185 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

ruling by the court that the "new" and improved range ordinance does not moot the case.

Attached Files

•  Ezell_not_moot.pdf   90.37K   103 downloads

[mstrat]

Excellent! Thanks for the update.  

Can't wait to read this.

[Tvandermyde]

http://onlygunsandmo...-ordinance.html


Another win for Rhonda Ezell and the team of Alan Gura and David Sigale!

In a decision released today, Judge Virginia Kendall said that despite the rewriting of the Chicago Gun Range Ordinance, it doesn't moot the case and denied the City of Chicago's motion to dismiss the case.

Though the Court cannot conclude that the new ordinance is the same as the old without further litigation, as the Supreme Court did in Northeastern Florida, it is consistent with that case not to dismiss the instant litigation as moot and instead to let the parties litigate the issue of whether the new ordinance is a de facto ban on firing ranges or so burdensome as to infringe on Chicagoan’s Second Amendment rights. Moreover, as a practical matter, Ezell is either going to: (1) challenge the constitutionality of these restrictions by filing an amended complaint as part of this case; or (2) file a new case attacking the same restrictions. The Court sees no upside in making the parties start over with another judge who has less familiarity with the issues and facts of the case than this Court.

She then set Friday, September 30th as the deadline for the parties to submit an agreed proposed injunction order or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree. The plaintiffs have until October 15th to submit an amended complaint which her attorneys have indicated they will doing. Finally, she set a status hearing for October 26th.

[SFC Stu]

mstrat, on 29 September 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

Excellent! Thanks for the update.  

Can't wait to read this.

Thanks for posting that!

[mstrat]

Here seem to be a few key points of this denial:

The Supreme Court found that a municipality cannot moot a case by tweaking an ordinance in some insignificant way, and though the new ordinance may have disadvantaged the plaintiff less, “it disadvantage[d] [the plaintiff] in the same fundamental way.”

This is not an instance where the plaintiff challenged an ordinance, and the city simply repealed it.

The new ordinance undoubtedly burdens anyone trying to open or use a firing range, including with zoning restrictions.

Consequently, whether the new ordinance’s restrictions are so burdensome as to effectively ban firing ranges or invade an individual’s Second Amendment rights is an issue that must be hashed out in litigation.

[Federal Farmer]

Merged into the sticky...I hate it when you guys make me do this!  

[GarandFan]

Quote

The Supreme Court found that a municipality cannot moot a case by tweaking an ordinance in some insignificant way, and though the new ordinance may have disadvantaged the plaintiff less, “it disadvantage[d] [the plaintiff] in the same fundamental way.”

This is not an instance where the plaintiff challenged an ordinance, and the city simply repealed it.

The new ordinance undoubtedly burdens anyone trying to open or use a firing range, including with zoning restrictions.

I prefer the court saying Chicago is trying to be "too cute by half."  Which they were (and still are).  Good, I am happy with this for now.

[ChiShooter]

Good stuff !

[mrmagloo]

If only the Shepard judge would sense the same urgency...  

[lockman]

[Sigma]

How many cases do they have to loose to realize they are loosers

[GarandFan]

Sigma, on 29 September 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:

How many cases do they have to loose to realize they are loosers

Far too many, it seems!

Go get 'em, Rhonda Ezell!!

[Tvandermyde]

there is no fix for stupid.

as the Duke said:

Life is tough, it's tougher if your stupid.

[ming]

Can the decision not to moot be appealed?  If so, when does the process terminate?

[lockman]

ming, on 29 September 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

Can the decision not to moot be appealed? If so, when does the process terminate?

I would think not, as this is a motion to dismiss and the trial court judge has denied the motion so one step closer to a trial.

[frankw438]

Tvandermyde, on 29 September 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

there is no fix for stupid.

as the Duke said:

Life is tough, it's tougher if your stupid.

LOL!

I have to watch that movie now. Do you remember which one he said that in?

I wish we had the Duke as one the judges in the pending cases. He'd set those rascals straight!

Edit: Found it! Sands of Iwo Jima

[mauserme]

From the ISRA home page and Facebook, an amended complaint has been filed adding Section 1983 claims under the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Attached Files

•  Ezell v Chicago 10-15-2011 Amended Complaint.pdf   276.66K   112 downloads

[Mark C.]

Today Chicago filed:

Quote

10/25/2011 129 REPLY by Defendant City Of Chicago In Support of Its Objections to the Entry of a Preliminary Injunction (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/25/201

On time, at that...their reply in support of their OBJECTIONS to the PI.
http://www.archive.o...46475.129.0.pdf

Keep in mind we've been going back & forth for a month over their OBJECTION to the PI. Recall that on 9/28 the Judge in denying Chicago's MTD over the case being Moot, ordered:

Quote

By September 30, 2011, the parties shall file an agreed proposed injunction order, or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree.

On 9/30, instead of a plan for the PI, they OBJECTED to the PI.

Today's filing is 8 pages of reliving the past....literally. Today's 8 pages (roughly 15 minutes I'll never get back) brings up their MTD points of the case being...are you ready?...Moot due to the updated laws on ranges. They argue that the Plaintiffs are "blowing past procedural" norms, which in a way is arguing against the PI without bringing up "moot", but still fails in the face of the Judge's 9/28 orders.

These exact arguments have already failed in their MTD. With the MTD denied, they bring up the same losing points in fulfilling the Judge's order to address the PI.

Quote

...the injunctive relief previously referenced by the Court is no longer appropriate and should not be entered by the Court.

Doesn't that sound like rearguing the now moot "moot" argument? They've blown it.

I'm smelling game/set/match on this one.

[tysonu74]

Mark C., on 25 October 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

I'm smelling game/set/match on this one.

I just wish the judge would call it.

[Sigma]

I hope we can get even more good stuff from this when it is final. Not just a PI but I hope this would be good case law for the future which is what we have been getting so far

[mauserme]

Thanks for the link Mark.

I attached a copy for anyone having trouble downloading it.

Attached Files

•  Ezell - Defendants Reply in Support of its Objection to PI.pdf   70.5K   43 downloads

[stm]

Mark C., on 25 October 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

Recall that on 9/28 the Judge in denying Chicago's MTD over the case being Moot, ordered:

Quote

By September 30, 2011, the parties shall file an agreed proposed injunction order, or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree.

On 9/30, instead of a plan for the PI, they OBJECTED to the PI.

So, their separate proposed injunction order is to have no injunction, in other words. They seem to be making a habit of thumbing their collective nose at the court. Good way to piss off a federal judge.

[colt-45]

stm, on 25 October 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

Mark C., on 25 October 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

Recall that on 9/28 the Judge in denying Chicago's MTD over the case being Moot, ordered:

Quote

By September 30, 2011, the parties shall file an agreed proposed injunction order, or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree.

On 9/30, instead of a plan for the PI, they OBJECTED to the PI.

So, their separate proposed injunction order is to have no injunction, in other words. They seem to be making a habit of thumbing their collective nose at the court. Good way to piss off a federal judge.

i guess this state thinks there above the law or at least the federal judges.

[bob]

stm, on 25 October 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

Mark C., on 25 October 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

Recall that on 9/28 the Judge in denying Chicago's MTD over the case being Moot, ordered:

Quote

By September 30, 2011, the parties shall file an agreed proposed injunction order, or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree.

On 9/30, instead of a plan for the PI, they OBJECTED to the PI.

So, their separate proposed injunction order is to have no injunction, in other words. They seem to be making a habit of thumbing their collective nose at the court. Good way to piss off a federal judge.

They can make whatever argument they want. It seems like the best one they could make. In some respects it is actually a pretty good one. The court might even buy into it, at least partially.

You did not really expect the city to just cave, did you?

In any case, there is some difference between a ban, and what is all but a ban. If the court looks at it and says "Hmm, this is effectively a ban even if it isn't a complete ban in fact", and issues some kind of injunction (eventually), that would seem to be very good for us.

In any case, the slight differences between the previous ban and what we have now might be enough to derail a PI. Or maybe not. It is really hard to tell what will happen, given that this case has the potential to really mess with a lot of other laws in this state. The court may error on the side of caution, at least for now.

[mauserme]

bob, on 26 October 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

... Or maybe not. It is really hard to tell what will happen...

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Xwing]

At least Chicago is being forced to change their restrictions, and the judge is continuing on with the discussion of what hardship their new restrictions mean.  After about 20 more “tweaks” and cases, they may eventually be forced to do something reasonable.

[Yas]

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.

Quote

Perhaps the most unusual use of a former big-box store is William James's Arms Room gun shop and shooting range, which opened last year in a former Circuit City store south of Houston. Mr. James spent nearly $5 million to buy the 20,000-square-foot space and convert it into a shooting range, a price he considered a bargain compared with building from scratch. The Arms Room offers handgun training courses in addition to traditional shooting practice, all in a popular shopping center anchored by Target Corp. and Home Depot Inc. stores.

"It was sort of providential," Mr. James said in his Arms Room office, surrounded by antique swords and modern firearms. "I never dreamed of a place like this."

Quote

The Arms Room gun range near Houston had a mixed reception. Mr. James's attorneys advised him to seek written statements from Target and Home Depot declaring that they didn't object to his business opening in their shopping center. Home Depot agreed, but Target declined, Mr. James said. (Target declined to comment). Later, representatives of PetSmart Inc. thanked him for boosting the center's customer traffic, he said.

Jin Dong, the manager of a Mattress Giant store that shares a wall with the Arms Room, is one of the gun range's happy neighbors. "People do come in here with guns, and that's kind of weird. But they have brought a lot of traffic. It's way better than nothing," he said. "I'll tell you one thing, I don't have to worry about getting robbed, that's for sure."

[url="Jin Dong, the manager of a Mattress Giant store that shares a wall with the Arms Room, is one of the gun range's happy neighbors. "People do come in here with guns, and that's kind of weird. But they have brought a lot of traffic. It's way better than nothing," he said. "I'll tell you one thing, I don't have to worry about getting robbed, that's for sure.""[/url]



WSJ link

[ming]

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)

[bob]

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.

[mauserme]

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.