185 replies to this topic

[mauserme]

It would be interesting to know the fee schedule for something like a news stand - ie a place that sells nothing other than printed material.  Even then, the fees may be high because they haven't been challenged.

[gangrel]

mauserme, on 01 August 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

Ah, but very few of them deal in goods and services related to enumerated, fundamental rights.

Who would have thought the First Amendment wasn't enumerated and fundamental...interesting...

[mauserme]

I did avoid saying that none involved enumerated, fundamental rights for a reason ...

[gangrel]

mauserme, on 02 August 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

I did avoid saying that none involved enumerated, fundamental rights for a reason ...

Our disagreement is that I would argue the vast majority of them deal in products related to enumerated, fundamental rights.

How many businesses can you think of peddle in products or services that are not covered by freedom of speach or freedom of expression?

[mauserme]

Maybe our disagreement, if we have to have one, is as much about how close things are to the core right as the right itself.  Firearms (and ranges), as well as newpapers are right there.  Q-Tips - not so much.

[gangrel]

mauserme, on 02 August 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

Maybe our disagreement, if we have to have one, is as much about how close things are to the core right as the right itself.  Firearms (and ranges), as well as newpapers are right there.  Q-Tips - not so much.

Ahhh...but places that sell Q-tips tend to also sell newspapers, magazines, and paperback novels...and places that cut your hair sell you the ability to walk around with a mohawk, crew cut, or mullett (maybe we should restrict that one, though   ).  Piercing and tattoo shops...silk-screened t-shirt shops...car dealerships (candy-apple red or burnt umber orange?)....

I agree that not ALL places of business are covered by enumerated, fundamental rights...but I would argue that the vast majority of them are covered by one in particular...

[mauserme]

But I don't think the sale of Q-Tips is an activity protected by the First Amendment even if newspapers are sold in the same location.  Are we heading toward the Niinth Amendment here?

By the way how did you know about my mullett?

[Sigma]

So what did we really get from Ezell in simple form

[Tvandermyde]

re-affirmation that blanket bans on stuff 2A connected is unconstitutional

affirmation of standing for organization like ISRA,NRA, SAF, Illinois Carry to Sue

two part test on Second Amendment claims leaning towards strict scrutiny

a commercial enterprise of a range is connected tot he core right of the 2A and therefore protected

the Core right is self defense.

That the 2A rights do extend outside the home.

that's it in a nut shell.

[TTIN]

Tvandermyde, on 14 August 2011 - 08:09 AM, said:

re-affirmation that blanket bans on stuff 2A connected is unconstitutional

affirmation of standing for organization like ISRA,NRA, SAF, Illinois Carry to Sue

two part test on Second Amendment claims leaning towards strict scrutiny

a commercial enterprise of a range is connected tot he core right of the 2A and therefore protected

the Core right is self defense.

That the 2A rights do extend outside the home.

that's it in a nut shell.

If this is fact,why have the other lawsuits concerning UUW?

[pyre400]

TTIN, on 14 August 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 14 August 2011 - 08:09 AM, said:

That the 2A rights do extend outside the home.

If this is fact,why have the other lawsuits concerning UUW?

I think its the extent which is in question, and of course, every "new" decision needs subsequent suits to serve as tests.

Also, IL GA has proven that they are incapable of operating proactively [concerning right to carry]. They must fail in the courts before they initiate the typical "reactive" legislation.

[NakPPI]

pyre400, on 14 August 2011 - 12:33 PM, said:

TTIN, on 14 August 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 14 August 2011 - 08:09 AM, said:

That the 2A rights do extend outside the home.

If this is fact,why have the other lawsuits concerning UUW?

I think its the extent which is in question, and of course, every "new" decision needs subsequent suits to serve as tests.

Also, IL GA has proven that they are incapable of operating proactively [concerning right to carry]. They must fail in the courts before they initiate the typical "reactive" legislation.

Lawsuits can only address the particular facts of the case. So while the court found that 2A extends beyond the home the only issue of the case was whether they could ban commercial firing ranges.

[TTIN]

[quote name='NakPPI' date='14 August 2011 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1313350603' post='286948']
[quote name='pyre400' date='14 August 2011 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1313346837' post='286947']
[quote name='TTIN' date='14 August 2011 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1313345734' post='286944']
[quote name='Tvandermyde' date='14 August 2011 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1313330943' post='286927']
That the 2A rights do extend outside the home.
[/quote]

If this is fact,why have the other lawsuits concerning UUW?

[/quote]

I think its the extent which is in question, and of course, every "new" decision needs subsequent suits to serve as tests.

Also, IL GA has proven that they are incapable of operating proactively [concerning right to carry]. They must fail in the courts before they initiate the typical "reactive" legislation.
[/quote]

Lawsuits can only address the particular facts of the case. So while the court found that 2A extends beyond the home the only issue of the case was whether they could ban commercial firing ranges.
[/quote]

Ah ok,thanks.

[Sigma]

That the 2A rights do extend outside the home.

thats what im trying to find in the Ezell decision

[bob]

Sigma, on 15 August 2011 - 04:25 PM, said:

That the 2A rights do extend outside the home.

thats what im trying to find in the Ezell decision

I am not sure it is there, at least not yet.

[Tvandermyde]

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.

[Sigma]

Tvandermyde, on 15 August 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

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.

Son of a biscuit! How can I read the Ezell decision and not see that. What the heck, its right there in plain English.
"prohibiting the possession of handguns outside the home"
Dangit I just wet my pants.
Ok Im back, The legislators are really dumb for not calling in a special session to pass something quick.
I just read the plantiffs latest response and dont understand why they didnt emphasize that in big red bold letters.

[Howard Roark]

I was over on calguns.net and saw that there was another epic smack-down of Chicago filed by Gura yesterday (8/29).   The top post in this link has Gura's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

http://www.calguns.n...ad.php?t=472232

[GarandFan]

Direct link to Gura/SAF Motion:

http://ia700507.us.a...46475.118.0.pdf


Methinks that Chicago is "too cute by half", squared.

[papa]

They just do not learn do they!?

[GarandFan]

papa, on 30 August 2011 - 04:15 PM, said:

They just do not learn do they!?

No, they don't.  

And it seems that the court (7th circuit, anyway) have taken note of that.  

[Sigma]

I cant wait to see what happens next, I do believe they are fed up with the city's foolishness and will do something big this time.
Boy would I love to see some type of contempt of court against the city.

[Lou]

I really enjoyed reading that!

Quote

The Defendant essentially
says “trust us,” ignoring the fact that its legislative fig leaves have not addressed the basic issue
in the case. It is perfectly clear the conduct at issue will persist until a Court finally puts a stop to
it. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit’s guidance in this case guarantees such an outcome

Making fun of Chicago is almost too easy.
As has been said many times before, a battle of wits with an unarmed man is no fun.

[NakPPI]

I must say that I love Gura's legal writing style.

[GarandFan]

Agree Lou!

I love the way Gura repeatedly kicks Chicago's gonads while remaining professional, courteous, and gentlemanly!  In truth, I am hoping a court finally cuts those gonads free.  What Chicago needs is a strong statewide preemption on gun laws.  Perhaps these shenanigans might eventually help leverage such a statute.

Anyway, Gura a way with words that makes them pure pleasure to read.

[Yas]

GarandFan, on 30 August 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Agree Lou!

I love the way Gura repeatedly kicks Chicago's gonads while remaining professional, courteous, and gentlemanly!  In truth, I am hoping a court finally cuts those gonads free.  What Chicago needs is a strong statewide preemption on gun laws.  Perhaps these shenanigans might eventually help leverage such a statute.

Anyway, Gura a way with words that makes them pure pleasure to read.

   He's the Mootiest!

[bob]

GarandFan, on 30 August 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Agree Lou!

I love the way Gura repeatedly kicks Chicago's gonads while remaining professional, courteous, and gentlemanly!  In truth, I am hoping a court finally cuts those gonads free.  What Chicago needs is a strong statewide preemption on gun laws.  Perhaps these shenanigans might eventually help leverage such a statute.

Anyway, Gura a way with words that makes them pure pleasure to read.

I have often thought (also said and posted) that preemption was probably more important than LTC legislatively in the long run. Otherwise we will be in court constantly dealing with every little control freak home rule entity that comes up with the latest way to screw us over.

Gura sure can be fun to read. More importantly he has a skill that virtually no lawyers have in being able to write in a way that those of us without a legal education can understand while getting the legal points across. That might be a big deal in gaining wider acceptance of the 2A. People read legal mumbo-jumbo and can't figure out what the point is, but Gura makes it understandable. The hardcore antis won't care but some people that read it that might not have understood the 2A will be able to read Gura's stuff and appreciate it. It might not change their mind but they may have a better understanding of what it is really about.

[lockman]

Gura probably writes them for the common man because he knows in the 2A community we read them, digest them and spit them back out as ammunition against our foes. We get enough horse crap out of Chicago to fertilize all the farms south of I-88, so the simple approach is refreshing.

[bob]

lockman, on 31 August 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

Gura probably writes them for the common man because he knows in the 2A community we read them, digest them and spit them back out as ammunition against our foes. We get enough horse crap out of Chicago to fertilize all the farms south of I-88, so the simple approach is refreshing.

The key is that he is able to write that way though. It is not a real common skill set in the legal community. Look at some of the stuff written by the other 2A lawyers. A lot of it is not very readable.  

In the long run, having readable arguments that the average guy can understand may be of immense importance. Right now, there are a lot of fairly complex and not easily understood legal issues going on surrounding the 2A. Most people are not all that interested and if they bother to read it at all, they give up after a few paragraphs of the typical legal writing. People here have a vested interest in this stuff so we will plunge in and try to make sense of it. Others with less interest may just throw up their hands and give up.

It may even have an effect on the average judge. The writing is simple and to the point, and it makes it harder to go against that kind of argument. Public opinion is not supposed to matter to a judge, but they are human too. I suspect that is why homosex is now legal by SCOTUS decree. Most people just do not care enough about it anymore and can accept the fairly simple and straightforward arguments put forth on that issue, and judges are people too.

[ChicagoSigFan]

Gura sure does have a great writing style.  

I love the opening line in his brief: "The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, even before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness."
As a lawyer, I know that most judges love a well-written brief and can even appreciate some well-delivered snarkiness.