward.

[Davey]

Good news so far.

[RANDY]

Something I just saw over at MDshooters.com.

On 12/18, the Judge allowed both sides the opportunity to express their views over the recent Moore/Sheppard decision at CA7, asking them to frame the response with the assumption en banc would not be granted with Moore: #205:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.205.0.pdf

On 1/4/13 the Plaintiffs responded with #206:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.206.0.pdf

and the City of Chicago with #207:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.207.0.pdf

[Federal Farmer]

Thanks for the links!

So....a pragmatic justification!   Ah....

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[GWBH]

Federal Farmer, on 14 January 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Thanks for the links!

So....a pragmatic justification!   Ah....

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

uhhhhh - conceptual relativity???  I say - theory! (Maybe not! I'm so confused these days!)

Sorry...rambling again...

[Blade13]

"Moore reaffirms that even if carrying outside the home is protected under the Second
Amendment, a complete ban can be justified and upheld."

What? Where do they come up with this trash?

"Chicago’s restriction is a pragmatic
response to the unique characteristics of violent crime in this city"

Anyone else tired of hearing about how unique Chicago is?

[Sigma]

assumption en banc would not be granted with Moore
wow  maybe this judge know something

[RonOglesby]

This whole rambling response reads like "we are not the rest of illinois suburban dwellers and we are different!" Also "you dont understand that we have gangs! and we have to be able to arrest anyone with a gun!!!"

This was great:
"Chicago has shown that preemptive stop and frisk is most effective when no form of carrying is allowed, and that aggressive enforcement of restrictive carry laws drives down firearms activity in urban streets. "

Yeah, we like to frisk and take weapons and make arrests. If you say they can have a gun outside their house they may be LAW ABIDING!!! we cant have that. We must have a crime to arrest them for!

[Lou]

Briefs like that is why Chicago keeps losing in the federal courts.

[JackTripper]

@Lou - That was f***ing golden.

[Howard Roark]

lolololololol
lolololololol
lolololololol

Quote

ARGUMENT
Moore reaffirms that even if carrying outside the home is protected under the Second
Amendment, a complete ban can be justified and upheld.

That lawyer doesn't understand that when you have a losing hand, just shout a little louder !  And that quote was from the defendants first sentence, lolol.

Edited by Howard Roark, 15 January 2013 - 12:07 AM.

[C0untZer0]

A downside to political corruption is that city government doesn't get competent people to provide services to the public.  Taxpayer money is used to expand city bureaucracy so that the politicians can hand out patronage jobs.

The upside for us is that their lawyers are incompetent boobs.

[TFC]

For the first time in a long time, I'm speechless.
No wonder they don't prosecute career criminals. They'd lose every case using their logic.

[lockman]

This just shows that even the legal minds representing the city are totally out of touch with reality. Their powers of observation and reasoning are non-existent.  They are living in a cartoon world created by their employers warped ideals.

[colt-45]

that city thinks they still live in the 1950s.

[Federal Farmer]

Sigma, on 14 January 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

assumption en banc would not be granted with Moore
wow  maybe this judge know something

The judge probably did that because assuming it forces the lawyers to argue it as if it were precedent.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[DoktorPaimon]

lockman, on 15 January 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

This just shows that even the legal minds representing the city are totally out of touch with reality. Their powers of observation and reasoning are non-existent.  They are living in a cartoon world created by their employers warped ideals.

I dunno. I grew up in Chicago and my dad worked in a non-patronage city job for about 30 years. One of the things he constantly said was that the city was ruled by Egos as much as corruption. Sometimes you'd be told to do something you knew wouldn't work but when arguing means losing your job you just go through the motions to placate whatever despot with a crooked nose thought it was a good idea. Its very possible that whoever wrote this brief knew it was garbage but did his job anyway because they know that this isn't really about guns, or even the law, but about soothing Rahm's ego and giving him the ability to say "we did wall we could but those evil downstaters/republicans/freemasons/big-firearms-lobbyists conspired against us" to the other little men in search of balconies whose egos simply cannot tolerate the word "no."

[Federal Farmer]

Lou, on 14 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Briefs like that is why Chicago keeps losing in the federal courts.

They got caught wearing their underoos.

[firepiper]

RonOglesby, on 14 January 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

This whole rambling response reads like "we are not the rest of illinois suburban dwellers and we are different!" Also "you dont understand that we have gangs! and we have to be able to arrest anyone with a gun!!!"

This was great:
"Chicago has shown that preemptive stop and frisk is most effective when no form of carrying is allowed, and that aggressive enforcement of restrictive carry laws drives down firearms activity in urban streets. "

Yeah, we like to frisk and take weapons and make arrests. If you say they can have a gun outside their house they may be LAW ABIDING!!! we cant have that. We must have a crime to arrest them for!

If my memory serves me correctly there was just a ruling as to the constitutionality of stop & frisk as related to NYPD.........yep....first article in SCC link below.....

http://secondcitycop...ch?q=stop frisk

http://www.nytimes.c...ronx.html?_r=2

Edited by firepiper, 15 January 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[bob]

lockman, on 15 January 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

This just shows that even the legal minds representing the city are totally out of touch with reality. Their powers of observation and reasoning are non-existent.  They are living in a cartoon world created by their employers warped ideals.

The guys running the legal show on the other side are quite competent. They have a very tough case to make and are doing the best they can with what they have. You have to play the hand you are dealt and they have been dealt a poor one to date.

[Indigo]

If you read between the lines of the city's brief, their justification is racially-based.  While not explicitly so, it says "we can't trust our minorities with guns on the front porch.  Their gangbanger friends and relatives are just too difficult to deal with, and our cops are too inept to tell the difference between gun carrying gangbangers and  ordinary citizens with guns."  Just like Richard J. Daley and Richard M. Daley, this is driven by fear of the denizens of the ghettos the first created and the second perpetuated.

[lockman]

One over-riding theme present in Chicago's response is " As Chicago has demonstrated", "Chicago has abundantly justified", "Chicago has already demonstrated", "Chicago has shown", and "Chicago has previously established". Where are the cites? what has Chicago demonstrated beyond the claim they have already demonstrated something?

The few cites the reference with the above prefaces are meaningless in that context or already argued and dismissed by the 7th!

:slap:

[lockman]

Indigo, on 15 January 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

If you read between the lines of the city's brief, their justification is racially-based.  While not explicitly so, it says "we can't trust our minorities with guns on the front porch.  Their gangbanger friends and relatives are just too difficult to deal with, and our cops are too inept to tell the difference between gun carrying gangbangers and  ordinary citizens with guns."  Just like Richard J. Daley and Richard M. Daley, this is driven by fear of the denizens of the ghettos the first created and the second perpetuated.

Yes, and a gangbanger openly carrying on his porch is so dangerous but twenty bangers concealing fifty guns on the same porch is so much more in tune with the public safety!

Chicago, Chicago it's my kind of town. NOT.

[GWBH]

Federal Farmer, on 15 January 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Lou, on 14 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Briefs like that is why Chicago keeps losing in the federal courts.

They got caught wearing their underoos.

David - they need a new "proof reader"...