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This topic has been archived.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

#61 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,702 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:26 PM

I listened to the audio and cant see how chicago thought they would win. The judge asked their lawyer how can you have a straight face. they asked gura, what do you want the injunction to say?
Its hard to believe but I think after so many law suits this city will have to comply or this court will get tired of their foolishness
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#62 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:31 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

IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?

#63 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:41 PM

From a concealed carry perspective and in relation to the two pending Federal cases against Madigan and Quinn, the most important thing to take away from the case is the following rule:

"Labels aside, we can distill this First Amendment doctrine
and extrapolate a few general principles to the Second
Amendment context. First, a severe burden on the core
Second Amendment right of armed self‐defense will require
an extremely strong public‐interest justification and a close
fit between the government’s means and its end.
Second,
laws restricting activity lying closer to the margins of the
Second Amendment right, laws that merely regulate rather
than restrict, and modest burdens on the right may be more
easily justified. How much more easily depends on the
relative severity of the burden and its proximity to the core
of the right."

Clearly an outright ban on carrying of weapons for self defense implicates the "core" of the second amendment and the prohibition on the carrying of weapons in the entire state is not a "close fit" between the government's means and ends. If I were a legislator I would be scrambling to pass HB 148 before a federal judge strikes down Illinios' ban on concealed carry outright.

Attached Files


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.

#64 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:41 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

IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?


First, please take off your CAPS LOCK.

Second, please read through the decision. There is a lot of stuff in there. But what the court specifically did was to reverse the decision of the district court (which upheld Chicago's ban on gun ranges) and remanded the case back to the lower court, telling them to issue a preliminary injunction consistent with the reasoning of this decision. It's the reasoning of the decision that can only be understood by reading it.

So basically, yes, the 7th circuit court said that Chicago's ban on gun ranges was unconstitutional and cannot stand.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#65 masconfusion

    Member

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

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:42 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

IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?


Almost... It's what the Appellate Court orders the District Court to tell Chicago to do... IMO The injunction instructions to the district court (pg 48/49 especially) are soooo broad they won't make the case moot even if Chicago thinks so. Effectively the court told the district court that ANYTHING that affects the ability to qualify to own a gun [listing a bunch of sections] is to be enjoined and is probably unconstitutional... I luv it. And as it is our district it is BINDING on Illinois!
Наша страна бежится социалистической свиньей.

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

#66 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 05:51 PM

[quote name='masconfusion' date='06 July 2011 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1309995772' post='281011']
[quote name='colt-45' date='06 July 2011 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1309995113' post='281006']
[quote name='GarandFan' date='06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1309994286' post='281002']
[quote name='lockman' date='06 July 2011 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1309990829' post='280992']
Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.
[/quote]

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal...elldecision.pdf
[/quote]
IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?
[/quote]

Almost... It's what the Appellate Court orders the District Court to tell Chicago to do... IMO The injunction instructions to the district court (pg 48/49 especially) are soooo broad they won't make the case moot even if Chicago thinks so. Effectively the court told the district court that ANYTHING that affects the ability to qualify to own a gun [listing a bunch of sections] is to be enjoined and is probably unconstitutional... I luv it. And as it is our district it is BINDING on Illinois!
[/quote]
thats what i need to know, thanks.

#67 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,085 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 06 July 2011 - 06:14 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


Got it now thanks!
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#68 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 06:16 PM

[quote name='GarandFan' date='06 July 2011 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1309995706' post='281010']
[quote name='colt-45' date='06 July 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1309995113' post='281006']
[quote name='GarandFan' date='06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1309994286' post='281002']
[quote name='lockman' date='06 July 2011 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1309990829' post='280992']
Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.
[/quote]

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal...elldecision.pdf
[/quote]
IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?
[/quote]

First, please take off your CAPS LOCK.

Second, please read through the decision. There is a lot of stuff in there. But what the court specifically did was to reverse the decision of the district court (which upheld Chicago's ban on gun ranges) and remanded the case back to the lower court, telling them to issue a preliminary injunction consistent with the reasoning of this decision. It's the reasoning of the decision that can only be understood by reading it.

So basically, yes, the 7th circuit court said that Chicago's ban on gun ranges was unconstitutional and cannot stand.
[/quote]it's broke,it works half the time.

#69 Don Moran

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 10

Posted 06 July 2011 - 07:43 PM

I only have one thing to say on this since it is still ongoing litigation... TaDa:)

#70 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 08:27 PM

I only have one thing to say on this since it is still ongoing litigation... TaDa:)


And that is probably enough for now ... :)

My congrats to the plaintiffs and supporters of this case, ISRA included. I am carefully reading through this decision and must say there is some serious gold in there that will affect far more than the mere fact that Chicago currently bans gun ranges.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#71 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,334 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 06 July 2011 - 08:29 PM

Exciting news for sure!

#72 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 06 July 2011 - 08:39 PM

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 liverange instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of liverange 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 selfdefense 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 precondition on gun ownership for selfdefense 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 liverange 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.




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.

#73 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,576 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 06 July 2011 - 08:41 PM

Our sincere thanks to Rhonda Ezell! She is a wonderfully brave woman to have taken on the city of Chicago!! And won!! Three cheers for Rhonda!!
"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

#74 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 06 July 2011 - 09:05 PM

I'm very proud of all that it is being accomplished here in Illinois!

#75 Bimmer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 06 July 2011 - 09:19 PM

I'm still speechless.
Many Thanks, Rhonda Ezell, & Congrats!!!
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

#76 papa

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,047 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 06 July 2011 - 09:25 PM

It has been a long time in coming but things are starting to move for us.

#77 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 06 July 2011 - 10:52 PM

Many thanks Rhonda Ezell, grate job to those at SAF And ISRA. It's a grate day for all 2mendment fighter's.

#78 johnyt101

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 07 July 2011 - 12:57 AM

This is great news! I do not mean to hijack this thread but on page 7 of the ruling in the footnotes it says there is an exemption for discharge of a firearm for game bird hunting in limited parts of the city.

Is anyone familiar with where these limited parts of the city are? I would have never of thought Chicago would still allow hunting within its city limits.

#79 Milhouse86

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 07 July 2011 - 01:20 AM

Wow GREAT WIN!! We just have to keep taking them out stone by stone. Cheers to everyone that worked so hard to get yet another win!\

:(
ATF took my guns and sold them to Mexican drug dealers.

#80 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,664 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 07 July 2011 - 01:54 AM

Josh Blackman has a very good point-by-point analysis up at his blog now:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7500

Well worth reading.


________________________________________________________________________________

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!

________________________________________________________________________________


#81 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 07 July 2011 - 05:44 AM

Does anyone think the city will appeal?

Daley's ego would have made him do it, but I doubt Rahm cares much about what Daley thinks.

I would bet there is a quick revision to the new ordinance on ranges.

I predict (at least eventually):

The business license fee stays.

The hours of operations restrictons go away.

The location issues get relaxed somewhat.

Ammo sales restrictions go away. Can't have functional firearms without ammo.

Since a shooting range is covered by the 2A, certainly a gun shop is. Time for someone to step up and request a business license to open up a gun store that the city can deny. More fodder to make Gura wealthy.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#82 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 9,246 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 07 July 2011 - 06:17 AM

Does anyone think the city will appeal?


I think Emanuel is facing one of the many defining moments that will greet the new mayor. We're about to find out if he is an anti-gun zealot or has simply been anti-gun enough to succeed in federal politics.
.
.
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

#83 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 07 July 2011 - 06:20 AM

Does anyone think the city will appeal?


I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#84 vstar

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 07 July 2011 - 06:38 AM

one more step toward restoring the right of every citizen of Illinois to self protection!

(some legislators should be ashamed of themselves)

#85 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 07 July 2011 - 07:06 AM

one more step toward restoring the right of every citizen of Illinois to self protection!

(some legislators should be ashamed of themselves)

+1

#86 ishmo

    Member

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

Posted 07 July 2011 - 07:06 AM


Does anyone think the city will appeal?


I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...

I don't think they will. They're already on record admitting that the ordinance was an attempt to preempt court intervention. I think they realize that even if they take that route that a favorable en banc outcome for them will be appealed to the SCOTUS. Jmho here but I don't think Emanuel has the stomach or the money for another fight there after the bill he got for the last trip. :(

#87 ming

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,689 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 09

Posted 07 July 2011 - 07:16 AM


Does anyone think the city will appeal?


I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...


I don't think they will but who knows. If asking for en banc review was being considered should the decision go against the city, I don't think they would have hurried to get in the new ordinance allowing ranges. In fact, passing the new ordinance could possibly now weaken their case. Part of their argument was that ranges were dangerous. Now they've in effect conceded that maybe they may not be quite as dangerous as we said earlier. If they were smart they would go back and bring the new ordinance into accordance with the recent decision and avoid future litigation. Of course the catch here may be the "if they were smart" part.

NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol and PPITH Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
ISRA Member
Registered Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor


#88 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 07 July 2011 - 07:25 AM



Does anyone think the city will appeal?


I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...

I don't think they will. They're already on record admitting that the ordinance was an attempt to preempt court intervention. I think they realize that even if they take that route that a favorable en banc outcome for them will be appealed to the SCOTUS. Jmho here but I don't think Emanuel has the stomach or the money for another fight there after the bill he got for the last trip. :(

Rham can also claim new guy on the job and pass the following of bad policy on the old administration. This gives him an out. If he's aspiring to bigger and better things in the future politically, taking the shortshanks school of 2nd amendment theory is not a very wise political move . Is he trying to remain mayor of Chitown for life.... then fight it tooth and nail , or does he want to move up the national political ladder? Then try to let it die and solve it quietly, thru more reasonable compromise.

How he plays this will say a lot about where Rahm thinks he's heading.

#89 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 07 July 2011 - 07:31 AM

How he plays this will say a lot about where Rahm thinks he's heading.


Certainly! I think that Rahm's and the city's response to this ruling will be quite telling. We will know in time.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#90 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,727 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 07 July 2011 - 10:21 AM

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