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challenged by this litigation, but deny that any such relief remains appropriate now that the gun range ban has been repealed.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...
Pax River, MD