Jump to content


Photo

Ezell Decision


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
185 replies to this topic

#31 Thirdpower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:04 AM

Decision here Attached File  Ezell Ruling.pdf   381.05KB   59 downloads .

The ordinance admittedly was designed to make
gun ownership as difficult as possible. The City has legitimate,
indeed overwhelming, concerns about the prevalence
of gun violence within City limits. But the Supreme Court
has now spoken in Heller and McDonald on the Second
Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for selfdefense
and the City must come to terms with that reality.
Any regulation on firearms ownership must respect that
right.

Reading more, the court realized that the Ordinance was designed to prohibit firearm ownership and to 'thumb their nose' at the SCOTUS and the court responded in kind. W/ the new range requirements already voted on, realizing they were going to lose and for the same reason, this is just going to lead to another round of lawsuits against the city.

#32 xbaltzx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 08

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:21 AM

Decision here.

The ordinance admittedly was designed to make
gun ownership as difficult as possible. The City has legitimate,
indeed overwhelming, concerns about the prevalence
of gun violence within City limits. But the Supreme Court
has now spoken in Heller and McDonald on the Second
Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for selfdefense
and the City must come to terms with that reality.
Any regulation on firearms ownership must respect that
right.

Reading more, the court realized that the Ordinance was designed to prohibit firearm ownership and to 'thumb their nose' at the SCOTUS and the court responded in kind. W/ the new range requirements already voted on, realizing they were going to lose and for the same reason, this is just going to lead to another round of lawsuits against the city.



Without reading the complete decision, could the mobile range be brought into the city even though the city enacted a new ordinance disallowing the mobile range? Or like you said is there more lawsuits to come?

#33 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,711 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:22 AM

That last sentence is a money-shot. (...the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.)

Good deal. More to come, to be sure.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#34 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,711 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:27 AM

FANTASTIC!!


In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ ” Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76‐77 (1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939)). The
same principle applies here. It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free speech
or religious‐liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#35 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:33 AM

I may be misunderstanding, but it looks to me that it's not the end of the case, right? It appears this is simply granting an injunction against the city's ban until the matter is settled in court (a symbolic win, though in practice it's pretty silly since one could build a range during the injunction, then have the court decide the ban is OK, then have to tear it down).

We reverse. The court’s decision turned on several legal errors. To be fair, the standards for evaluating Second Amendment claims are just emerging, and this type of litigation is quite new. Still, the judge’s deci‐ sion reflects misunderstandings about the nature of the plaintiffs’ harm, the structure of this kind of constitutional claim, and the proper decision method for evaluating alleged infringements of Second Amendment rights. On the present record, the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the firing‐range ban. The harm to their Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages, their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.


A pretty awesome ruling though. There's quite a lot of smacking down the lower court, too :)

The lower court judge tried to say that because there's no post-Heller precedent, she didn't need to apply any level of scrutiny to restrictions on the second amendment. This court replies:

The Court resolved the Second Amendment challenge in Heller without specifying any doctrinal “test” for resolv‐ ing future claims.
For our purposes, however, we know that Heller’s refer‐ ence to “any standard of scrutiny” means any heightened standard of scrutiny; the Court specifically excluded rational‐basis review. Id. at 628‐29 & n.27 (“If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”); see also Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641 (“If a rational basis were enough [to justify a firearms law], the Second Amendment would not do anything . . . because a rational basis is essential for legisla‐ tion in general.”).


In other words - Regarding heightened scrutiny (i.e. the government has to PROVE to some degree (depending on the type of scrutiny) that their laws limiting the 2nd Amendment are necessary and in the public's interest) ... the argument that it's not needed is absolute garbage since allowing the government to willy-nilly create gun control laws without proving their need would effectively erase the second amendment.

Thank goodness this court used logic. It's a refreshing change.

It's also nice to see the ruling acknowledge that our right to self defense is a pre-existing natural right.

With little precedent to synthesize, Heller focused almost exclusively on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, consulting the text and relevant historical materials to determine how the Amendment was understood at the time of ratification. This inquiry led the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment secures a pre‐existing natural right to keep and bear arms; that the right is personal and not limited to militia service; and that the “central component of the right” is the right of armed self‐defense, most notably in the home.


ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#36 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:33 AM

There is a lot of good in that decision.

I suspect that this decision means the ball is back in the District Court to issue the injunction. I wonder if that court must now take the new ordinance into consideration.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#37 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,711 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:36 AM

That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#38 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:37 AM

This ruling lays it on heavily about the scrutiny needed when ruling on Constitutionally-protected rights (and that quote from the introduction, as GF pointed out, is golden: " the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.").

I wonder if this will help strengthen a fight against the Cook County semi-auto ban? This is a court ruling, in black and white, saying heightened scrutiny is required. In plain English. No weaseling about it.

I want to hear the Cook County board explain exactly what evidence they have that their semi-auto ban is necessary for public safety.

Edit: +1 to GF for simultaneously likening our dictators to weasels.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#39 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:43 AM

I'm trying to find a map someone once did, I think with respect to 1000 feet from schools, that showed how very few spots were available in urban areas. This would be further exacerbated by the other non-school zones created. It'd be great to have a google map/mashup that showed there was no place or very few in Chicago that would meet their requirements.

ETA: here is a map done for the GFSZ law.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#40 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,711 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:45 AM

Regarding scrutiny, I love the comparison of the 1st and 2nd amendments. This is profound.

This whole issue centers on Chicago's ban on firing ranges. OK. But that particular issue results directly from Chicago's live-fire/competency training requirement. This whole case could easily be turned into a challenge of the live-fire and training requirements. And remember these are requirements established to authorize mere possession of a gun in the home. Chicago could simply drop the training requirement. After all, it is hardly a longstanding requirement (initiated just last year)!

Literacy/intelligence/competency tests are unconstitutional as long as voting or speech whatever other rights are predicated upon them.

In many ways, a firing competency test for second amendment rights is homologous to a intelligence competency test to speech or voting rights. Who is to say how thoroughly one must comprehend political issues or candidate's stances before that citizen is allowed to vote for public officials?

No ... we don't test their competency as a prerequisite to their right to vote. So what the heck are we doing testing competency as a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms?
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#41 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 06 July 2011 - 11:48 AM

I wonder if this will help strengthen a fight against the Cook County semi-auto ban? This is a court ruling, in black and white, saying heightened scrutiny is required. In plain English. No weaseling about it.



When I read through the decision, I thought they used 'almost strict scrutiny' as the ban on ranges is close to the core of the right.
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#42 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 06 July 2011 - 12:48 PM

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.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#43 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 06 July 2011 - 12:52 PM

That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.

Actually GF Rahm took the ordinance to the Public Safety Committee yesterday and told them to pass it which they did. It was presented to the full City Council today and passed.

As to the insult to injury, I think Chicago will be the one suffering that. Since the last line of the ordinance says it will take effect 10 days after passage and publication I think an argument could be made that Chicago is liable for court costs since there is technically no ordinance in place.

It would be funny as he!! to me if Rahm and the City Council started financing the ISRA air strikes over Chicago :)

#44 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,701 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 06 July 2011 - 01:08 PM


That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.

Actually GF Rahm took the ordinance to the Public Safety Committee yesterday and told them to pass it which they did. It was presented to the full City Council today and passed.

As to the insult to injury, I think Chicago will be the one suffering that. Since the last line of the ordinance says it will take effect 10 days after passage and publication I think an argument could be made that Chicago is liable for court costs since there is technically no ordinance in place.

It would be funny as he!! to me if Rahm and the City Council started financing the ISRA air strikes over Chicago :tongue:


The biased media is reporting the passage of the new ordinance today with absolutely NO mention of the 7th Circuit decision. :)

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#45 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 01:12 PM


That this ruling came down today ... and that Chicago passed the gun range allowance yesterday ... really adds insult to the injury already done by Chicago.

These are incredibly petty little games they are playing here with undeniably fundamental constitutional rights. I truly hope that Illinois gun owners bring some serious backlash to bear against these weasels in the city office.

Actually GF Rahm took the ordinance to the Public Safety Committee yesterday and told them to pass it which they did. It was presented to the full City Council today and passed.

As to the insult to injury, I think Chicago will be the one suffering that. Since the last line of the ordinance says it will take effect 10 days after passage and publication I think an argument could be made that Chicago is liable for court costs since there is technically no ordinance in place.

It would be funny as he!! to me if Rahm and the City Council started financing the ISRA air strikes over Chicago :)

that would be nice for once. like

#46 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,765 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 06 July 2011 - 01:29 PM

I can't download the file, my window goes black and sits there.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#47 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,651 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 06 July 2011 - 01:54 PM

The decision is today's news, the ordinance is yesterday's. If you're looking at a newspaper, no surprise that they aren't as up to date as they should be.

Just from my quick browsing of the ordinance, I see some stumbling blocks:

1. Outdoor and mobile ranges totally prohibited--I thought Ezell had a plaintiff who wanted to bring in a mobile range? Am I wrong? I know the ISRA wanted to do that . . . I think.

2. Ranges not only limited to manufacturing zones, but within those zones, prohibited within 1000 feet of residential zones. The most popular indoor range in Springfield might have trouble meeting that standard, and it's located in an industrial park on the edge of town.

3. Ranges prohibited within 1000 feet of all the places already mentioned: schools, day-care facilities, libraries (no, really) and places of worship (I'm not making this up) retail liquor sellers (in the manufacturing zone, I guess?) and "children's activities facilities" (I looked that one up, it includes tumbling centers, dance schools, martial-arts schools, pools, climbing centers, arts and crafts places . . . anywhere kids do anything for fun or education that isn't a school or a day-care facility, basically.)

4. Ranges prohibited from allowing anyone under 18 to enter the facilities for any reason. Your 12-year-old can't sit at the ammo counter and have a coke while you shoot, even if she never touches a firearm or ammunition. Your ten-year-old can't even come in with you and use the bathroom if the family drops you off to go shooting. As for taking your kids shooting as a family activity . . . well, in Chicago, it isn't one.

5. Ranges prohibited from "providing" firearms to patrons other than for the 1-hour CFP training course. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like that could be read so that they certainly can't sell firearms on the premises (even though they need an FFL to run the range) nor could they rent them or even simply provide a firearm for someone taking an NRA safety course, for instance. Basically, you can't even touch a gun even in this commercial range setting unless you have a CFP for it or you're there with a friend who does, and forget about trying out different firearms, as is common in other places. It's not The Chicago Way.

6. Ranges required to use an approved (by Supt. McCarthy's office) safety plan that includes video surveillance inside and out, with all video surveillance archived for 30 days and "made available to members of the police department." This may be boilerplate, but it caught my eye. The words "court order" and "warrant" are conspicuously absent. It reads, to me, as if they're required to keep 30 days of their own surveillance and allow Chicago police officers to come in and view whatever they want at their discretion. I don't know whether other places have required anything like this, or if other businesses have similar licensing requirements, but it jumps right out at me.


________________________________________________________________________________

Illinois Gun Owners' Lobbying Day

March 5, 2014

Be there or everyone will see that you have four equal sides and four 90-degree angles!

________________________________________________________________________________


#48 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,488 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 06 July 2011 - 01:57 PM

Lively discussion at capitolfax.com

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
Utah Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Have all boated who fish? Have all boated who fish?


#49 ming

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,574 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 09

Posted 06 July 2011 - 01:57 PM

The court's decision is a nice read. Chicago gets a well deserved spanking. May there be many more! :)
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
ISRA Member
Registered Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor

#50 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,852 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 06 July 2011 - 02:16 PM

I'm only half way throught the deciison and a questions comes to mind.

Is this the first case in which the judge not only lives within the spirit of Heller and McDonald, but also builds upon them rather than trying to find a way to ignore them?
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#51 Beezil

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,264 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 08

Posted 06 July 2011 - 02:17 PM

So, basically....

we'd have to figure out which parts of the city have the largest concentration of sex offenders in order to predict the possible locations for ranges......

#52 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,410 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 06 July 2011 - 02:52 PM

Good news!

Certified NRA Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor

NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 

NRA-Certified Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor


#53 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,526 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 06 July 2011 - 03:42 PM

Nit picking but.... at what time did the courts ruling get announced ? and at what time did the council pass its new ordinance? Does Rahm have to sign ordinance for it to become effective like Gov has to sign bills? Chicago's still playing games but does Gura have some room to play back against this last minute council effort?

#54 SAF

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 04:04 PM

Thanks everyone for your support on this!

For anyone having trouble with the download, here is another link to it: http://saf.org/defau...hicago2-lawsuit

#55 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,765 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 06 July 2011 - 04:20 PM

Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#56 SAF

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 04:29 PM

Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.


Send an email to facebook@saf.org and we'll email you a pdf copy.

#57 masconfusion

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 94 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 04:54 PM

OMG! OMG! on page 48/49 of the decision the court states:

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.


It sounds like they basically said that the WHOLE ordinance is unconstitutional and they should be enjoined from enforcing ANY of it!!

nice.
Наша страна бежится социалистической свиньей.

Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/MASconfusion

#58 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:01 PM

The Court also addresses other restrictions in the ordinance:
Last paragraph of pg. 49/top of pg. 50

Finally, because range training is required for the issuance
of a Chicago Firearm Permit, a registration certificate, and
ultimately, for lawful possession of any firearm, see CHI.
MUN. CODE §§ 8‐20‐110(a), 8‐20‐140(a)‐[B], the firing‐range
ban implicates not only the right to train at a range but also
the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for
self‐defense. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should
include sections 8‐20‐110(a) and 8‐20‐140(a) to the extent
that those provisions operate to prohibit otherwise eligible
persons from “carry[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm” at a
range without a Permit or registration certificate while they
are trying to complete the range‐training prerequisite for
lawful firearm possession.

Those are the bounds of the proposed preliminary
injunction, which should be entered upon remand.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#59 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:04 PM

OMG! OMG! on page 48/49 of the decision the court states:

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.


It sounds like they basically said that the WHOLE ordinance is unconstitutional and they should be enjoined from enforcing ANY of it!!

nice.

OMG, NICE ONE.BRING ON THE GUN SHOPS, GUN RANGES

#60 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,711 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM

Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.


Try this:

http://saf.org/legal...elldecision.pdf
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872