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This topic has been archived.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

#181 bob

    Member

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

Posted 27 October 2011 - 05:52 AM



Todays Wall Street Journal has an article showing installing a gun range increased sales traffic in adjoining shops. I guess Chicago's experts never thought of that angle.



Just about anything is better than a huge empty space next door.


Gosh bob, it almost sounds like you think gun ranges are bad.



Just an observation on retail. It is the same reason malls give their anchor tenants such sweetheart deals. They build traffic that the smaller stores feed off of. A big empty space is not real inviting and brings in nothing in the way of traffic. The mall up the street from me used to have an indoor paint ball range. I can't imagine it drew all that much traffic, but a lot better than a huge empty spot right in the middle of the mall.
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/

#182 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 27 October 2011 - 02:01 PM

More wait:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

this thing is going to be dragged out for almost another year?
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.

#183 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 27 October 2011 - 02:38 PM

this thing is going to be dragged out for almost another year?


Looks like it. Pretty sad, huh.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#184 snubjob

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 11

Posted 27 October 2011 - 03:19 PM

[quote name='GarandFan' date='27 October 2011 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1319747912' post='295767']
[quote name='Sigma' date='27 October 2011 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1319745713' post='295761']
this thing is going to be dragged out for almost another year?
[/quote]

Looks like it. Pretty sad, huh.
[/quot Real sad. Might as well get used to it.

#185 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 27 October 2011 - 04:00 PM

What I don't get is, where is the urgency to restore breeches - trampling of of our Bill of Rights? I mean it's like as long as the governement is the trampling party, it doesn't matter if it takes 10 years to correct the problem, but if I, the individual infringe on someones rights, that's a whole 'nother story which requires immediate 'correction'. Sucks.

#186 Mark C.

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 11

Posted 17 November 2011 - 09:56 AM

Before we go off into Discovery for the 2nd time, Plaintiffs were allowed to submit an Amended Complaint (which they did, on 10/15) and Defendants were given opportunity to respond to the Amended Complaint...which they now have.
http://www.archive.o...46475.132.0.pdf

Chicago continues there assertion that the case is now "moot" and they don't hide it in this response. I will need to take a look at all of the original and modified Chicago codes referenced to make sense of it all. Maybe this weekend I'll come up with a list of old/current/voided and see who's telling the truth whether the points of the Complaint are indeed Moot.

22. On July 6, 2011, Plaintiffs obtained a judicially-ordered change in the relationship among the parties to this litigation, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a preliminary injunction be issued against enforcement of the provisions initially challenged by this litigation. Plaintiffs are therefore, as of July 6, 2011, prevailing parties for purposes of 42 USC 1983.

Answer: Defendant admits that, on July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a preliminary injunction be issued against the enforcement of certain provisions of the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance initially challenged by this litigation, but deny that any such relief remains appropriate now that the gun range ban has been repealed.


SAF/Gura have obviously opted to provide Judge Kendall with some additional rope...
Mark C.
Pax River, MD