185 replies to this topic

[Sigma]

I listened to the audio and cant see how chicago thought they would win. The judge asked their lawyer how can you have a straight face. they asked gura, what do you want the injunction to say?
Its hard to believe but I think after so many law suits this city will have to comply or this court will get tired of their foolishness

[colt-45]

GarandFan, on 06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

lockman, on 06 July 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal...elldecision.pdf

IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?

[NakPPI]

From a concealed carry perspective and in relation to the two pending Federal cases against Madigan and Quinn, the most important thing to take away from the case is the following rule:

"Labels aside, we can distill this First Amendment doctrine
and extrapolate a few general principles to the Second
Amendment context. First, a severe burden on the core
Second Amendment right of armed self‐defense will require
an extremely strong public‐interest justification and a close
fit between the government’s means and its end. Second,
laws restricting activity lying closer to the margins of the
Second Amendment right, laws that merely regulate rather
than restrict, and modest burdens on the right may be more
easily justified. How much more easily depends on the
relative severity of the burden and its proximity to the core
of the right."

Clearly an outright ban on carrying of weapons for self defense implicates the "core" of the second amendment and the prohibition on the carrying of weapons in the entire state is not a "close fit" between the government's means and ends. If I were a legislator I would be scrambling to pass HB 148 before a federal judge strikes down Illinios' ban on concealed carry outright.

Attached Files

•  Ezell v. Chicago.pdf   381.05K   65 downloads

[GarandFan]

colt-45, on 06 July 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

lockman, on 06 July 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal...elldecision.pdf

IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?

First, please take off your CAPS LOCK.  

Second, please read through the decision.  There is a lot of stuff in there.  But what the court specifically did was to reverse the decision of the district court (which upheld Chicago's ban on gun ranges) and remanded the case back to the lower court, telling them to issue a preliminary injunction consistent with the reasoning of this decision.  It's the reasoning of the decision that can only be understood by reading it.

So basically, yes, the 7th circuit court said that Chicago's ban on gun ranges was unconstitutional and cannot stand.

[masconfusion]

colt-45, on 06 July 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

lockman, on 06 July 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal...elldecision.pdf

IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?

Almost... It's what the Appellate Court orders the District Court to tell Chicago to do...  IMO The injunction instructions to the district court (pg 48/49 especially) are soooo broad they won't make the case moot even if Chicago thinks so.  Effectively the court told the district court that ANYTHING that affects the ability to qualify to own a gun [listing a bunch of sections] is to be enjoined and is probably unconstitutional... I luv it.  And as it is our district it is BINDING on Illinois!

[colt-45]

[quote name='masconfusion' date='06 July 2011 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1309995772' post='281011']
[quote name='colt-45' date='06 July 2011 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1309995113' post='281006']
[quote name='GarandFan' date='06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1309994286' post='281002']
[quote name='lockman' date='06 July 2011 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1309990829' post='280992']
Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.
[/quote]

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal.action/chicago2.lawsuit/ezelldecision.pdf
[/quote]
IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?
[/quote]

Almost... It's what the Appellate Court orders the District Court to tell Chicago to do...  IMO The injunction instructions to the district court (pg 48/49 especially) are soooo broad they won't make the case moot even if Chicago thinks so.  Effectively the court told the district court that ANYTHING that affects the ability to qualify to own a gun [listing a bunch of sections] is to be enjoined and is probably unconstitutional... I luv it.  And as it is our district it is BINDING on Illinois!
[/quote]
thats what i need to know, thanks.

[lockman]

GarandFan, on 06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

lockman, on 06 July 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal...elldecision.pdf

Got it now thanks!

[colt-45]

[quote name='GarandFan' date='06 July 2011 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1309995706' post='281010']
[quote name='colt-45' date='06 July 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1309995113' post='281006']
[quote name='GarandFan' date='06 July 2011 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1309994286' post='281002']
[quote name='lockman' date='06 July 2011 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1309990829' post='280992']
Neither link works for me. When I go there the pdf file shows it is file size 0 Kb.
[/quote]

Try this:

http://saf.org/legal.action/chicago2.lawsuit/ezelldecision.pdf
[/quote]
IS THIS WHAT THE COURTS ORDERED CHICAGO TO DO?
[/quote]

First, please take off your CAPS LOCK.  

Second, please read through the decision.  There is a lot of stuff in there.  But what the court specifically did was to reverse the decision of the district court (which upheld Chicago's ban on gun ranges) and remanded the case back to the lower court, telling them to issue a preliminary injunction consistent with the reasoning of this decision.  It's the reasoning of the decision that can only be understood by reading it.

So basically, yes, the 7th circuit court said that Chicago's ban on gun ranges was unconstitutional and cannot stand.
[/quote]it's broke,it works half the time.

[Don Moran]

I only have one thing to say on this since it is still ongoing litigation... TaDa:)

[GarandFan]

Don Moran, on 06 July 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

I only have one thing to say on this since it is still ongoing litigation... TaDa:)

And that is probably enough for now ...  

My congrats to the plaintiffs and supporters of this case, ISRA included.  I am carefully reading through this decision and must say there is some serious gold in there that will affect far more than the mere fact that Chicago currently bans gun ranges.

[Davey]

Exciting news for sure!

[Tvandermyde]

I did an interview with WBEZ this afternoon. At the end I was asked about this being an NRA suit. I told them it was not, that it was brought by SAF, ISRA and Alan Gura and they should be commended for their win today.

Many know that I have my disagreements and differences with SAF and Gura. That should not detract from what they accomplished today. This is not just about gun ranges. The 7th Cir court of appeals stepped out of the shadows of the Supreme Court and started a new path for the 2A.

When a judge writes:

"ROVNER, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court. The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits. That residents may travel outside the jurisdiction to fulfill the training requirement is irrelevant to the validity of the ordinance inside the City. In this I agree with the majority: given the framework of Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald, the City may not condition gun ownership for self‐defense in the home on a prerequisite that the City renders impossible to fulfill within the City limits. The plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of that claim and the district court should have granted an injunction against the operation of the ordinance to the extent that it imposed an impossible pre‐condition on gun ownership for self‐defense in the home. There are two obvious ways for the City to remedy this problem: it may either drop the requirement for one hour of live range training or it may permit live‐range training within the City limits. "

You take notice. The city has been told, you repsect what the Court said or else you do so at your own peril.

there are issues of standing, the core right, outisde the home, and such that this opinion adresses. The anti-gunners should be cleaning their drawers out after this. The opinion is 59 pages plus 25 of the new ordinance which I do not believe will stand the Ezell standard.

this has implications on RTC and more. It is a good day and Alan Gura and SAF And ISRA deserve the chance to take a bow for what they achieved today. The war is not over, but we just scaled the walls of Normandy with this decision.

[Molly B.]

Our sincere thanks to Rhonda Ezell! She is a wonderfully brave woman to have taken on the city of Chicago!! And won!!  Three cheers for Rhonda!!

[mikew]

I'm very proud of all that it is being accomplished here in Illinois!

[Bimmer]

I'm still speechless.
Many Thanks, Rhonda Ezell, & Congrats!!!

[papa]

It has been a long time in coming but things are starting to move for us.

[colt-45]

Many thanks Rhonda Ezell, grate job to those at SAF And ISRA. It's a grate day for all 2mendment fighter's.

[johnyt101]

This is great news! I do not mean to hijack this thread but on page 7 of the ruling in the footnotes it says there is an exemption for discharge of a firearm for game bird hunting in limited parts of the city.

Is anyone familiar with where these limited parts of the city are? I would have never of thought Chicago would still allow hunting within its city limits.

[Milhouse86]

Wow GREAT WIN!! We just have to keep taking them out stone by stone. Cheers to everyone that worked so hard to get yet another win!\

[Don Gwinn]

Josh Blackman has a very good point-by-point analysis up at his blog now:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7500

Well worth reading.

[bob]

Does anyone think the city will appeal?

Daley's ego would have made him do it, but I doubt Rahm cares much about what Daley thinks.

I would bet there is a quick revision to the new ordinance on ranges.

I predict (at least eventually):

The business license fee stays.

The hours of operations restrictons go away.

The location issues get relaxed somewhat.

Ammo sales restrictions go away. Can't have functional firearms without ammo.

Since a shooting range is covered by the 2A, certainly a gun shop is. Time for someone to step up and request a business license to open up a gun store that the city can deny. More fodder to make Gura wealthy.

[mauserme]

bob, on 07 July 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

Does anyone think the city will appeal?

I think Emanuel is facing one of the many defining moments that will greet the new mayor.  We're about to find out if he is an anti-gun zealot or has simply been anti-gun enough to succeed in federal politics.

[GarandFan]

bob, on 07 July 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

Does anyone think the city will appeal?

I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...

[vstar]

one more step toward restoring the right of every citizen of Illinois to self protection!

(some legislators should be ashamed of themselves)

[colt-45]

vstar, on 07 July 2011 - 06:38 AM, said:

one more step toward restoring the right of every citizen of Illinois to self protection!

(some legislators should be ashamed of themselves)

+1

[ishmo]

GarandFan, on 07 July 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

bob, on 07 July 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

Does anyone think the city will appeal?

I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...

I don't think they will. They're already on record admitting that the ordinance was an attempt to preempt court intervention. I think they realize that even if they take that route that a favorable en banc outcome for them will be appealed to the SCOTUS. Jmho here but I don't think Emanuel has the stomach or the money for another fight there after the bill he got for the last trip.

[ming]

GarandFan, on 07 July 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

bob, on 07 July 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

Does anyone think the city will appeal?

I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...

I don't think they will but who knows.  If asking for en banc review was being considered should the decision go against the city, I don't think they would have hurried to get in the new ordinance allowing ranges.  In fact, passing the new ordinance could possibly now weaken their case.  Part of their argument was that ranges were dangerous.  Now they've in effect conceded that maybe they may not be quite as dangerous as we said earlier.  If they were smart they would go back and bring the new ordinance into accordance with the recent decision and avoid future litigation.  Of course the catch here may be the "if they were smart" part.

[Yas]

ishmo, on 07 July 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:

GarandFan, on 07 July 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

bob, on 07 July 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

Does anyone think the city will appeal?

I think it's likely that the City will ask for en banc review ...

I don't think they will. They're already on record admitting that the ordinance was an attempt to preempt court intervention. I think they realize that even if they take that route that a favorable en banc outcome for them will be appealed to the SCOTUS. Jmho here but I don't think Emanuel has the stomach or the money for another fight there after the bill he got for the last trip.

  Rham can also claim new guy on the job and pass the following of bad policy on the old administration.   This gives him an out. If he's aspiring to bigger and better things in the future politically, taking the shortshanks school of 2nd amendment theory is not a very wise political move .      Is he trying to remain mayor of Chitown for life.... then fight it tooth and nail , or does he want to move up the national political ladder? Then try to let it die and solve it quietly, thru more reasonable compromise.

How he plays this will say a lot about where Rahm thinks he's heading.

[GarandFan]

Yas, on 07 July 2011 - 07:25 AM, said:

How he plays this will say a lot about where Rahm thinks he's heading.

Certainly!  I think that Rahm's and the city's response to this ruling will be quite telling.  We will know in time.

[GarandFan]

You know, given how quickly the Tribune and Suntimes picked up on Rahm's new ordinance, their silence on this circuit court ruling is deafening!  Chicago just got their butt kicked ... you'd think that would be hot news in Chicago.