Hall v Chicago. Another carry case

[Tvandermyde]

Hall v.Chicago was filed after we won Shepard/Moore as a way to attack the "4"corners of your house restriction within the Chicago Ordinance.

 

In light of Ms. alverez claim that the Shpeard ruling doesnt apply since Cook is not a party to the action this takes a bite out of that arguement

 

I can't post docs from my ipad or phone so i have sent the complaint, motion to dissmiss, reply and responce for them to abolt for his upload.

 

The case is briefed on the motion to dissmiss and is before Judge Zagle. I am told they worked real hard to get this judge taken away from him and combind with Benson, but that judge re fused.

 

As Ii said ealier this is part of the overall strategy in how we are going to take apart the carry stuff and the chicago ordinance?

[THE KING]

SWEET, can't wait to read the briefs.

[skinnyb82]

What's the case number? I'll pull the docket on PACER.

[skinnyb82]

Nevermind, I found it. Michael Hall and Kathryn Tyler v. The City of Chicago, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - Eastern Division, filed January 18, 2013. Docket number is 1:13-cv-00441. Apparently the two plaintiffs had previously sued Daley over the same issue, I RECAP'd the exhibit submitted by Chicago in its motion to dismiss (that failed).

 

Here's a link to the docket (I use the RECAP plugin for Firefox, it sends district court and (FINALLY) appellate court filings I pull off PACER to archive.org (internet archive). All of the relevant motions and other briefs are archived. The rest is just notices of appearance, minute orders, etc.

 

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068.docket.html

 

Complaint:

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068.1.0.pdf

 

First motion to dismiss, Zagel issued a minute order striking it and ordering parties to meet and agree upon a briefing schedule:

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068.19.0.pdf

 

"3. Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. As to carrying in public places, Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because their injury cannot be redressed by this Court.

The injury they allege is the inability to carry operable firearms for self-defense in public. But this conduct is prohibited by Illinois law as well as Chicago law. Accordingly, even if the Court were to enjoin the MCC provisions challenged here, Illinois law would continue to stand as an independent bar to Plaintiffs’ carrying in public. Because a victory in this lawsuit would not bring Plaintiffs any real, practical relief, the Court should not hear the claim." (In other words, CA7's ruling does not apply to Illinois. Underlined portion conflicts with FOID Act as the challenge is the ban on carry literally outside the home...like the front porch, which is 100% legal under the FOID Act)

 

Docket entry 24 is plaintiffs' response in opposition to motion to dismiss, DE25 is defendant's reply to response. That one is JUICY. No joke, it cites a MA case regarding EPA regulations (What the hey!!! does this have to do with the Second Amendment?) and the City actually uses the term "global warming" in its reply.

 

"Until the Moore mandate issues, Illinois’s current carry ban remains as an impediment to Plaintiffs’ carrying in Chicago. And Plaintiffs’ argument that dismissing their suit now makes “little practical sense” because they could just refile it on June 10, 2013 (i.e., after the mandate issues), see Response at 4, ignores two key facts. For one, there is no guarantee that the mandate will necessarily issue after the 180 days. Illinois may still petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in Moore, which could result in a further stay of the mandate, if not an outright reversal of the Seventh Circuit’s decision. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2).3 Illinois could also seek an extension of the stay even if it does not petition for certiorari. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(1). Moreover, if and when the mandate should issue, there is no guarantee that, on that date, Plaintiffs would be able to carry under Illinois law." (The arrogance exhibited here is just jaw dropping, stay without petition for writ? Seriously?)

 

"Winning in such a case provides a benefit because it moves the ball forward and forces the government to enact a new statute, one that at least comports with the constitution if it does not also allow the plaintiff to engage in the desired conduct. But unlike the Moore plaintiffs’ victory, a ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor in this case will have no impact on what Illinois does, when it does it, or whether Plaintiffs will qualify under whatever new statute Illinois passes." (That's quite presumptive)

[DDJ]

Think a layman can get a translation?

[skinnyb82]

They're saying that Moore doesn't apply to Illinois because Moore is in direct contradiction with an IL Supreme Court ruling, let's just forget about the Supremacy Clause, or why not just the whole damn Constitution. Why don't these jackholes look up People v. Nance in 2000 where the IL Supreme Court said "Got a problem with a federal injunction? We can't do a thing. Go through the federal courts, not the state, not our problem...go away." SAME issue, CA7 declared an IL statute unconstitutional, a guy was arrested, complaint was filed under the law that doesn't exist, judge dismissed it because there was no law, AG Ryan appealed to the IL Supreme Court, lost. Another thing, they keep citing People v. Moore. They don't cite the portion that says "Moore v. Madigan doesn't grant felons gun rights" they just cite the portion "Moore v. Madigan does not apply...(in this case because it does not give gun rights to felons)" with the stuff in parentheses left out.

 

Second, they're saying that even if Moore (v. Madigan) applies and a bill is passed with preemption, there's no guarantee that plaintiffs will qualify for a permit. All they wanna do is carry on their own property. The FOID Act exempts carrying on your own property from AUUW, I OC all of the time on my property, no one cares (except people who don't live here and see me with a holster heh). They're arguing that IL "could" petition to stay the mandate...yes, it could, and it would be denied if the stay is not pending writ. The state has had 180 days, that's enough. Also, arguing that SCOTUS "could" reverse Moore. I bet it'll reverse Marbury v. Madison as well...pfft. When the mandate shall issue, there is no guarantee on that date....yes there is, it'll be FOID carry, got a FOID? You can carry if no bill is passed. Well, Crook County and Chicago says no but they'll change their tune once a writ of prohibition is filed along with a buttload of civil rights suits. I'm wondering if that is an implicit statement that they'll still arrest people for AUUW if the mandate is issued without a carry statute? (which Lisa won't allow but for the sake of argument).

[C0untZer0]

Thanks for doing this skinnyb82, I know Pacer is expensive.

[skinnyb82]

Actually someone had already grabbed most of the pertinent filings and RECAP'd them. Everything but the complaint and a few other things.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Sweeper13]

You got me reading all this stuff ....When Im suppossed to be outside cutting grass.

[vezpa]

This is going to be the one to watch. This is the **** !

 

.

[skinnyb82]

I had a $400 PACER bill one quarter heh. My jaw was on the floor when I opened the email.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[abolt243]

Here you go guys. Sorry to be so late, been away from the computer most of the day. Here's the original complaint, Chicago's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's opposition to motion to dismiss and Chicago's answer to that opposition.

 

1 - complaint.pdf

brief in support of motion to dismiss.pdf

chicago reply.pdf

opposition to motion to dismiss.pdf

[Tvandermyde]

Thanks abolt

[TFC]

Excellent!

[skinnyb82]

I posted a link to the docket earlier. It has all of the minute orders issued by Judge Zagel. He seems to be a huge fan of minute orders which are a lot faster than drafting a brief, having the clerk docket it. I really love how fast paced ILND is compared to the rest of the districts I've come across. Zagel is moving this one along pretty quickly. I'd like to see what the agreed upon briefing schedule looks like if anyone has access to it (it'd be filed using CM/ECF but only parties are privy to it, can't just pull it up on PACER. Zagel is rocket docketing this case, less than 45 days between motion to dismiss, response, and reply. Chicago doesnt like fast paced cases where they can't bog opposing counsel down with frivolous motions and supplemental authorities full of meaningless exhibits full of pictures or affidavits from so and so's grandmother. I've seen PLENTY of cases like that with like exhibits A through N, mostly Wikipedia entries (no I'm not even joking) with diagrams, scanned in printouts from msnbc.com or foxnews.com or whatever, affidavits filed by the counsel of record's employees, sworn declarations made by a partner of the counsel of record, pictures, anything to bog it down.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Blade13]

I posted a link to the docket earlier. It has all of the minute orders issued by Judge Zagel. He seems to be a huge fan of minute orders which are a lot faster than drafting a brief, having the clerk docket it. I really love how fast paced ILND is compared to the rest of the districts I've come across. Zagel is moving this one along pretty quickly. I'd like to see what the agreed upon briefing schedule looks like if anyone has access to it (it'd be filed using CM/ECF but only parties are privy to it, can't just pull it up on PACER. Zagel is rocket docketing this case, less than 45 days between motion to dismiss, response, and reply. Chicago doesnt like fast paced cases where they can't bog opposing counsel down with frivolous motions and supplemental authorities full of meaningless exhibits full of pictures or affidavits from so and so's grandmother. I've seen PLENTY of cases like that with like exhibits A through N, mostly Wikipedia entries (no I'm not even joking) with diagrams, scanned in printouts from msnbc.com or foxnews.com or whatever, affidavits filed by the counsel of record's employees, sworn declarations made by a partner of the counsel of record, pictures, anything to bog it down.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

Wikipedia entries? Do they click "edit" and make them say what they want before printing them out?

[C0untZer0]

^ Case in point - Ezell

[BobPistol]

Let's hope the rocket docket torpedoes Chicago's chances at totalitarianism

[skinnyb82]

I'm not kidding. I've seen over 100 federal lawsuits that used Wikipedia entries I'm not sure if they edited them but they used the whole damn entry when they just needed a diagram. I've also seen a denial of a motion by a district court judhe then the same district court judge certifying application for immediate interlocutory appeal to the DC Circuit, and the denial of that motion used as supplemental authority...called "a win." I've seen default judgments in lawsuits (in one case, the guy was dead before he was sued) used as supplemental authority to show that a case has merits, they're default judgments, the defendant didn't file timely response to the summons you didn't hand him his *** in court I have seen lawyers do A LOT of messed up **** to bury judges and opposing counsel with paperwork and whatnot. SCOTUS warned future plaintiffs not to do this crap in McDonald, then the MSP goes and does it in Woollard by filing an affidavit signed by an underling of one of the defendants as supplemental authority. Gura called them out in his en banc petition too.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

[bob]

I encourage them to file as many frivolous and off target things as possible.

 

They have a good (but hopefully losing) case they can make and if they muck it up with nonsense the good will get lost in the mess.

 

Ironically, the best thing from their POV they could probably do is nothing. The two sections of the UUW law would go away and it would change almost nothing as to where people in IL could or could not carry as a practical matter.

 

We would spend the next few decades in court fleshing things out and probably end up with something like what WI had before their LTC where there was some right to carry but it was so limited it was difficult to do anything with it.

[skinnyb82]

"Rocket docket" just refers to a judge pushing cases through, Zagel has put them on a schedule that if one party does not comply with, he will do something about it.

 

I'm all for Chicago filing frivolous BS. It sure would **** off Zagel since would be buried in **** but of course he'd get angry and chastise the City for filling frivolous motions and COULD sua sponte issue Rule 11 sanctions for mounting a frivolous defense or entertain a summary judgment on behalf of plaintiffs. I've seen it happen before. The attorney for Canseco (not Jose heh, the mutual fund firm) was sanctioned along with his client for the exact same thing.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Chicago Guy 77]

...

[skinnyb82]

No movement on this since April 26th. I thought Zagel was pumping this one through. Looks like that came to a screeching halt.

[defaultdotxbe]

No movement on this since April 26th. I thought Zagel was pumping this one through. Looks like that came to a screeching halt.

If HB183 with its handgun preemption becomes law most of the case will be moot

[BobPistol]

Think a layman can get a translation?

 

"I don't like concealed carry so I'll make a huge giant stretch of an argument of why they'll never prevail."

[Tvandermyde]

No movement on this since April 26th. I thought Zagel was pumping this one through. Looks like that came to a screeching halt.

If HB183 with its handgun preemption becomes law most of the case will be moot

No it will not. Read the complaint.

[defaultdotxbe]

If HB183 with its handgun preemption becomes law most of the case will be moot

No it will not. Read the complaint.

I did, it addresses not being able to carry a firearm in Chicago or a handgun at your place of business. With HB183 a person with a CCW permit would not be subject to those ordinances, I can't really imagine a court saying anything other than "get a CCW permit, case dismissed"

 

"I don't like concealed carry so I'll make a huge giant stretch of an argument of why they'll never prevail."

It is basically saying that challenging Chicago's ban on carry is pointless since IL bans carry statewide (ignoring the fact that the state is under court order to change that)

 

My guess is this case was filed in anticipation of non-preempting IL carry law passing, requiring further challenges to Chicago's laws (which leads to my opinion that the bill would make the complaint moot)

[DoktorPaimon]

I did, it addresses not being able to carry a firearm in Chicago or a handgun at your place of business. With HB183 a person with a CCW permit would not be subject to those ordinances, I can't really imagine a court saying anything other than "get a CCW permit, case dismissed"

 

The juice here can be boiled down into five words: open carry of long guns. That core issue in the complaint is completely unaddressed by HB183.

[Tvandermyde]

Case Name:

Hall, et al. vs. City Of Chicago

Case Number:

1:13-cv-00441

Filer:

WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 08/07/2013

Document Number:

28

Docket Text:

MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel: Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [27], this matter is dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions and deadlines are moot. Hearing set for 8/8/13 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(ep, )

[skinnyb82]

Dismissed voluntarily without prejudice, which means party/parties can refile. If you dismiss a case voluntarily twice, even without prejudice, under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)( the case is treated res judicata aka dismissed with prejudice aka "Already been ruled on."