185 replies to this topic

[bob]

mauserme, on 27 October 2011 - 05:46 AM, said:

bob, on 27 October 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

Yas, on 26 October 2011 - 10:19 AM, said:

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.

[Sigma]

ming, on 27 October 2011 - 05:07 AM, said:

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?

[GarandFan]

Sigma, on 27 October 2011 - 02:01 PM, said:

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

Looks like it.  Pretty sad, huh.

[snubjob]

[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.

[mrmagloo]

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.

[Mark C.]

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.

Quote

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...