Can't find any updates on Benson v Chicago

[Beezil]

I know its a fresh new case, and these things take time....

 

I feel this case will also have major impact, and hopefully will put unconstitutional post-mcdonald laws and ordinances in the grave.

 

what do we know so far?

[Hatchet]

this is all i could find

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34004143/Benson-v-Chicago-Complaint-FINAL-1

 

 

i'm praying to see this turn out for us... but especially count 8 of the suit...

Count one goes after the definition of home that’s defined so narrowly.

Count two goes after the requirement that they be 21 years of old, arguing it violates the constitutional rights of those adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 to keep and bear arms.

Count three goes after the ban on gun shops.

Count four goes after the ban on shooting ranges.

Count five goes after the ban on having more than one operable gun in the home.

Count six goes after the unsafe handgun roster that the Police are supposed to maintain under the new ordinance. The complaint argues that the “unbridled discretion” violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Count seven challenges the ban on laser sights.

Count eight actually goes after the prohibition on carry outside the home or fixed place of business.

[mauserme]

I wonder if we'll be seeing an update soon now based on Ezell.

[Skorpius]

I hope so. I wonder why they have no count against the permit/registration/fee stuff. That's what I fail to understand.

[bob]

I hope so. I wonder why they have no count against the permit/registration/fee stuff. That's what I fail to understand.

 

 

I suspect it is mostly going after the low hanging fruit first. Bans, or effective bans, are easier to litigate than regulation.

 

I think that in the end permits and registration will not be ruled unconstitutional, and I suspect that the lawyers involved in these cases think that as well. Just as the FOID card is unlikely to be found unconstitutional. Going after things you are likely to lose seems unwise at this stage. Think about it, the whole NICs thing and the forms you fill out are a form of permits and registration. Do you really think there is any chance at all that those are going away?

 

Fees are going to be tough to eliminate altogether short of eliminating what the fees are supposed to pay for. Down the road we might be able to litigate the amount of the fees as being unreasonable. It will be very difficult to convince the courts that the $1 a year FOID card cost is unreasonable.

 

If these cases give us enough of an edge, and that is a big if, we might as well deal with these problems by preempting these kind of things at the state level. In fact, there was some very interesting language in HB148 along those lines. Not full state preemption, but a lot more than it might appear at first glance. It was either cleverly worded or poorly worded depending on the intent of the author.

[Tvandermyde]

Benson is in discovery

[Talonap]

Benson is in discovery

 

HUH? Sorry, don't know what that means. Is "Discovery" a magazine?

[Tvandermyde]

both sides are requresting information and documents to support thier case fromthe other side.

[Talonap]

both sides are requresting information and documents to support thier case fromthe other side.

 

Thanks Todd. Love learning new things. The more you learn, the more you know how much you don't know...

[Mark C.]

To add to what Todd stated.....

 

Item #130 on the Docket stated:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider 122 the Court's prior order 121 on Defendants' motion to compel 119 is denied as moot. As stated in open court, the parties have conferred and Plaintiffs agreed to provide answers to Mayor Daley's First Set of Interrogatories [119-1] on June 6, 2011. Depending on the scope and substance of Plaintiffs' answers, Defendants may seek further relief from the Court. Plaintiffs also preserve their objection to the interrogatories based on relevance. With regard to Defendants' motion to extend expert discovery deadlines 126 this motion is granted for the following reasons. Defendants indicated in open court that their potential experts are academics and thus required time to clear conflicts of interest with their institutions and with funding sources. Also, the Seventh Circuit still has under advisement the appeal in Ezell v. City of Chicago, which may provide further guidance on the issues in this case. The expert discovery deadlines are extended for 60 days: expert disclosures are due on August 15, 2011; rebuttal expert disclosures are due on September 15, 2011; and expert discovery will close on September 30, 2011. There will be no further extensions for Defendants. However, because Plaintiffs have not occasioned any delays in discovery thus far, the Court will consider Plaintiffs' requests for additional time in the event they need relief from the above deadlines. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count V 83 remains under advisement. Status hearing set for October 6, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 06/07/2011

)

 

What to take from this mouthful?

1) Awaiting advisement from Ezell for further guidance.

2) Discovery expert disclosures are due on August 15, 2011; rebuttal expert disclosures are due on September 15, 2011; and expert discovery will close on September 30, 2011

 

There will be MUCH activity in Benson shortly, particularly if the Atty's want to jump on this Irreparable Harm Preliminary Injunction bandwagon you folks in the 7th just got...

[mauserme]

Thanks Mark, and welcome.

 

Nice to see our little local issues spark some interest in other states.