PDA

View Full Version : Ezell v. Chicago oral arguments at 7th Circuit


Pages : [1] 2

press1280
04-04-2011, 1:34 PM
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx

This will be a win. Chicago's attorney is hammered by Judges Sykes and Kanne. Their theory is that gun ranges will have stray bullets everywhere, fights will turn into shootouts, and criminals will go there to practice.

oni.dori
04-04-2011, 1:41 PM
Honestly, how many fights have you actually seen at ANY gun range, EVER? If anything, that is the last place any person in their right frame of mind would try and pick a fight, simply for the reason that basically EVERYONE there is armed. Like they saying goes, "an armed society is a polite society".

press1280
04-04-2011, 2:00 PM
Honestly, how many fights have you actually seen at ANY gun range, EVER? If anything, that is the last place any person in their right frame of mind would try and pick a fight, simply for the reason that basically EVERYONE there is armed. Like they saying goes, "an armed society is a polite society".

Yea, and that's why Chicago was asked if fights broke out at their police ranges. They responded that since it's cops there, that no fights would ever break out. Chicago has no evidence whatsoever that these things will happen at a gun range and Chicago's experts that testified in district court had never been to a range or knew anything about them.

hoffmang
04-04-2011, 2:02 PM
Here is direct link to an mp3 of the oral argument (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/6R0WSYPC.mp3).

There are some choice quotes...

-Gene

jdberger
04-04-2011, 2:04 PM
"churches, bookstores and abortion clinics...."

Love ya, Alan!

Glock22Fan
04-04-2011, 2:04 PM
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx

This will be a win. Chicago's attorney is hammered by Judges Sykes and Kanne. Their theory is that gun ranges will have stray bullets everywhere, fights will turn into shootouts, and criminals will go there to practice.

Well, the link didn't take me anywhere useful, but I think you might mean that Chicago's attorney's theory is that there will be stray bullets everywhere. The way you have it phrased, the judges are saying that - which doesn't sound like a likely win to me.

Please clarify.

Thanks

press1280
04-04-2011, 2:14 PM
Well, the link didn't take me anywhere useful, but I think you might mean that Chicago's attorney's theory is that there will be stray bullets everywhere. The way you have it phrased, the judges are saying that - which doesn't sound like a likely win to me.

Please clarify.

Thanks

Gene has a good link up.

Chicago's theory is the one about stray bullets, fights, exc. Sykes and Kanne challenge them on it and Chicago has no evidence, just their beliefs. I'd like to get the transcripts because there are many good quotes. Suffice it to say what I heard from Sykes and Kanne is nothing short of a thrashing similiar to what Chicago got by Scalia in McDonald. The other judge seems to be willing to accept Chicago's "blood at the range" theory at face value. 2-1 for Ezell. Hopefully the 7th doesn't pull another en banc like Skoien.

putput
04-04-2011, 2:25 PM
OMG. If you've been feeling a bit down on whether or not we will have a robust right to keep and bear arms, you GOTTA listen to this.

Updated to include "The city is required to not suppress gun rights"

Sweet!

jdberger
04-04-2011, 2:29 PM
"My guess is, from the reading of these briefs, a lot of the people that prepared this stuff have never been to a firing range."

Crom
04-04-2011, 2:30 PM
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx

This will be a win. Chicago's attorney is hammered by Judges Sykes and Kanne. Their theory is that gun ranges will have stray bullets everywhere, fights will turn into shootouts, and criminals will go there to practice.

I'm going to listen to the mp3 audio, but I must say your statement caused me to burst into laughter. Chicago's logic is hilarious. Thanks! :D

OleCuss
04-04-2011, 2:44 PM
Oral arguments are usually quite boring. . . I'm downloading this mp3 and anticipate listening to one more than once!

krucam
04-04-2011, 2:49 PM
Cross posting from what I posted at mdshooters....

The older sounding female Judge is, well, I'll just shut up on her.

The younger sounding woman Judge gives me more cause for hope. She's asking a lot of good questions which Gura is answering well.

Why would you ever say the District Judge denied your injunction when she didn't....Gura was squirming a little there...

Chicago comes up and starts talking about the now defunct permanent/preliminary Injunction (to stop the stopping of the shooting trailer from coming in), he starts talking technicalities of an Injunction. He says there's 15 ranges within 50 miles, then the younger female speaks up again...what about the Constitutional question? The injunction and the 50 mile remedy is a complete "Red Herring"

She goes on, "The city has at once required range training for licensure and at the same time, banned them. How is that Constitutional?"

She then puts this in First Amendment analogies.....gawd, I think I'm in love...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the male Judge had just a bit of a drawl..."what evidence did you submit that ranges are dangerous?". Obviously he is baiting the Chicago lawyer..."If you could ban those 15 ranges outside the city limit, you would".

Younger woman Judge, "you're not planning or regulating, you're banning"

The older woman Judge chimes in and asks, "Is the City taking any steps towards REGULATING ranges?", the real question meaning are you looking towards stopping the banning. The Chicago lawyer says "no"....

The lawyer for Chicago is squirming....

He gets backed into a corner and starts to swing...."The City is NOT REQUIRED to find 'the least restrictive alternative'". The younger female judge jumps in saying, "The City IS REQUIRED to not suppress gun rights..." WOW!

***********
Just finished up....the younger Judge stated that there were many errors in the District that they've identified....strongly suggesting a Reversal is coming....

Gura: If they weren't doing this, we wouldn't be here....

Pfft....this sure took longer than the 20+20= 40 minutes I was expecting. It is a very entertaining listen....

Glock22Fan
04-04-2011, 2:56 PM
Gene has a good link up.

I don't bother with audio and video clips, no closed captions (subtitles) and my hearing can't deal with them. But thanks, anyway, and thanks Krucam for the writeup.

wazdat
04-04-2011, 2:57 PM
Here is direct link to an mp3 of the oral argument (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/6R0WSYPC.mp3).

There are some choice quotes...

-Gene

Seems to me that Judges Sykes and Kanne "Get it". Hallelujah. :gura:

safewaysecurity
04-04-2011, 3:04 PM
That first female judge seems pretty hostile... I feel like nothing will change her mind. "Here comes a lawyerly answer..." what a ***** lol. The other two judges seem good hehe. I like when the second female judge called the Attorney General's argument " a complete red herring :) I really liked her example of the journalism training requirement and I laughed when the AG's response was "well I think it's a bit hard to make that analogy" haha And the male judge when he asked the AG " have you ever been to a firing range?" and the AG said no and the judge responded with " well by the looks of your briefs it looks like nobody who wrote the briefs had either". I think we got this one in the bag. Also I know why I like the female judge. She's a member of the federalist society =) At the end when Alan Gura was talking about how Chicago does not believe in private property... well I agree with him but he had to know that was gonna cause problems with the lefty.

dantodd
04-04-2011, 3:10 PM
Wow. I just always assume everything is going to end up back at SCOTUS but there seems to be a shot that this time it will be the City filing the appeal! Yay!!

BlindRacer
04-04-2011, 3:11 PM
I've never used this terminology before, but I think it's appropriate...

Chicago got PWNED!

Window_Seat
04-04-2011, 3:12 PM
What was it that was said about post-hoc analysis situations that aren't entitled to intermediate scrutiny, that Gene raised as a point somewhere a while back? I'm still not quite educated on that matter, but is it something that can or should be raised in this matter, now that they raised the "blood on the range" issue? Please educate me on that.

Erik.

skylindrftr
04-04-2011, 3:14 PM
Cantaloups and Rutabagas?

dantodd
04-04-2011, 3:17 PM
A crime ridden neighborhood is the best place to offer people training in the use of guns for self-defense.

AWESOME SOS.

Connor P Price
04-04-2011, 3:19 PM
This is a great listen, they are tearing the Chicago attorney apart.

safewaysecurity
04-04-2011, 3:23 PM
Also I was also like " Wow the federal reserve bank has a shooting range? Damn... "

dantodd
04-04-2011, 3:24 PM
Love when one of the judges said he could confirm that the design standard for Federal Courthouses includes a firing range. One of the other judges asks him where it is in their court and he says something like "I can't disclose that" or some such. Her reply was "probably in your chambers!" Guess we know how SHE thinks He'll vote.

Southwest Chuck
04-04-2011, 3:27 PM
For the WIN: " Mr Gura, what would you like your preliminary injunction to say?" :D

Window_Seat
04-04-2011, 3:31 PM
Where do Chicago LEOs get their range time? If they get their range time in Chicago, then can they get their range time while off duty? Regardless, if the argument against the range is primarily the issue of the risk of stray bullets, then that risk is just as much the same with a "qualified Law Enforcement Officer". The Panel begins discussing that issue as I'm typing this question.

Erik.

Southwest Chuck
04-04-2011, 3:32 PM
Oral arguments are usually quite boring. . . I'm downloading this mp3 and anticipate listening to one more than once!

I'm not seeing how to download it? Some help anyone? :confused:

BlindRacer
04-04-2011, 3:36 PM
I'm not seeing how to download it? Some help anyone? :confused:

Right click, save link as...

From a mac anyways...should be about the same with a PC

Southwest Chuck
04-04-2011, 3:40 PM
Right click, save link as...

From a mac anyways...should be about the same with a PC

Duh... Sorry. Had a Brain Fart. Thanks. Here is another link to the orals (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=10-3525&submit=showdkt)

oni.dori
04-04-2011, 3:44 PM
They responded that since it's cops there, that no fights would ever break out.

Ya, because cops NEVER abuse their authority, speed illegally on duty when not en-route to an emergency call, violate trafic laws in an identical aforementioned situation, commit crime, steal confiscated contriband, illegally physically abuse people under the umbrella of their authority, unjustifiably kill someone (with, or without their issue firearm), or any of the other plethora of illegal actions that any other citizen could feasibly as well commit (without the "authority" of being a LEO).

I'm not bashinc LEO's as a whole in any way. I have family members and good friends who are, and they are genuinely good people who care about the community, and believe in the duty to "protect and serve" that is inherent to the job (and they even support the 2A fully as well). However, LEO's are human, and like every other mere mortal, there none are perfect and there are always bad apples. Sadly, their bad apples seem to be greater in numbers and think they can get away with it because of the position they hold. A lot of them believe that, not only are the exempt from all laws (even though legally they are supposed to hold themselves even MORE stringently to the law, since it is there job), but that THEY ARE the law and what they say goes, not they they have to UPHOLD the law already layed out for ALL.

IMHO, there is RAMPANT abuse of authority in today's police forces everywhere; and that even the SLIGHTEST infraction they commit should hold much stricter concequences for them than us because, of ALL people, they should know better. But I guess that is another discussion, for another thread.

wildhawker
04-04-2011, 3:47 PM
Alan Gura is a ****ing rockstar. This was the single most uplifting thing I've listened to in a good long while.

-Brandon

marcusrn
04-04-2011, 3:51 PM
Thanks for the link Gene! Listening to Gura plead is like listening to music.

N6ATF
04-04-2011, 3:51 PM
The second female justice to speak to Gura (1st to Feldman) makes me cry tears of joy.

Window_Seat
04-04-2011, 3:55 PM
Mr. Gura, what do you want your injunction to say?

My favorite question of the entire hearing!

Erik.

hoffmang
04-04-2011, 4:00 PM
Judge Sykes (the "younger female judge" *cringe at the description*):
1. Wrote the original opinion in Skoien that went en banc in the 7th.
2. Wrote the dissent to the en banc Skoien decision.

-Gene

Patrick-2
04-04-2011, 4:03 PM
Another cross-post from MarylandShooters.com:

------------------------------------
OK, Chicago got torn to pieces. The District Court was not viewed kindly. Judge Sykes outright said the District Court reviewed the wrong issue and then even got that wrong. She told the city that their Foundation-Era sources were misunderstood and that they were not applicable.

When it comes to indoor ranges, the question came up about bullets flying outside the range. Chicago maintains it is a concern. All of their historical references used that concern. Problem is that concern was for open-air ranges, not indoor closed ranges. Asked about the problem, the city keeps trying to make this about open-air ranges. It didn't work. When pressed hard, the city admitted it was an issue of construction. Judge Sykes points out again and again that this is an issue of regulation (proper construction of ranges), not prohibition.

Judge Kanne: "OK, tell me what the dangers are for a closed firing range operated under regulation by trained and qualified personnel."

City Lawyer: There is a concern about bullets escaping. If not properly constructed, something could get out

Judge Sykes (interrupting the city): That's an argument for strict safety standards in the construction of firing ranges, not in support of anything...any argument for a complete prohibition."

Judge Kanne (jumping in, incredulously): "How can you ban something just because of that?"

City: That's not all.

Judge Kanne: "Alright, what else?"

City: People congregate at the ranges.

Judge Kanne: "Have you ever been to an indoor firing range?

City Lawyer: No, never myself.

Judge Kanne: Well it seems like a lot of people who worked on this have never been to a firing range.


Soon thereafter Judge Kanne gets into an interchange with the city over the issue of a complete ban. The city claims it is too dangerous in the city to have a range. Kanne then says if it was up to Chicago, they would ban ranges everywhere - even outside the city - if they could. Kanne sounded incredulous and maybe a little annoyed.

Judge Sykes: "The City is required to not suppress gun rights, and the city requires live fire training for a license and that coupled with the prohibition on live fire ranges in the city...suppresses gun rights."

Even Rovner (anti-gun Judge) said to the city attorney: "When this gets to be about the merits, you are going to have issues."

Sykes: "I don't see how the city can even see this [argument on requiring live fire then banning it] as rational."

Sykes points out the contradiction of the city argument: that the city claims live fire training is absolutely required before you can exercise your Second Amendment right, yet somehow the city also claims that live fire training is not covered by the Second Amendment.

Sykes said point blank that the city's argument is full of flawed arguments. She also said that the district court used a flawed legal argument in denying the injunction. Kanne did not say that, but he made it clear he didn't much buy any of their arguments. The pro-Chicago judge (Rovnel) kept saying that the discussion should not be about the "merits" of the case; that the only thing worth examining was whether the harm suffered by the plaintiffs rose to the level required for a preliminary injunction.

Gura got hammered for one piece of hyperbole: he said that the city of Chicago did not recognize private property. He was referring to the zoning laws that say "if it ain't pre-approved you cannot do it." Judge Rovnel hammered him and actually said it angered her. He backed off, explained himself and then moved on.

Overall quite entertaining.


All three judges agreed that the city was going to have problems with the merits. Sykes went so far as to say it was full of holes and irrational. Hence, the anti-gun judge tried to limit the argument to the TRO because it was the harder climb for Gura. It looks like he got over that hump, though.

Stonewalker
04-04-2011, 4:11 PM
Phew, I thought those judges were rude and short with Gura but they friggen tore the city's attorney a new one. That was satisfying!

N6ATF
04-04-2011, 4:15 PM
Judge Sykes (the "younger female judge" *cringe at the description*):
1. Wrote the original opinion in Skoien that went en banc in the 7th.
2. Wrote the dissent to the en banc Skoien decision.

-Gene

Assuming Sykes was pro-civil rights, sounds like this will get en banc'ed again, and she'll have to dissent again, because they don't like that.

hoffmang
04-04-2011, 4:17 PM
Assuming Sykes was pro-civil rights, sounds like this will get en banc'ed again, and she'll have to dissent again, because they don't like that.

I wouldn't be so sure. The stakes are very different in this one.

-Gene

Stonewalker
04-04-2011, 4:23 PM
Judge Sykes:

How can you claim that the live-fire range training is so critical to licensing and yet claim it's not fundamental, it's not within the scope of the right. Those are mutually contradictory positions...

Wow. What a blow to the city's argument. Awesome!

HowardW56
04-04-2011, 4:24 PM
Alan Gura is a ****ing rockstar. This was the single most uplifting thing I've listened to in a good long while.

-Brandon

I don't know about him being a Roskstar, but he is a hell of a good lawyer...

Window_Seat
04-04-2011, 4:48 PM
Gura would strum and tablature a guitar and play Saxophone and Piano at the same time if he were a Rockstar. :D

Fear the Gura Machine (can't find it in the smiley list)!

Erik.

woodsman
04-04-2011, 5:03 PM
Oral arguments are always educational and sometimes entertaining.

The warped logic behind the anti-gun philosophy seems reason enough to have their sanity questioned.

GaryV
04-04-2011, 5:21 PM
After listening to the mp3, I'm ready to marry Diane Sykes :D

I love the way she made clear the fact that Chicago has made its own argument invalid. Even if they were correct that shooting ranges are only ancillary to the 2nd Amendment right, by predicating the exercise of the core of the right on range training, they've made ranges core to the right without question.

What I'm surprised is that no one has yet seen yet another flaw in Chicago's argument about the ranges in other places being easy to reach. Since Chicago doesn't have jurisdiction over those other places, how can they ensure that those other places won't ban ranges as well if Chicago wins? That would automatically then render their law unconstitutional by their own logic. The very fact that they can't guarantee that those other ranges will remain available means their requirement for training makes gun ranges in the city mandatory.

N6ATF
04-04-2011, 5:27 PM
In fact, if Chicago wins @ SCOTUS, then those other jurisdictions will have no reason not to ban ranges, and further edge firearms ownership predicated on training completely out of the state. Domino effect.

Sykes' appointment by GWB was one of the few things his administration did right, it seems. Here's hoping she gets the SCOTUS nod when the GOP takes "back" the White House.

anthonyca
04-04-2011, 5:39 PM
Alan Gura is a ****ing rockstar. This was the single most uplifting thing I've listened to in a good long while.

-Brandon

Yes he is! I want to give him a high five so hard our hands hurt for a week.

wazdat
04-04-2011, 5:40 PM
After listening to the mp3, I'm ready to marry Diane Sykes :D

Helps to put a face with the name.

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sykes.jpg

press1280
04-04-2011, 5:46 PM
After listening to the mp3, I'm ready to marry Diane Sykes :D

I love the way she made clear the fact that Chicago has made its own argument invalid. Even if they were correct that shooting ranges are only ancillary to the 2nd Amendment right, by predicating the exercise of the core of the right on range training, they've made ranges core to the right without question.

What I'm surprised is that no one has yet seen yet another flaw in Chicago's argument about the ranges in other places being easy to reach. Since Chicago doesn't have jurisdiction over those other places, how can they ensure that those other places won't ban ranges as well if Chicago wins? That would automatically then render their law unconstitutional by their own logic. The very fact that they can't guarantee that those other ranges will remain available means their requirement for training makes gun ranges in the city mandatory.
I suppose everyone's assuming the ranges won't be forced out by the state, but I hear what you're saying and it could come up later, possibly at SCOTUS. Chicago's trying to claim its OK to ban the ranges since there's other ranges within some set distance. Sykes and Kanne indicated it doesn't matter, you can't ban ranges, only that they can be regulated according to zoning and safety.

hoffmang
04-04-2011, 5:47 PM
Helps to put a face with the name.

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sykes.jpg

Should the Republicans retake the Whitehouse soon, she is on the short list for the next SCOTUS opening.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
04-04-2011, 5:52 PM
Should the Republicans retake the Whitehouse soon, she is on the short list for the next SCOTUS opening.

-Gene

OH PLZ PLZ PLZ PLZ PLZ :D

RP1911
04-04-2011, 5:53 PM
hummm. Isn't the speaker third in line?

NotEnufGarage
04-04-2011, 5:57 PM
hummm. Isn't the speaker third in line?

SCOTUS, not POTUS...

taperxz
04-04-2011, 6:00 PM
Even with a win in this case i sense that since AG made reference to the court about zoning laws being OK with him and construction of an indoor range (being safe enough to operate) being left up to the city, that somehow no matter what, they may never be able to build a cost effective 18 wheeler in the eyes of the city to actually open up for business. Since regulation was left on the table for the defense, it will open up another avenue to stop mobile and indoor gun ranges.

safewaysecurity
04-04-2011, 6:01 PM
SCOTUS, not POTUS...

I think he meant third speaker on the Bench meaning the male judge kanne

RP1911
04-04-2011, 6:03 PM
No, I meant POTUS. POTUS selects SCJ for SCOTUS.

SparrowHanger
04-04-2011, 6:04 PM
After listening to the mp3, I'm ready to marry Diane Sykes :D

I love the way she made clear the fact that Chicago has made its own argument invalid. Even if they were correct that shooting ranges are only ancillary to the 2nd Amendment right, by predicating the exercise of the core of the right on range training, they've made ranges core to the right without question.

All three members of the bench seemed to agree with that argument.


What I'm surprised is that no one has yet seen yet another flaw in Chicago's argument about the ranges in other places being easy to reach. Since Chicago doesn't have jurisdiction over those other places, how can they ensure that those other places won't ban ranges as well if Chicago wins? That would automatically then render their law unconstitutional by their own logic. The very fact that they can't guarantee that those other ranges will remain available means their requirement for training makes gun ranges in the city mandatory.

That was obvious from the exchange in oral argument. I think that Gura wins handily here but not sure if he will before SCOTUS. The fact is that ranges are availbable just outside the city limits and the court has no evidence of which I am aware that they will not remain available to Chicago residents. As long as those extra-jurisdictional ranges are there the city could win on further appeal.

dantodd
04-04-2011, 6:05 PM
I think he meant third speaker on the Bench meaning the male judge kanne

See, I read it to be "if Pres. Obama and VP Biden were impeached or forced to resign third in line is the speaker of the house."

safewaysecurity
04-04-2011, 6:07 PM
See, I read it to be "if Pres. Obama and VP Biden were impeached or forced to resign third in line is the speaker of the house."

Yeh I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt I guess.

dantodd
04-04-2011, 6:11 PM
That was obvious from the exchange in oral argument. I think that Gura wins handily here but not sure if he will before SCOTUS. The fact is that ranges are availbable just outside the city limits and the court has no evidence of which I am aware that they will not remain available to Chicago residents. As long as those extra-jurisdictional ranges are there the city could win on further appeal.

Never in a million years. All levels of government are held to the same standard when burdening a right. If it is OK for Chicago to prohibit ranges then the surrounding cities would have it within their powers to do the same. If the cities all have that ability to proscribe ranges from their city limits so too do the counties and the States. If Illinois and Wisconsin were to pass laws prohibiting ranges within their state borders it would be nearly impossible for anyone to meet the requirements for owning a handgun in Chicago.

So, either Chicago has rights that no other city or state has in restricting the Second Amendment OR the laws of Chicago must be held to the same standard as those of the surrounding and encompassing jurisdictions.

Which is it?

anthonyca
04-04-2011, 6:14 PM
Should the Republicans retake the Whitehouse soon, she is on the short list for the next SCOTUS opening.

-Gene

What an important nomination. She shined in Skoien also.

Paladin
04-04-2011, 6:20 PM
Enjoyable listening.

1) I think those old public discharge bans, even if they did apply to ranges, esp indoor ones, weren't part of a scheme that effectively infringes upon the 2nd A right. IOW, they stood on their own -- people's RKBA weren't subject to using the what was banned.

2) Our side needs to keep hammering that there already are ranges in the city. Stray bullets aren't an issue w/the city's LE ranges. If and when the city gets to the regulation (vs prohibition stage), if the city imposes regulations beyond what they require for LE ranges (for similar weapons/calibers), the city should have to justify itself. Seems like the city doesn't mind ranges in the city, they only don't want the public to be able to use them.

3) I think the other female judge (not Sykes), when she brought up zoning and that expensive neighborhood near the end of his rebuttal, wanted to see what Gura would say that if the city passed some sort of zoning code(s), such that the only areas that it/they would allow a range would make opening a range cost prohibitive. Instead Gura flipped it to being a possible market for private, non-commercial residential ranges. While a nice reply, I hope Gura is ready for the city to pass a code scheme where ranges are allowed, but zoned to areas where actually opening one will either be cost-prohibitive or they'd have to charge customers so much to compensate for the location, that poor, law-abiding residents are effectively banned from shooting practice.

Southwest Chuck
04-04-2011, 6:21 PM
.....I think that Gura wins handily here but not sure if he will before SCOTUS. The fact is that ranges are available just outside the city limits and the court has no evidence of which I am aware that they will not remain available to Chicago residents. As long as those extra-jurisdictional ranges are there the city could win on further appeal.

Big Fail IMO. If Chicago were to prevail and other surrounding communities effected a similar ban, then Chicago's training requirement would then become a de-facto gun ban in and of itself. SCOTUS has already ruled that cities or states cannot regulate the RIGHT out of existence which would be the case, if that were to happen and the courts let it stand.

Not going to happen :cool:

GaryV
04-04-2011, 6:37 PM
That was obvious from the exchange in oral argument.

I don't believe it was. Sykes said the whole issue was moot, because she believes the damage has nothing to do with how available ranges outside the city are at all, and the other two never even addressed that portion of Chicago's argument. But Gura should include it in his arguments, to make the point that even if other judges think Sykes is wrong, Chicago can't predicate their citizen's constitutional rights on services provided by cities outside their jurisdiction, whose services they can't guarantee, and who may in fact be motivated to follow Chicago's lead should Chicago win.

I also wonder why none of the judges brought up Paladin's point that the city already has several ranges, and that they don't seem to have issues with stray bullets or problems from multiple guns being fired at those. They only talked about "people congregating" in that context, when all the city's other arguments against ranges are even more ridiculous in light of the police/government agency ranges that already operate there.

newtothis
04-04-2011, 6:42 PM
"I don't even know how the city thinks this is rational" She's great.

wildhawker
04-04-2011, 6:44 PM
I feel like I'm sensing a trend with your posts, though I have no particular qualms with them, but that is to say that you seem to find yourself the contrarian in ways that are exposed to a plain reading of current law and jurisprudence.

That was obvious from the exchange in oral argument. I think that Gura wins handily here but not sure if he will before SCOTUS. The fact is that ranges are availbable just outside the city limits and the court has no evidence of which I am aware that they will not remain available to Chicago residents. As long as those extra-jurisdictional ranges are there the city could win on further appeal.

wildhawker
04-04-2011, 6:46 PM
I don't know about him being a Roskstar, but he is a hell of a good lawyer...

Semantics. I'd roadie for Alan or Don any day, and I'll pay my own damn way even.

-Brandon

sighere
04-04-2011, 6:51 PM
Worth it to listen to the last lines! That was pretty funny. Gura thinks pretty darn fast on his feet. Chi-town lawyer was busy stuttering.

dantodd
04-04-2011, 6:54 PM
Semantics. I'd roadie for Alan or Don any day, and I'll pay my own damn way even.

-Brandon

Wouldn't that be an unpaid internship? :)

wildhawker
04-04-2011, 6:57 PM
Wouldn't that be an unpaid internship? :)

Where's Josh Blackman when you need him.

truthseeker
04-04-2011, 7:07 PM
#10 on this page is Judge Sykes

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2004/07/_general_commen.html

She sounds VERY Intelligent to me.

Shiboleth
04-04-2011, 7:12 PM
Great listen. Nice for once to hear Heller mentioned several times by defense counsel, without once (that i heard) referencing the home.

N6ATF
04-04-2011, 7:15 PM
Wouldn't that be an unpaid internship? :)

Where's Josh Blackman when you need him.

These are Twitter in-jokes, for the uninitiated.

GettoPhilosopher
04-04-2011, 7:25 PM
I just listened to 3 judges bending the City of Chicago over the bench and paddling it.

I'm speechless. This is bloody amazing. :D

microwaveguy
04-04-2011, 7:52 PM
This is the first thing since AB962 being stuck down that has brought a smile to my face :D

I can already see Chicago twisting this into only having ranges operating at 2 - 3am on third Thursdays of the month that are an even date.

RP1911
04-04-2011, 7:54 PM
This is the first thing since AB962 being stuck down that has brought a smile to my face :D

I can already see Chicago twisting this into only having ranges operating at 2 - 3am on third Thursdays of the month that are an even date.

forgot one:

in a leap year

jonyg
04-04-2011, 8:02 PM
This is the first thing since AB962 being stuck down that has brought a smile to my face :D

I can already see Chicago twisting this into only having ranges operating at 2 - 3am on third Thursdays of the month that are an even date.

June 16th it is!

Downloading the mp3 now

wildhawker
04-04-2011, 8:44 PM
These are Twitter in-jokes, for the uninitiated.

Indeed, and at the risk of going OT, a hat tip to the usual suspects I hope others would follow and join in on the fun:

@CalgunsFdn
@hoffmang
@dantodd
@graycpeterson
@bergerjd
@joshbtweets
@TheButterZone
@combs_brandon

MP301
04-04-2011, 9:04 PM
Finally able to listen. Very encouraging.

hoffmang
04-04-2011, 9:12 PM
I also wonder why none of the judges brought up Paladin's point that the city already has several ranges, and that they don't seem to have issues with stray bullets or problems from multiple guns being fired at those. They only talked about "people congregating" in that context, when all the city's other arguments against ranges are even more ridiculous in light of the police/government agency ranges that already operate there.

I think you may have missed when Judge Kanne pointed out that all Federal Courthouses had firing ranges in them. It's why he pointed out to Chicago's counsel that they and the team working for Chicago had clearly never been to to gun range. The court here is well aware of the realities of an indoor range since there is one in the building where this argument took place.

-Gene

N6ATF
04-04-2011, 9:23 PM
Sounded like at least one of them didn't know where in the building it was, and another offered to show them. Wonder if personal experience will have any real impact on their rulings.

taperxz
04-04-2011, 9:24 PM
AG was fantastic but i am still concerned with the cities ability to over regulate the shooting ranges though building codes or standards they can set for so called safety. This could still be Chicago's way out of not allowing these ranges to come to fruition.

Connor P Price
04-04-2011, 9:24 PM
Indeed, and at the risk of going OT, a hat tip to the usual suspects I hope others would follow and join in on the fun:

@CalgunsFdn
@hoffmang
@dantodd
@graycpeterson
@bergerjd
@joshbtweets
@TheButterZone
@combs_brandon

I swore I'd never have a twitter, but then Richards came around and I was at work so I had to sign up to get updates on my phone. Now I've added the few names on your list that I hadn't already followed. Please oh please, nobody tell my girlfriend I have a twitter account. :chris:

Librarian
04-04-2011, 9:32 PM
AG was fantastic but i am still concerned with the cities ability to over regulate the shooting ranges though building codes or standards they can set for so called safety. This could still be Chicago's way out of not allowing these ranges to come to fruition.

That particular problem was what Alan was talking about in part of his rebuttal time.

gratefuldog
04-04-2011, 9:35 PM
Wow. That was wonderfully brutal!

I'd sure hate to be whomever the City Attorney came home to that night.....

yakmon
04-05-2011, 2:20 AM
i enjoyed listening to this.
"mr gura, what would you like your injunction to say?" that doesn't look good for Chicago!

press1280
04-05-2011, 2:25 AM
I think you may have missed when Judge Kanne pointed out that all Federal Courthouses had firing ranges in them. It's why he pointed out to Chicago's counsel that they and the team working for Chicago had clearly never been to to gun range. The court here is well aware of the realities of an indoor range since there is one in the building where this argument took place.

-Gene

I wasn't aware of there being ranges at Federal Courthouses until I heard this. Who gets to use it?

press1280
04-05-2011, 2:31 AM
AG was fantastic but i am still concerned with the cities ability to over regulate the shooting ranges though building codes or standards they can set for so called safety. This could still be Chicago's way out of not allowing these ranges to come to fruition.

This could possibly still be an issue. The 1 judge that will probably rule against us was referencing the city making the only places available for ranges be in a high-rent neighborhood, and Gura said they weren't necessarily locked into the mobile range only. I would think Chicago couldn't require a range with more stringent safety than the one at the courthouse or the ones that the PD uses.
At some point you'd think the city would get tired of being smacked down repeatedly and won't try any more BS.

Liberty1
04-05-2011, 2:57 AM
Great job Alan and team!

Chi town had more then one homicide per day last year (their lowest total in 45 years!) and they are worried about bullets in an INDOOR range?:rofl:

:gura:

yakmon
04-05-2011, 3:48 AM
as i listen to the first 15 minutes, it sounds like the judges "not necessarily the old female judge" is making Gura's case for him. the next 25 minutes is the judges stomping a mudhole in Chicago's arguement. if the judge calls your aguement a "red herring" you might as well call it a day and head to the bar. in my uneducated IANAL opinion, this is an epic a**whoopin iaw cain valaques vs brock lesner. at the 41:45 mark, one of the judges says "Mr Gura :gura: what do you want your injunction to say?" how the F*** can they not win?

Patrick-2
04-05-2011, 5:02 AM
What I'm surprised is that no one has yet seen yet another flaw in Chicago's argument about the ranges in other places being easy to reach. Since Chicago doesn't have jurisdiction over those other places, how can they ensure that those other places won't ban ranges as well if Chicago wins? That would automatically then render their law unconstitutional by their own logic. The very fact that they can't guarantee that those other ranges will remain available means their requirement for training makes gun ranges in the city mandatory.
Reply With Quote

This was discussed. The city was asked if the Chicago ordinance would be harder to defend if the nearest range was much further away. The city attorney said yes. The question of proximity was further pushed by Kanne when the Chicago lawyer slipped a bit and opened the door to the statement question, "Chicago would also ban all ranges outside the city if it could, wouldn't it?"

AG was fantastic but i am still concerned with the cities ability to over regulate the shooting ranges though building codes or standards they can set for so called safety. This could still be Chicago's way out of not allowing these ranges to come to fruition.

There is a reason Chicago has not started talking about zoning standards, yet. Those would be up for debate as part of the TRO (per Gura's request) and hence eliminate an entire new case worth of delay in setting up ranges.

I can already see Chicago twisting this into only having ranges operating at 2 - 3am on third Thursdays of the month that are an even date.


Not really. They are cornered here a bit by Renton (both brought up by Chicago and Gura).

Renton essentially says that zoning of a fundamental right is limited to the secondary effects they create. This is how my town can regulate the construction of a church at the end of my one-lane road: the secondary effects of traffic and parking make it unrealistic.

Zoning on secondary effects makes it hard for the government to craft laws specifically against that church or bookstore. If my road can handle retail traffic, it will probably also support a church the town does not like. It's not perfect, but it works.

Chicago brought up Renton to say that it did not apply. They were wrong. Chicago wants to avoid Renton specifically because they are contemplating a loss and want to use zoning to "fix the problem". This is why you are seeing so much debate about bullets, congregation and crime. Those are all "secondary effects" of gun ranges in the eyes of Chicago. If they can call these secondary effects legitimate, it allows them to create a unique set of zoning rules specific to those effects and then use them to effectively ban gun ranges by increasing cost or difficulty.

Chicago was kinda dumb arguing those effects now, because it opens the door to them being addressed now. When they talked about the zoning issue, Gura pointed back to Renton and said Chicago has no rationale for any secondary effect specific to a gun range, other than proper construction of backstops and the like.

Renton was about a zoning ordinance that restricted adult theaters within 1000 foot of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school. In the end, the theaters lost due to the secondary effects of the business. One of the arguments made by the owners of the theaters was that the was little affordable space left in the city that matched the city's zoning rules for adult theaters. The Supreme Court said "tough".

Now re-listen to the arguments in Ezell; the discussion over zoning ranges only on the Gold Coast (most expensive territory in the city) makes sense. It would satisfy Renton but also snuff the ranges through cost prohibition.


The next fight is over those secondary effects. Do they exist? Does the "thieves veto" exist in Chicago for the Second Amendment? Are there unique circumstances with gun ranges that open the door to zoning them out of existence?

If Chicago cannot manufacture new and creative "effects" of gun ranges, they will be limited to zonign ranges as they would other businesses with similar traffic, noise and parking issues. And as most of us know, that opens the door to ranges just about anywhere. The best of the ranges I have been to cannot be heard from outside the building and often support under 20 shooters at a time. It's no different than most other retail establishments and are often found in strip malls next to pizza and donut shops.

Now I want a Krispy Creme. Damn.

Chicago is going to have hard time proving that their ranges are going to be different than the thousands that already exist in the United States. Their zoning will have to come close to the others. Absurd regulations are going to fail, as will absurd construction standards. Remember that the zoning will apply to the 14 known ranges already in Chicago, as well. Including the one in Judge Kanne's office.

Patrick-2
04-05-2011, 5:10 AM
Last thought for now:

The best TRO would note that Chicago should look to the common standards used by the thousands of ranges nationwide instead of trying to manufacture their own. This would obviate the next fight, or at least make it short.

Arguments over zoning take a long time and are full of expensive fact-finding (discovery). If the Circuit wants to make a difference, they will craft a strong opinion that closes down the most likely issues up front. They could do this by tying the ranges to intermediate scrutiny and analogizing to the First Amendment (this is what Gura was suggesting).

dantodd
04-05-2011, 6:57 AM
Chicago is going to have hard time proving that their ranges are going to be different than the thousands that already exist in the United States. Their zoning will have to come close to the others. Absurd regulations are going to fail, as will absurd construction standards. Remember that the zoning will apply to the 14 known ranges already in Chicago, as well. Including the one in Judge Kanne's office.

Thanks for the Renton background. I sort of wondered why one judge kept asking the Chicago attorney if they had any evidence supporting the secondary effects the city was claiming exist. Sounds like he intend to hold the city to, ate least, real intermediate scrutiny if they make such a zoning restriction.

taperxz
04-05-2011, 7:04 AM
That particular problem was what Alan was talking about in part of his rebuttal time.


I understand that and i did listen to the whole recording. However, AG brought up not wanting the city to basically "zone" the ranges out. He did concede to safety concerns and that the plaintiff was wide open to following those safety concerns put on the table by Chicago. (Or soon to be concerns)

My concern will be by conceding this to the city can the city or will the city over regulate building of a structure to the point of "it just aint worth it".

EricSF
04-05-2011, 7:34 AM
Wow, how does the Chicago atty have the balls to argue a firing range case WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN TO A FIRING RANGE??? Talk about a total lack of credibility.

yellowfin
04-05-2011, 9:07 AM
Wow, how does the Chicago atty have the balls to argue a firing range case WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN TO A FIRING RANGE??? Talk about a total lack of credibility.They probably wouldn't have been able to convince him to take the case because he is looking STUPID now--if he KNEW exactly how stupid he would be beforehand and knowing exactly how wrong he is, there's no way he'd have tried. I bet he had to drink pretty hard after this hearing.

sholling
04-05-2011, 9:12 AM
It sounded like one judge is a hardcore Brady supporter but Gura had some great answers with his yes I'd put ranges in bad neighborhoods where people need guns. The other two weren't buying into Chicago's line of BS. On the other hand it didn't sound like Gura was fully prepared for the zoning issue. The man writes brilliant briefs but just like in McDonald he allowed himself to be blindsided by not preparing for the "i" dotting and "t" crossing parts of the questions that were obviously coming. A- ;)

dantodd
04-05-2011, 9:16 AM
Wow, how does the Chicago atty have the balls to argue a firing range case WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN TO A FIRING RANGE??? Talk about a total lack of credibility.

I sort of lost your logic, are you saying someone trying a rape case must have been raped or are you saying they need to have been a rapist?

yellowfin
04-05-2011, 9:23 AM
I sort of lost your logic, are you saying someone trying a rape case must have been raped or are you saying they need to have been a rapist?Unlike that particular example it's fairly easy and 100% legal for someone to get experience going to a gun range to figure out what it's like and not that much to ask of someone who is being paid over $200 an hour to talk about the subject.

wildhawker
04-05-2011, 9:50 AM
Is anyone arguing that experience would somehow change the City's approach, it that it has any bearing whatsoever on the law? Please don't make the Peruta error of injecting facts where unnecessary in a law case.

dantodd
04-05-2011, 9:53 AM
Unlike that particular example it's fairly easy and 100% legal for someone to get experience going to a gun range to figure out what it's like and not that much to ask of someone who is being paid over $200 an hour to talk about the subject.

So, it's more like a medical marijuana law in CA? Or perhaps a zoning law involving bowling alleys?

Maestro Pistolero
04-05-2011, 10:12 AM
If I were an attorney, who had never been to a gun range, and who was arguing a gun range ban case, then visiting actual ranges would be near the top of the list of my subject matter research.

Not having done so, I would expect to be made to look like an ***.

Blackhawk556
04-05-2011, 10:23 AM
I understand that and i did listen to the whole recording. However, AG brought up not wanting the city to basically "zone" the ranges out. He did concede to safety concerns and that the plaintiff was wide open to following those safety concerns put on the table by Chicago. (Or soon to be concerns)

My concern will be by conceding this to the city can the city or will the city over regulate building of a structure to the point of "it just aint worth it".

I have a feeling this will happen

wildhawker
04-05-2011, 10:38 AM
Can anyone explain how counsel's experience at a range improves the City's case? Think about my previous post before answering.

Maestro Pistolero
04-05-2011, 10:53 AM
Can anyone explain how counsel's experience at a range improves the City's case? Think about my previous post before answering.

I wouldn't make that argument at all. Their case is ultimately untenable IMO.

But having range experience might prevented counsel from saying patently stupid, ignorant things about gun ranges, thus further undermining his already shaky credibility on the matter. Either way they lose. Without the experience, they lose, AND he looks like an *******.

Uxi
04-05-2011, 10:55 AM
Definitely makes him appear less stupid, thus the case less vapid. How many bullets are going through the walls at the Federal court buildings? How many undesirables are congregating around the court buildings of the justices hearing the case? etc etc

socalblue
04-05-2011, 11:02 AM
I have a feeling this will happen

If the city goes too far with zoning restrictions or "safety requirements" there would be a valid 14A equal protection argument to shut down all the city owned (at least 5) ranges used by the PD until they followed the exact same standards.

CaliforniaCarry
04-05-2011, 11:09 AM
Wow. That was some of the most epic court audio I have heard. The poor lawyer for Chicago was stumbling all over himself.

Untamed1972
04-05-2011, 11:19 AM
If the city goes too far with zoning restrictions or "safety requirements" there would be a valid 14A equal protection argument to shut down all the city owned (at least 5) ranges used by the PD until they followed the exact same standards.

Actually it would be interesting to look into Chicago building codes / zoning regs to see if there is something inthere already that addresses that standards for those gov't ranges that already exist. If they already have existing standards then there would be no reason why those standards should change just because it is a public range in question......at least as far as safety concerns go.

wildhawker
04-05-2011, 11:21 AM
I wouldn't make that argument at all. Their case is ultimately untenable IMO.

But having range experience might prevented counsel from saying patently stupid, ignorant things about gun ranges, thus further undermining his already shaky credibility on the matter. Either way they lose. Without the experience, they lose, AND he looks like an *******.

Think about what you're really saying. Let's assume for a second that the City's lawyer had some tangible experience at legitimately-operated ranges (specifically indoor, but any pistol range would suffice for this exercise). How embarrassing would it be for the City's lawyer to have to admit that he's arguing a position that has no real evidence (required for even intermediate scrutiny analysis) *and contradicts his own experiences*? Here's how *that* conversation goes:

Counsel: Your honors, the City is fearful about the significant risk of sprayed bullets from one of these ranges Plaintiffs seek to establish. We should be able to regulate this to the degree we have as a police power.

Judge: How many bullets have been sprayed upon Chicagoans from indoor ranges currently located in the City, any city?

Counsel: I'm not sure your honor.

Judge: I haven't read about any such incidents, and I'm pretty religious about reading the paper every morning. I'm wondering what evidence you have to support the City's regulatory scheme as the record I have in front of me doesn't reflect anything. Have you ever been to a range?

Counsel: Yes, your honor.

Judge: And have you ever experienced what the City is claiming to be a significant public safety problem?

Counsel: No, your honor, but-

Judge: So you don't have any evidence and your experience, anecdotally, suggests that it's not a common occurrence, a consistent risk?

Counsel: Well, no, your honor, but- I, I want to go back and reiterate that public safety-

Judge: Counselor, I'm trying to follow you. You don't have any evidence, at least you haven't offered any, you just said that your own experience at gun ranges seems to contradict the City's claim-

Counsel: Your honor, Renton...

Without experience, the City's argument seems a bit more like silly and without merit, but again, it's really immaterial. With experience, however - and again it's not Daubert evidence or real expert testimony, but for the purpose of oral arguments - the City is more likely to appear as liars. Were I to be in the City attorney's shoes, I'd probably not want real experience prior to arguments, either. Regardless, the law is against the City's ordinance, which is what this case is really all about.

-Brandon

Untamed1972
04-05-2011, 11:26 AM
Think about what you're really saying. Let's assume for a second that the City's lawyer had some tangible experience at legitimately-operated ranges (specifically indoor, but any pistol range would suffice for this exercise). How embarrassing would it be for the City's lawyer to have to admit that he's arguing a position that has no real evidence (required for even intermediate scrutiny analysis) *and contradicts his own experiences*? Here's how *that* conversation goes:



Were I to be in the City attorney's shoes, I'd probably not want real experience prior to arguments, either. Regardless, the law is against the City's ordinance, which is what this case is really all about.

-Brandon

Just seems ridiculous to try and argue that indoor ranges are unsafe and should not be allowed when there are already several indoor ranges operating in your city...albeit all of them gov't owned. The point being that the inherent safety of a properly constructed and operated indoor range is already established, not only in their own city....but nationwide.

I wonder how long it will be before Chicago tries to ban or otherwise severely restirct ammo sales?

wildhawker
04-05-2011, 11:30 AM
"I don't know how the City thinks that that's even rational, much less survives strict scrutiny or an intermediate standard of review."

yellowfin
04-05-2011, 11:33 AM
I wonder how long it will be before Chicago tries to ban or otherwise severely restirct ammo sales?Not soon enough. The Supreme Court needs to hurry up and get pissed off enough to issue something strong enough to wipe this nonsense out EXPLICITLY, PREEMPTIVELY, AND WITH TEETH instead of tiptoeing around the daisies so much.

sjalterego
04-05-2011, 11:41 AM
No, I meant POTUS. POTUS selects SCJ for SCOTUS.

IF you meant that Speaker (who is a Republican) is third in line to be POTUS as an oblique reference to a method to get a republican President soon, I think that is in bad taste and you should probably rethink making such posts.

If not, I apologize for thinking the worst.

DrediKnight
04-05-2011, 11:55 AM
Seems to me that Judges Sykes and Kanne "Get it". Hallelujah. :gura:

Kanne definitely does.

Maestro Pistolero
04-05-2011, 12:03 PM
These orals are truly heartening.

Wildhawker, I think I get your point: Deniability is preferable to transparent and bald-faced disingenuousness.

N6ATF
04-05-2011, 12:07 PM
Unless you want to bald-faced lie about founding-era gun range regulation you "read about".

wash
04-05-2011, 12:11 PM
With the basis for that deniability being ignorance.

wash
04-05-2011, 12:14 PM
One more thing, when those early laws were made there was no licensing requirement and certainly no training requirement for lawful gun ownership.

Back then I think the only requirement for lawful gun ownership is that the gun wasn't stolen.

kcbrown
04-05-2011, 12:46 PM
If the city goes too far with zoning restrictions or "safety requirements" there would be a valid 14A equal protection argument to shut down all the city owned (at least 5) ranges used by the PD until they followed the exact same standards.

"Grandfather clauses" are used all the time when government wants to regulate things in as discriminatory manner as possible.

madmike
04-05-2011, 12:50 PM
"Grandfather clauses" are used all the time when government wants to regulate things in as discriminatory manner as possible.

There may be some instances of "Grandfather Clauses" being ruled unconstitutional, or unreasonable, or something to that effect. I could be wrong.

Manic Moran
04-05-2011, 12:56 PM
Since Chicago doesn't have jurisdiction over those other places, how can they ensure that those other places won't ban ranges as well if Chicago wins? That would automatically then render their law unconstitutional by their own logic. The very fact that they can't guarantee that those other ranges will remain available means their requirement for training makes gun ranges in the city mandatory.

It is a very good question which, in all my reading of the Nordyke documents, was never addressed. There were several mentions in the Nordyle briefings of the fact that gun shows could take place in other locations, and that prohibiting the gun show on county property did not place any practical limits on the exercise of acquiring firearms, but not once did I see a counter saying "OK, and what happens if SFO also bans them, and Contra Costa... until finally only one hall in San Bernadino allows them?"

NTM

Untamed1972
04-05-2011, 1:02 PM
"Grandfather clauses" are used all the time when government wants to regulate things in as discriminatory manner as possible.

I think in this instance though, to impose a stricter regulation on new ranges claiming some sort of public safety arguement would mean that you are acknowledging the existing gun ranges are unsafe and yet were not an issue or concern....until you tried to do an end-run around the SCOTUS telling you that you couldn't ban guns.

To require range training for gun ownership/licensing issuance and then turn around and ban gun ranges so that people will not be able to meet the requirements for licensing is essentially still a ban on gun ownership. There is no way such a thing could be considered "reasonable" in the realm of "reasonable restrictions".

Manic Moran
04-05-2011, 2:05 PM
So as I understand this, if Chicago removes the requirement for live fire training, the injunction fails and they are free to continue to ban the ranges?

NTM

Maestro Pistolero
04-05-2011, 2:12 PM
So as I understand this, if Chicago removes the requirement for live fire training, the injunction fails and they are free to continue to ban the ranges?

NTM

I don't think so. Gura repeatedly ties range use to the core of the right. It's a fundamental part of the right to practice and maintain proficiency.

sjalterego
04-05-2011, 2:31 PM
So as I understand this, if Chicago removes the requirement for live fire training, the injunction fails and they are free to continue to ban the ranges?

NTM

Yes and no. We don't know how the Court will rule. It could rule narrowly, that under these circumstances where obtaining a license is conditional on training, that banning training facilities is unconstitution or the court could rule broadly that the right to train with a firearm is part of the panoply of rights protected by the 2A.

Gura hasn't based his entire argument on the "as applied facts" and has argued both that training is part of the set of rights protected by the 2A AND that banning gun ranges is particularly egregious under these facts.

Short anwer, we won't know the scope of the ruling until the ruling comes out.

GaryV
04-05-2011, 2:48 PM
I think you may have missed when Judge Kanne pointed out that all Federal Courthouses had firing ranges in them. It's why he pointed out to Chicago's counsel that they and the team working for Chicago had clearly never been to to gun range. The court here is well aware of the realities of an indoor range since there is one in the building where this argument took place.

-Gene

No, I heard those things, but then, after having mentioned that, when Chicago's counsel kept going on about stray bullets, they didn't rebut with this. Instead of simply saying "how does the city manage to prevent this from happening at the various ranges mentioned earlier, and can't the same be done at a range open to the public?", they actually try to argue with him that this is a justification for regulation not banning, an idea with which he continued to disagree. While the point may be understood, it may also be ignored by the obtuse (such as Chicago's council). It just struck me as odd that no one made the obvious argument that would have shut him up. The only time that Judge Kanne did talk about other ranges and personal experience (or lack thereof), except to list them at the start of Chicago's time, was in the context of the discussion of people congregating at ranges, as I said.

wash
04-05-2011, 2:59 PM
I'm guessing the reason why we are fighting the range ban rather than the training requirement is so that they can't ban ranges after we get the training requirement thrown out later.

Also, the range ban is probably an easier case to make and we love low hanging fruit.

GaryV
04-05-2011, 3:00 PM
This was discussed. The city was asked if the Chicago ordinance would be harder to defend if the nearest range was much further away. The city attorney said yes. The question of proximity was further pushed by Kanne when the Chicago lawyer slipped a bit and opened the door to the statement question, "Chicago would also ban all ranges outside the city if it could, wouldn't it?"

That's not exactly what I was talking about, although it is part of it. I think that what Kanne was trying to imply is that Chicago was being disingenuous in saying that it passed the law knowing that ranges were within easy access, when what they really intended was to make things as difficult as possible, but had to live with the fact that they couldn't ban ranges outside their jurisdiction. And I agree with him that that was Chicago's real intent. But that is not a persuasive argument in court, because you can't prove that they had that as their motivation.

On the other hand, you could take them at their word that they are really just trying to protect their citizens from all the possible "dangers" of evil gun ranges, but are relying on the nearby ranges outside their jurisdiction to make their act constitutional. However, since those ranges are outside their jurisdiction, and they themselves agree that were those ranges not nearby they would have a tougher time justifying the ban, it seems an easy argument to make that they can't reasonably rely on other jurisdictions providing for requirements the city imposes. No one ever addressed the possibility that these other jurisdictions might follow Chicago in banning ranges if the city's ban is upheld.

kcbrown
04-05-2011, 4:27 PM
It sounded like one judge is a hardcore Brady supporter but Gura had some great answers with his yes I'd put ranges in bad neighborhoods where people need guns. The other two weren't buying into Chicago's line of BS. On the other hand it didn't sound like Gura was fully prepared for the zoning issue. The man writes brilliant briefs but just like in McDonald he allowed himself to be blindsided by not preparing for the "i" dotting and "t" crossing parts of the questions that were obviously coming. A- ;)

I see the zoning issue as the one thing that could easily cause us to lose here, even if we win this particular case at the Supreme Court.

Judge Rovner (the older lady judge, who is apparently a native Chicagoan) questioned Gura on his thoughts on the city zoning ranges such that the only place they'd be able to build one were in a very wealthy neighborhood where the cost of land is prohibitively expensive. She didn't ask the question in quite that way, but it was clear that she was trying to lead him in that direction.

Gura's answer was not confidence-inspiring (which is quite unusual for Gura, I might add, as his answers are almost always excellent). In essence, his answer was "it depends" and "some of the residents might hire my client to build a private range in their home". The first is, of course, vague, but suggests that he either doesn't have a concise answer to the question or that he isn't willing to lay that card on the table yet (one hopes for the latter). The latter, of course, does nothing to address the core problem, which is that legality of firearms ownership on the part of the general public is predicated upon an activity that has been prohibited by the very same entity that insists upon said prerequisite. An activity that, due to its cost prohibitive nature, is available only to the wealthiest few is not an activity that can reasonably be regarded as "available to the general public".


Considering Judge Rovner's line of questioning, I can't help but think that she's basically tossing Chicago a huge hint on how to achieve their goals. Renton provides the means:


We disagree with both the reasoning and the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. That respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, does not give rise to a First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti) violation.



Hence, a zoning ordinance that has the effect of requiring firing ranges to exist only in the most expensive areas of the city, and therefore which makes construction and operation of them cost-prohibitive unless they are constructed and operated by the city, which has no such fiscal limitations, would not only be Constitutional per Renton despite its effects on core exercise of the 2nd Amendment, but would achieve the very goal the city seeks: to effectively eliminate the ability of the citizenry to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The unique fiscal nature of the city makes it possible for it to adhere to its new zoning ordinance without issue, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible for private entities to do so.

There is also the question of whether or not a police station with a firing range is subject to the same zoning restrictions as would be a normal firing range. The key here is that it's a police station, and I would therefore expect it to be exempt from all manner of zoning restrictions, since the city can justify its presence on the grounds of maintaining law and order in the area, while a private range would have no such reasoning to fall back upon.


Therefore, I see great peril for us in this, even if we win.

dantodd
04-05-2011, 4:38 PM
Considering Judge Rovner's line of questioning, I can't help but think that she's basically tossing Chicago a huge hint on how to achieve their goals. Renton provides the means:

There is also the question of whether or not a police station with a firing range is subject to the same zoning restrictions as would be a normal firing range. The key here is that it's a police station, and I would therefore expect it to be exempt from all manner of zoning restrictions, since the city can justify its presence on the grounds of maintaining law and order in the area, while a private range would have no such reasoning to fall back upon.


Therefore, I see great peril for us in this, even if we win.

I disagree. I would argue, and suspect that Gura would as well, that in Renton the police weren't selling porn from the police station and courthouse to officers. (I also do not know that the city-owned ranges are in police stations, they might be in purpose leased buildings.)

Unlike an adult bookstore, a firing range in the vicinity of a school or church isn't going to blight the neighborhood and there is no sort of offensive material that can be "leaked" or used in advertising by a gun range. I also don't believe that the city will be able to prove that a gun range will increase access to guns by kids.

kcbrown
04-05-2011, 4:48 PM
I disagree. I would argue, and suspect that Gura would as well, that in Renton the police weren't selling porn from the police station and courthouse to officers. (I also do not know that the city-owned ranges are in police stations, they might be in purpose leased buildings.)


That doesn't matter. As I said, the city can afford to put ranges where it would be cost prohibitive for most private entities to do so, and therefore in that case it reduces the argument to an economic one, which the Supreme Court explicitly said does not burden the right when the economic effect is merely a side effect.



Unlike an adult bookstore, a firing range in the vicinity of a school or church isn't going to blight the neighborhood and there is no sort of offensive material that can be "leaked" or used in advertising by a gun range. I also don't believe that the city will be able to prove that a gun range will increase access to guns by kids.Really? How would that differ from a gun store? I would certainly say that a firing range would be subject to, at a minimum, the zoning restrictions that gun stores would be held to.

We've seen firsthand the arguments that are put forth by some citizenry when a permit for a gun store in a particular location is proposed. What prevents the city from simply taking those arguments and making them part of the zoning ordinance justification?

keneva
04-05-2011, 5:36 PM
It sure sounds like a win, but who knows. I have thought that there was no way we could be on the short end of the stick before but we were. At some point, we will start winning. I just hope I live long enough!

taperxz
04-05-2011, 5:43 PM
I disagree. I would argue, and suspect that Gura would as well, that in Renton the police weren't selling porn from the police station and courthouse to officers. (I also do not know that the city-owned ranges are in police stations, they might be in purpose leased buildings.)

Unlike an adult bookstore, a firing range in the vicinity of a school or church isn't going to blight the neighborhood and there is no sort of offensive material that can be "leaked" or used in advertising by a gun range. I also don't believe that the city will be able to prove that a gun range will increase access to guns by kids.

Like i said earlier, i don't think the city will be able to zone out the gun ranges but the building dept in chicago could make building requirements so tough on a gun range that it would not be cost effective to build one. AG conceded this as being willing to allow the city to regulate safety. I think this statement was a mistake. I understand and know building laws.

After listening to what AG said, i about spit my water out when he conceded this point.

Apocalypsenerd
04-05-2011, 5:50 PM
That doesn't matter. As I said, the city can afford to put ranges where it would be cost prohibitive for most private entities to do so, and therefore in that case it reduces the argument to an economic one, which the Supreme Court explicitly said does not burden the right when the economic effect is merely a side effect.


Really? How would that differ from a gun store? I would certainly say that a firing range would be subject to, at a minimum, the zoning restrictions that gun stores would be held to.

We've seen firsthand the arguments that are put forth by some citizenry when a permit for a gun store in a particular location is proposed. What prevents the city from simply taking those arguments and making them part of the zoning ordinance justification?

The city is obviously willing to try any tactic to get an anti-2A win. I doubt it would end with an obstructionist zoning ordinance.

Grakken
04-05-2011, 6:00 PM
What do they care anyways. Enact more dumb laws/bans, they will just think of another dumb one to put up. Afterall, the tax payers are the ones paying for the lawyers fees.

Nodda Duma
04-05-2011, 6:39 PM
What do they care anyways. Enact more dumb laws/bans, they will just think of another dumb one to put up. Afterall, the tax payers are the ones paying for the lawyers fees.

Glass half-empty, eh?

Judges in lower courts tend not to like having lots of decisions overturned...it's bad for their career. Lawyers tend to not like losing cases, since it's bad for their career as well, and taxpayers can vote wasteful spenders out of office.

hoffmang
04-05-2011, 7:53 PM
What prevents the city from simply taking those arguments and making them part of the zoning ordinance justification?

Under Renton, the city would have to have actual evidence that the secondary effects were real and that evidence would have to survive a court that someone like John Lott would be testifying against it.

The city is going to be able to make sure that lead is disposed of, backstops are strong enough, there are enough sinks to wash lead residue off, and that there is adequate sound baffling. The city can not say that any range that allows a gun on it is too dangerous unless they can show how many gun ranges have an r-squared correlation with deaths.

-Gene

wildhawker
04-05-2011, 8:06 PM
Also, the court asked if the City had Daubert evidence even for other cities - which would meet Renton - and the City said they had none.

Intermediate scrutiny fail.

hoffmang
04-05-2011, 8:23 PM
Intermediate scrutiny fail.

Recall that intermediate scrutiny doesn't allow post-hoc rationalization either. As that starts to become more obvious it's going to be darn amusing. :chris:

-Gene

kcbrown
04-05-2011, 9:01 PM
Also, the court asked if the City had Daubert evidence even for other cities - which would meet Renton - and the City said they had none.

Intermediate scrutiny fail.

That is true, and certainly causes this particular action to fail in the way Renton succeeded.

That leaves open the question of whether the city will be able to obtain such evidence. I would guess that such evidence that they would seek would be scant at best.

So maybe my concern is indeed unjustified after all.


I do so look forward to seeing Chicago smacked down hard by the appellate court and/or Supreme Court for this case, because for this particular case it looks like they haven't a leg to stand on, Renton or no. :43:

kcbrown
04-05-2011, 9:14 PM
Oh, another interesting little point: Judge Rovner (the older lady judge who seemed to take a sympathetic line with Chicago) was appointed by George H.W. Bush.

That may or may not wind up being meaningful here.

Patrick-2
04-06-2011, 4:58 AM
Hence, a zoning ordinance that has the effect of requiring firing ranges to exist only in the most expensive areas of the city, and therefore which makes construction and operation of them cost-prohibitive unless they are constructed and operated by the city, which has no such fiscal limitations, would not only be Constitutional per Renton despite its effects on core exercise of the 2nd Amendment, but would achieve the very goal the city seeks: to effectively eliminate the ability of the citizenry to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The unique fiscal nature of the city makes it possible for it to adhere to its new zoning ordinance without issue, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible for private entities to do so.

The example put forward was Chicago's Gold Coast and it was theoretical. I think the question actually assisted the plaintiffs because it got the other judges working out the Renton issues even before they came up. If there is something in the TRO about this, you can credit this frame of thought.

In practical terms (and with some knowledge of Chicago), I cannot imagine a zoning ordinance that would foreclose all but the Gold Coast (or similar neighborhoods). They are mixed-use residential/commercial and full of things like schools and churches. All of the typical zoning traps exist...it would be tough to waive them away. The residents would not be pleased either, and it's not like the city could send them all a letter admitting their neighborhood was picked to deny the right, wink wink.

It was a theoretical question about the limits of zoning, and it was aimed square at the idea that Renton presents some options. It is up to the city to creatively apply them.

But like Gene said, they are going to be tied pretty tight on construction standards. There is just too much experience nationwide (and even in Illinois and Chicago) on how to be successful here. Creating new super-standards will fail, and probably fail fast. Add location-based standards, as well. I have used indoor ranges in mixed-use neighborhoods in LA (South Bay). Nobody outside ever got killed by a stray bullet.

As for this TRO and the zoning issue, I think the court could handle it deftly by including within the order a specific instruction that absent provable harm to the city, the Bell Ave. location is approved for a mobile range. That squashes the ban and closes one (just one) zoning fight, for now. So far as I remember, the city had no specific issue with the location other than general concerns about congregation, which would apply anywhere.

It lets the range get set up while also avoiding a decision on zoning (that involves a question not asked). Gura asked for something regarding zoning and this would be a minimal way of handling it.

Untamed1972
04-06-2011, 7:18 AM
Like i said earlier, i don't think the city will be able to zone out the gun ranges but the building dept in chicago could make building requirements so tough on a gun range that it would not be cost effective to build one. AG conceded this as being willing to allow the city to regulate safety. I think this statement was a mistake. I understand and know building laws.

After listening to what AG said, i about spit my water out when he conceded this point.

I think he conceded that because he knows there is no point in fighting it. The building permit process is long established and there is no way around that.

I could see however that if the building dept started requiring ridiculous things that far depart from the norm of building standards in the industry for indoor shooting ranges (like the ones that already exist in Chicago) then Chicago should prolly plan on being dragged back into court for it. With thousands of ranges operating in the US today, many of them gov't owned by LEAs and the Military there is literally a tsunami of evidence and building standards available on how to safely construct and operate an indoor range. The miniscual findings that Chicago would be able to produce touting safety issues would not be able to hold back the tide of the overwhelming evidence that there are no safety issues significant enough to warrant banning them. I think by the comments of Chicago's council they are intentially trying to remain ignorant to those facts because they know if they get into a legal battle requiring them to produce emperical data to support their claims they will simply wont be able to. They're trying to rely on an emotional arguement right now because a fact based one will be an automatic loss.

goodlookin1
04-06-2011, 7:33 AM
Listening to this makes me realize that we will probably NEVER get strict scrutiny with the 2A. There are too many Anti's in the courts, too many liberals who love control, too many court precedents that go against us....etc, etc. If it ever comes, it surely wont be any time soon.

But to the topic, the first lady sure seemed like a rabid anti, but then she also seemed to argue (lightly) against the Chicago attorney as well. But for certain, the older man and younger woman are surely on the side of gun rights in this case.

Maestro Pistolero
04-06-2011, 7:36 AM
I think the liberal judge was fanning the fears of her rich neighbors that an ugly 18- wheel murder-mobile might be parked in their neighborhood.

N6ATF
04-06-2011, 9:19 AM
One would hope those rich neighbors will then donate to SAF and ISRA to fight Chicago until hell freezes over, because that's when they'll stop infringing upon civil gun rights.

pointedstick
04-06-2011, 3:59 PM
Alan almost didn't even have to show up. At times I came close to feeling sorry for the poor Chicago lawyer, because he was given one of the most severe tongue-lashings I've ever heard. I think you can tell that even he knows he has to defend something that's basically indefensible, and except for the old hag, the judges never let him forget it. There are some really amazing exchanges in that clip.

The most surprising thing was actually a tactical blunder that Alan made: when he said that Chicago didn't believe in private property, and then when the crone perked up to defend her city's honor, he repeated the claim and said that it was because of the city's zoning power. WOW! This just confirms that he's in it for the long haul, and based on the amount of passion that he momentarily showed, I have no doubt that some day, when the groundwork has been set and the time is right, he's going to go after the myriad unconstitutional infringements imposed on owners of property and real estate. I'm dreaming of a country without zoning laws, building codes, land-use regulations…

:gura:

N6ATF
04-06-2011, 4:09 PM
Ditto

hunteran
04-06-2011, 4:39 PM
Good God, they were absolutely BRUTAL with the city attorney. Love it.

Maestro Pistolero
04-06-2011, 6:02 PM
When Chicago was reduced to repeating the same arguments again and again that the judge had repeatedly said wouldn't hold water, I knew he was in deep doo-doo. If this somehow isn't a win, then there is no justice to be had in the 7th.

wildhawker
04-06-2011, 6:06 PM
I think you're incorrectly viewing a response assuming Renton as a tactical error. If you could explain your thoughts a bit more clearly it would be helpful in determining what you're seeing in the crystal ball in re property rights.

-Brandon

Alan almost didn't even have to show up. At times I came close to feeling sorry for the poor Chicago lawyer, because he was given one of the most severe tongue-lashings I've ever heard. I think you can tell that even he knows he has to defend something that's basically indefensible, and except for the old hag, the judges never let him forget it. There are some really amazing exchanges in that clip.

The most surprising thing was actually a tactical blunder that Alan made: when he said that Chicago didn't believe in private property, and then when the crone perked up to defend her city's honor, he repeated the claim and said that it was because of the city's zoning power. WOW! This just confirms that he's in it for the long haul, and based on the amount of passion that he momentarily showed, I have no doubt that some day, when the groundwork has been set and the time is right, he's going to go after the myriad unconstitutional infringements imposed on owners of property and real estate. I'm dreaming of a country without zoning laws, building codes, land-use regulations…

:gura:

nick
04-06-2011, 7:04 PM
Glass half-empty, eh?

Judges in lower courts tend not to like having lots of decisions overturned...it's bad for their career. Lawyers tend to not like losing cases, since it's bad for their career as well, and taxpayers can vote wasteful spenders out of office.

Not in Chicago they can't. Since dead voters are their most important voting block, this particular voting block just keeps on growing in numbers.

pointedstick
04-06-2011, 7:10 PM
I think you're incorrectly viewing a response assuming Renton as a tactical error. If you could explain your thoughts a bit more clearly it would be helpful in determining what you're seeing in the crystal ball in re property rights.

-Brandon

That sounds a lot smarter than what I was thinking. Don't assume I'm a genius here. :p It seemed to me that when Gura was explaining how the injunction should enjoin Chicago from using its zoning authority to create a de facto ban on ranges, he added in "Chicago doesn't believe in property rights" kind of as an off-the-cuff thing which really aggravated the old female judge, causing him to have to backtrack and defend his assertion. I think his quip was illustrative as to his true feelings regarding just what zoning laws amount to. The position that zoning laws are destructive to private property is not really a mainstream view (at least not outside libertarian circles), and the judge's hostile reaction was kind of startling, but he didn't back off.

Here's the full exchange. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but his testimony revealed a very dim view of zoning laws, and I'm hopeful that this means they'll be on his chopping block sometime on the future! :D


Gura: …The city may not apply its zoning code as a prohibition against the operation of gun ranges, and this is important because we don't have a problem if they want to zone for gun ranges, but the city's taken the position that because the zoning code does not explicitly authorize gun ranges, they are forbidden. There's no such thing as private property in Chicago, they don't believe in that, and unless they allow you to do something with your property, you may not-

Judge: Now what does that mean? "they don't believe in that?"

Gura: Well they don't!

Judge: What does that mean for god's sake? That I don't own my own apartment?

Gura: It means that you may not build an apartment on your land or occupy a single-family home on your land unless they've specifically authorized that use for your land, that was their testimony.

Judge: Well then they believe in private property. I can do it if it's zoned.

Gura: If they eliminate all the traditional uses of your property, the Supreme Court has held that that bundle of property rights is extinguished, it's a taking.

Judge: You know I've heard hyperbole but this is just ridiculous.

[B]Gura:[B] No actually, your honor, respectfully, we had the testimony the zoning comm-

Judge: You know, it takes a lot to get me angry.

Gura: We've had the testimony of the zoning commissioner Patti Scudiero who testified quite explicitly that the failure to list gun ranges as an authorized use of property means that it's prohibited, that whatever is not authorized-

hoffmang
04-06-2011, 7:37 PM
The comment about Chicago not believing in property rights comes directly from filings and depositions in the court below. The head of Zoning in Chicago said that, unless there was a zoning code for it, no business could be operated. She was saying that since there is no zoning for "digital music store" one couldn't open a "digital music store" in Chicago was her actual position in a deposition (ignoring the specific example here.)

If one knows much about zoning, it doesn't matter much what a business does as long as it generally fits the zoning in question. SAF wanted to park a range in an area zoned for commercial manufacturing - in fact in the lot of a place that perforates steel with projectiles!

-Gene

wash
04-06-2011, 8:49 PM
I have a feeling that this issue might be easy for Chicago to fold on. They will push gun ranges in to those industrial areas between abandoned factories, out of sight, out of mind.

Hopefully they will get used to folding and this will only be the first time.

N6ATF
04-06-2011, 10:09 PM
Not in Chicago they can't. Since dead voters are their most important voting block, this particular voting block just keeps on growing in numbers.

And it's certain that all the people Chicago disarmed literally to death are 'voting' for more disarmament from their graves.

Patrick-2
04-07-2011, 2:48 AM
I have a feeling that this issue might be easy for Chicago to fold on. They will push gun ranges in to those industrial areas between abandoned factories, out of sight, out of mind.

Hopefully they will get used to folding and this will only be the first time.

I have a feeling that will not work.

Chicago is aware of their zoning problem. They have gun ranges in nice areas and downtown, but for their own use. Under the previous view of the second amendment, it was up to Chicago to prove (to themselves, no less) that they had a legitimate need to put those ranges in those places.

Viewing gun ranges as adjunct to a fundamental right, these considerations are flipped upside down. Instead of having to justify why their gun range should be allowed in a certain area, they need to prove a compelling interest to keep our ranges out.

The secondary effects that Chicago claims to exist with public ranges do not exist above and beyond those of any other retail or commercial establishment. There is a extremely large body of experience nationwide - and in Chicago - to say that dangers are easily mitigated using standardized practices and technology. Chicago claims a thieves veto, which will fail. Likewise issues over congregation, thought I think the district court is going to willingly eat that one up like candy, due to it's elitist view ("gun people" should be kept away from the normal ones).

Either way, some of the people in Chicago behind this ordinance have to be regretting it by now. As Judge Sykes alluded to in her inquiries, By making exercise of the right contingent upon live fire training, Chicago has unwittingly elevated live fire training beyond the simple act of training and/or recreation. They have demonstrated it a right, in and of itself (though our side has argued that all along).

Or more specifically, as Judge Sykes said, "How can you say that live fire training is required for people to exercise the core right of the second amendment, and then also argue that live fire training is not core to the right?"

Chicago made a strategic blunder. They should have used ugly zoning right from the get-go. Court are exceptionally lenient on municipalities when it comes to zoning issues, and the fight would have been much harder. But now that ChiTown has demonstrated a penchant for violating this right, all future zoning arguments can be viewed through that lens.

As Alan Gottlieb likes to say, "sometimes our opponents do the most helpful things." Or something like that.

wash
04-07-2011, 9:17 AM
I hope you are right because that would work with the lose fast and appeal strategy.

If this goes the way it looks like it's going, what can Chicago do?

If they take a hard line and zone ranges out of the city, they will wind up back in court and get smacked down harder. They might have to permit ranges where they don't want them.

If they push them in to those industrial areas or wherever else they allow ranges to go, they can at least have some influence over what happens.

They have a choice and folding makes more sense because they should already know that they can not ban ranges outright.

Patrick-2
04-08-2011, 3:31 AM
Chicago is a great gift to gun owners nationwide. They operate solely on emotion and fail to recognize that much of their overt resistance is helping the cause.

I expect them to fight every little way they can. They will bend, stretch and break any rule in their Quixotian attack on the Second Amendment. Good on them. At some point the courts will react faster and with less concern given to their outrageous claims. Even judges who sympathize with the anti-gun goals will have to bite their tongues and rule according to law.

Witness Rovner in this latest set of orals. Nobody would suggest she was pro-2A, but she was pretty clear during the most idiotic of Chicago arguments that their arguments were bunk: "You are going to have real problems when this gets to the merits."

Even she did not want to get pegged as someone who would support the claims of Chicago. Having to decide over the merits of the case, she might even agree with Gura on the big issues. There is a reason she kept steering the inquiry away from merits and towards 'harm'.

Little time was spent on harm. It appeared that Sykes and Kanne accepted that as a given. Sykes clearly pointed out that the range ban was suppressing a fundamental right. At that point, there is no argument over 'harm', as the Supreme Court has said time and time again it is real and it cannot be fixed by little things like monetary settlements.

We should send ex-mayor Daley and the City Council a thank-you not when this is all done.

Shiboleth
04-08-2011, 8:52 AM
I have a question about the zoning concerns voiced here. If the city were to lose this suit and try to make things as cumbersome as possible by attempting to change zoning to pigeon-hole ranges into undesirable or unprofitable areas, how would that affect current ranges?

It seems very difficult to me, if zoning restrictions are based mainly on secondary affects, for the city to selectively make the argument that any newly constructed ranges should be held to any other standard than those that they hold their own ranges to.

Patrick-2
04-08-2011, 10:28 AM
I have a question about the zoning concerns voiced here. If the city were to lose this suit and try to make things as cumbersome as possible by attempting to change zoning to pigeon-hole ranges into undesirable or unprofitable areas, how would that affect current ranges?

It seems very difficult to me, if zoning restrictions are based mainly on secondary affects, for the city to selectively make the argument that any newly constructed ranges should be held to any other standard than those that they hold their own ranges to.

Yup.

They have started down the path to separating those run by police from those run for the public. Their argument is that the "congregational effect" of the dirty public going to a range will cause two secondary effects: on the one hand it will increase blood in the streets as disagreements over parking spots turn into full-fledged shoot-outs; and in the event that does not happen, bad-guys are going to loiter and try to steal guns from the good guys with guns. Or something.

I went to five gun shops yesterday; two of which included well-known and well run ranges. One of the ranges is right outside the DC line and frequently has young urban gentlemen who congregate in color coordinated clothing representing their affiliations with certain "neighborhood-based civic organizations". Sometimes you can see competing "organizations" shooting next to each other in different lanes.

There has never been a shootout in the parking lot. They show off at the range, seeing who can put more holes in the center of the paper. Just like me. I'd rather the gangs compete with guns at the range rather than the streets. But the moment they start out-shooting me I am living at the range. In fairness, they display excellent trigger discipline and good manners. Especially when surrounded by lots of people (including cops on personal time) with guns. There is even a snack bar. It's down-right festive.


Chicago is going to have a hard time with this. They might score a lower-court judge sympathetic to their please, but it won't last long. There are just too many examples of well-run and safe ranges like the one I just mentioned (they are a great range, BTW). Hopefully the Circuit sets the tone there while they got the chance. They are not dumb - they can see where this is going. I'm not a fan of over-decisions by federal courts, but in this case the TRO plea included a request from Gura to speak to the zoning issues. I hope they take the offer.

Maestro Pistolero
04-08-2011, 10:42 AM
We should send ex-mayor Daley and the City Council a thank-you not when this is all done.If that wasn't intentional it should have been!

uyoga
04-08-2011, 10:48 AM
Looks good - sounds good. Let's wait and see how it reads.

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 4:15 PM
They have started down the path to separating those run by police from those run for the public. Their argument is that the "congregational effect" of the dirty public going to a range will cause two secondary effects: on the one hand it will increase blood in the streets as disagreements over parking spots turn into full-fledged shoot-outs; and in the event that does not happen, bad-guys are going to loiter and try to steal guns from the good guys with guns. Or something.


Honestly, the "police range" versus "public range" issue is not the real issue to be concerned about. If the city changes its zoning laws to put ranges in areas that are commercially untenable then they can address the complaint about the difference between police ranges and public ranges by, simply, moving the police ranges to those very same places.

And that will do nothing to address the core of the problem, which will be that the areas in question are commercially untenable. Even if the city had to be on equal footing with private entities as regards the cost of putting a police range in the zoned area, they would still be able to do so while private entities would not, simply because the city is not constrained by costs in the same way that private entities are.


Whatever remedy we ask for, it's going to have to address that problem. Fortunately, Renton has evidentiary requirements that will hopefully prevent Chicago from successfully doing the above.

Shiboleth
04-08-2011, 4:24 PM
Honestly, the "police range" versus "public range" issue is not the real issue to be concerned about. If the city changes its zoning laws to put ranges in areas that are commercially untenable then they can address the complaint about the difference between police ranges and public ranges by, simply, moving the police ranges to those very same places.

And that will do nothing to address the core of the problem, which will be that the areas in question are commercially untenable. Even if the city had to be on equal footing with private entities as regards the cost of putting a police range in the zoned area, they would still be able to do so while private entities would not, simply because the city is not constrained by costs in the same way that private entities are.


Whatever remedy we ask for, it's going to have to address that problem. Fortunately, Renton has evidentiary requirements that will hopefully prevent Chicago from successfully doing the above.

With the economy the way it is, i'm not sure i buy the total disregard for cost of developing new ranges.

First, i don't see (based on argumentation of secondary effects) what the city could argue in order to isolate ranges to some specific area, though maybe i'm being short-sighted.

Second, i don't see how, while the city's current ranges are in fact in operation, the city could argue that new ranges be zoned any differently then current ranges. Seems to me that if the city is going to try to force out new private entity ranges by zoning both them and themselves into some particular area, they would first have to move their own ranges.

Am i missing something? What specific argument can the city make to zone new ranges into an area, that could stand up to the mountain of evidence that stands opposed to certain alarmist secondary effect predictions?

FreshTapCoke
04-08-2011, 5:36 PM
Whatever remedy we ask for, it's going to have to address that problem. Fortunately, Renton has evidentiary requirements that will hopefully prevent Chicago from successfully doing the above.

I'm thinking the zoning scenario won't be an impossible bridge to cross if they go there.

The reason the current statute barring operation of a public firing range will likely be struck down is because the city is requiring access to something that does not exist to exercise a fundamental right. In this case, there is someone willing to open a firing range, which will satisfy the live fire training portion of the requirement for a handgun license. But what if there was no one willing to open a range, even though the city allowed ranges to be constructed anywhere?

The city would still be in the exact same position. At the most, they'll be required to open publicly funded firing ranges for people to fulfill the training requirement. (Think the Sixth Amendment and the Public Defender system) At the least, they'll be compelled to allow the public access to existing ranges. (Law Enforcement/Academy)

Southwest Chuck
04-08-2011, 6:13 PM
In my mind, the city could very well enact new zoning regulations that would hinder the building of new publicly accessible firing ranges while at the same time, exempting current ones (Grand-fathering them in)? Also, I have some experience with building inspectors. They can delay a construction project in a multiple of ways adding to construction costs, especially if you get on the wrong side of them, and shut down a project for a minor error while you correct it. In the meantime they won't be available to re-inspect for a week or two, (or your re-inspection request will get lost some how. I can see the red tape now.... one delay after another :( That is of course if it ever gets out plan-check...

wilit
04-08-2011, 6:26 PM
I love Alan Gura. He is a god amongst men.

hoffmang
04-08-2011, 8:27 PM
If the city changes its zoning laws to put ranges in areas that are commercially untenable then they can address the complaint about the difference between police ranges and public ranges by, simply, moving the police ranges to those very same places.

LOL! That is a a political tin ear if I've ever seen one.

What happens when city government makes cops mad?

-Gene

wildhawker
04-08-2011, 9:01 PM
Beyond the ever-capable Gura/Sigale conlaw team, I'm pretty confident that we might just have some construction management folks around who'd gladly donate some time to ensure that everything goes smoothly with SAF's range...

-Brandon

In my mind, the city could very well enact new zoning regulations that would hinder the building of new publicly accessible firing ranges while at the same time, exempting current ones (Grand-fathering them in)? Also, I have some experience with building inspectors. They can delay a construction project in a multiple of ways adding to construction costs, especially if you get on the wrong side of them, and shut down a project for a minor error while you correct it. In the meantime they won't be available to re-inspect for a week or two, (or your re-inspection request will get lost some how. I can see the red tape now.... one delay after another :( That is of course if it ever gets out plan-check...

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 9:05 PM
With the economy the way it is, i'm not sure i buy the total disregard for cost of developing new ranges.


Yeah, so?

California is an existence proof that the economy doesn't mean crap when it comes to government spending.



First, i don't see (based on argumentation of secondary effects) what the city could argue in order to isolate ranges to some specific area, though maybe i'm being short-sighted.


I won't put it past them to think of something, or to try so many different things that something eventually sticks.



Second, i don't see how, while the city's current ranges are in fact in operation, the city could argue that new ranges be zoned any differently then current ranges. Seems to me that if the city is going to try to force out new private entity ranges by zoning both them and themselves into some particular area, they would first have to move their own ranges.


Yeah, and why exactly is that a problem? They'll be happy to do precisely that if it means keeping the de facto ban on firearms ownership in place.



Am i missing something? What specific argument can the city make to zone new ranges into an area, that could stand up to the mountain of evidence that stands opposed to certain alarmist secondary effect predictions?

That's the real question, and is why I cite the evidentiary requirements of Renton as being the only real thing that may keep them from succeeding in this.

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 9:07 PM
LOL! That is a a political tin ear if I've ever seen one.

What happens when city government makes cops mad?


When those cops, who belong to the police force of the most corrupt city in the nation and are charged with enforcing the resulting corrupt laws in, naturally, a most corrupt manner, are faced with either moving the ranges or allowing citizens to own firearms, which do you think they'll do?

They'll happily move the ranges, that's what they'll do.

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 9:11 PM
Beyond the ever-capable Gura/Sigale conlaw team, I'm pretty confident that we might just have some construction management folks around who'd gladly donate some time to ensure that everything goes smoothly with SAF's range...


Well, needless to say I expect even the best construction management team, backed by the best lawyers in the nation, will see considerable delays and such, but I have to say that the resulting show will be most entertaining to watch. :43:

hoffmang
04-08-2011, 9:15 PM
When those cops, who belong to the police force of the most corrupt city in the nation and are charged with enforcing the resulting corrupt laws in, naturally, a most corrupt manner, are faced with either moving the ranges or allowing citizens to own firearms, which do you think they'll do?

They'll happily move the ranges, that's what they'll do.

I don't mean to be mean but you're naive. How many councilmen's homes have to be robbed, cars vandalized, etc. before the "plan to move the ranges" is shelved?

It's call the thin blue line for a reason. And note I don't mean a sweeping generalization, but am talking specifically of a pretty corrupt city.

-Gene

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 9:20 PM
I don't mean to be mean but you're naive. How many councilmen's homes have to be robbed, cars vandalized, etc. before the "plan to move the ranges" is shelved?

It's call the thin blue line for a reason. And note I don't mean a sweeping generalization, but am talking specifically of a pretty corrupt city.


Why do you believe the corrupt cops of the most corrupt city in the nation would be happier with the citizenry getting to own firearms than with moving the police ranges, so much so that they would actually refuse to protect the city officials and their property to avoid doing the latter (and, hence, to achieve the former)?

Please explain your logic here, because I quite clearly don't see it at all.


ETA: which is to say, I don't doubt the willingness of the police to do what you say, I doubt their motivation in the face of allowing the citizens to possess firearms.

Shiboleth
04-08-2011, 10:33 PM
Yeah, and why exactly is that a problem? They'll be happy to do precisely that if it means keeping the de facto ban on firearms ownership in place.

Think about what you're suggesting. You're saying that in the face of a facepunch loss from Gura, the city will react to a ruling stating that if they want to continue to require live fire training they cannot ban ranges by doing the following...
Coming up with some super restrictive zoning process by arguing some secondary affects i can't foresee, which precludes the continued operation of current ranges. Then moving all (5?) ranges to suitable areas, and then allowing private ranges to be zoned. This would all need to be done quickly, as any new zoning rules meant to curtail private ranges, assuming current ranges wouldn't be grandfathered, would mean that current ranges are no longer suitable for the current zoning.

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 10:42 PM
Think about what you're suggesting. You're saying that in the face of a facepunch loss from Gura, the city will react to a ruling stating that if they want to continue to require live fire training they cannot ban ranges by doing the following...
Coming up with some super restrictive zoning process by arguing some secondary affects i can't foresee, which precludes the continued operation of current ranges. Then moving all (5?) ranges to suitable areas, and then allowing private ranges to be zoned. This would all need to be done quickly, as any new zoning rules meant to curtail private ranges, assuming current ranges wouldn't be grandfathered, would mean that current ranges are no longer suitable for the current zoning.

If Chicago wants badly enough to keep citizens from being armed, yes.

It all depends on how badly Chicago wants that.


As for the existing ranges, I'm sure the city can grant them some "preparation time" for such a move, assuming they can't simply be grandfathered into place (the latter exposes the new zoning ordinances to additional legal attacks, though, so I doubt they'd try that unless it's for a limited time).


As I said, I don't actually think this is likely to happen, because I suspect the evidence they'd need to survive a Renton style challenge doesn't exist, but remember that we're assuming for this discussion that they somehow are able to survive such a challenge.

hoffmang
04-08-2011, 10:46 PM
Why do you believe the corrupt cops of the most corrupt city in the nation would be happier with the citizenry getting to own firearms than with moving the police ranges, so much so that they would actually refuse to protect the city officials and their property to avoid doing the latter (and, hence, to achieve the former)?

Please explain your logic here, because I quite clearly don't see it at all.


ETA: which is to say, I don't doubt the willingness of the police to do what you say, I doubt their motivation in the face of allowing the citizens to possess firearms.

They care far more about their own toys than the citizens and they aren't going to believe that they have to move their ranges to disarm the citizens.

Why are you, of all people, arguing that cops wouldn't follow their own self interest in Chicago? Really?

-Gene

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 11:39 PM
They care far more about their own toys than the citizens and they aren't going to believe that they have to move their ranges to disarm the citizens.

Why are you, of all people, arguing that cops wouldn't follow their own self interest in Chicago? Really?


Let me get this straight.

You think the cops there would rather give up some of their power for convenience?


I am arguing that they'll follow their own self interest. Their self interest includes the power they have over citizens, which most notably includes the fact that they are armed and the citizens are (currently) not. That changes if the city is forced to allow private ranges in such a way that they can be economically viable.

That may not sound like much (what difference does it make if the citizens get to keep their firearms only in their own homes, right?), but now look a little further ahead. If the citizens are allowed to own firearms and we win carry in the Supreme Court, then suddenly the cops lose a lot of power. Suddenly, citizens can look after themselves in public and the cops can no longer claim the same relevance they once did.


You seriously think it's not in their self interest to prevent that? You seriously think they're stupid enough to not be able to look ahead a little, or to "get it" when the people running the city explain it to them? You seriously think the inconvenience of moving their ranges outweighs that?

The citizenry can't legally carry firearms if they can't legally own them. That's what the fight comes down to.


Why else do you think the city of Chicago is fighting to keep firearms out of the hands of citizens? Do you think it's for ideology? Please. It's all about power, and nothing else.

hoffmang
04-09-2011, 1:06 AM
Let me get this straight.

You think the cops there would rather give up some of their power for convenience?


You don't have it straight. You assume they think they'll be giving up power. They can't imagine that civilians will win this over the long term.

You really have to stop assuming the world works as logically as you perceive it. It will really help you understand politics better - which I can tell flumoxes you.

-Gene

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 1:31 AM
You don't have it straight. You assume they think they'll be giving up power. They can't imagine that civilians will win this over the long term.


Ah. I see you're assuming that they're stupid, ignorant, or blind.

Well, yes, if they are any of those, then sure, they won't see it coming.


That's a dangerous assumption to make when dealing with people who have managed to hold onto their power the way these people have for as long as they have, don't you think?



You really have to stop assuming the world works as logically as you perceive it. It will really help you understand politics better - which I can tell flumoxes you.
Perhaps.

But if I cannot use logic to predict the world, then what do you suggest I use in its place? A crystal ball? A roll of the dice? Some kind of magic incantation, perhaps?

Give me a better tool than logic to predict the world and I'll use it. I am a realist, after all, so I'm always on the lookout for such things. But I've not seen such a tool produced yet.

Patrick-2
04-09-2011, 5:06 AM
A few notes from a guy who spends time in the fair city of Chicago:

Chicago was once a major manufacturing center of excellence. Now they get excited when a company that takes T-Shirt orders over the internet opens shop in the city. In other words, there is a lot of dead manufacturing there. The entire south side is full of abandoned buildings that once housed machine shops, wrecking yards and slaughterhouses. Even the north has a large share of the same. Chicago was once very much a working city.

If Chicago wants to zone ranges into commercial/industrial-only areas, they are still opening a lot of territory. Consider that as you listen to their arguments. They know that being forced to zone into industrial areas means ranges are going up in a lot of places. This scares them.

This is a well-chosen case. This city, these conditions and this specific rule are all the perfect storm.

Other zoning options exist. Let's see what they come up with.

But moving existing ranges won't happen. Not all belong to the city (about half). The feds are not going to move their ranges to make ChiTown happy. And zoning rules could be written to avoid it, anyway.

Scarecrow Repair
04-09-2011, 5:40 AM
But if I cannot use logic to predict the world, then what do you suggest I use in its place? A crystal ball? A roll of the dice? Some kind of magic incantation, perhaps?

It's nothing to do with *your* logic, and everything to do with your assuming that the other people will act in what you consider a rational logical manner. You need to better understand their point of view to understand their logic. They act on *their* logic, not yours.

hoffmang
04-09-2011, 11:34 AM
It's nothing to do with *your* logic, and everything to do with your assuming that the other people will act in what you consider a rational logical manner. You need to better understand their point of view to understand their logic. They act on *their* logic, not yours.

This.

kcbrown, Let me ask you a question. Strategically, wouldn't it have been smarter for Chicago to have zoned first and not banned first? From now on, an attempt to use zoning to create a defacto ban will be in the shadow of this previous case. Additionally, if they hadn't required range training to have a handgun in your home in Chicago, this would be a harder case for us. They literally threw us a fastball down the middle on a 3-0 count to our clean up hitter. They should never strategically have done it this way with this order of operations.

Yet they did. Explain that to yourself and you'll be on the path to what I'm trying to help you see.

It was going to be hard to get the range question under review as it was probably going to be in some context of some range having a lead problem or something - icky facts for us. This... Well. Heh.

-Gene

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 1:41 PM
It's nothing to do with *your* logic, and everything to do with your assuming that the other people will act in what you consider a rational logical manner. You need to better understand their point of view to understand their logic. They act on *their* logic, not yours.

Logic is a relatively well defined system of rules that one applies to axioms to yield results (and that one can then apply to those results). If they are acting based on the rules of logic but getting different results then they must be starting with different axioms.

Alternatively, and much more likely, they're not acting entirely on logic, but instead are acting in part on emotion.


Regardless, I agree: to understand how they are going to act, one has to understand their point of view.

So do tell: what specifically about their point of view is going to cause them to consistently do the wrong thing here when historically they have not consistently done the wrong thing for many decades as regards retaining their power?

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 1:56 PM
This.

kcbrown, Let me ask you a question. Strategically, wouldn't it have been smarter for Chicago to have zoned first and not banned first? From now on, an attempt to use zoning to create a defacto ban will be in the shadow of this previous case. Additionally, if they hadn't required range training to have a handgun in your home in Chicago, this would be a harder case for us. They literally threw us a fastball down the middle on a 3-0 count to our clean up hitter. They should never strategically have done it this way with this order of operations.

Yet they did. Explain that to yourself and you'll be on the path to what I'm trying to help you see.


I certainly agree. There is hubris to be found there, that comes from having successfully wielded power in the way they have for as long as they have.

But they got slapped down in McDonald and are about to get slapped down again in Ezell.

That will be two successive failures on their part to maintain their power. What you're suggesting is that they will not learn from that -- that they will not adjust their actions to suit the change in the landscape. In other words, you're suggesting that they're stupid.


I most certainly do concede that their viewpoint may be such that it blinds them so fundamentally and so completely that they will not be able to adapt and thus can never "smarten up". But again, I find that to be a dangerous assumption to make, given that these people have managed to successfully hold power the way they have for as long as they have, and find such an assumption to be sheer arrogance on our part. Such arrogance is precisely the reason they have blundered until now. We can't afford that.

Kharn
04-09-2011, 2:08 PM
Don't forgt that many people in Chicago politics and city offices received their jobs due to patronage and nepotism rather than their skills and merits. They think they are gods at checkers, not realizing the game is chess.

The same practices are making Gura's case in MD hilarious, with our AG conceding we may OC or CC loaded long guns without a permit in an attempt to prevent a shall-issue court ruling, not realizing Heller says handguns are equal to rifles so they may end up with Constitutional carry instead.

hoffmang
04-09-2011, 3:23 PM
I most certainly do concede that their viewpoint may be such that it blinds them so fundamentally and so completely that they will not be able to adapt and thus can never "smarten up".

What evidence do you have that they are smart in the first place. They are simply trying to create a distinction where none exists because the disarmament they want can't happen. Already they have twice sucked the oxygen out of their own operating environment in unforced errors on their part. I'll say it again - they T'ed up ranges for us!

You didn't explain why they banned ranges first before moving to zoning. It's not up to me to try to explain to you why your strategic thinking is wrong when you are being blind to your own way of thinking. Politicians, like marketing people, don't think like you. They have very different incentives.

I'll give you some hints about why this went the way it did and it should show you that you're not understanding the frame.

1. They wanted to require live fire training to vastly cut into the number of people who would acquire handguns in Chicago specifically to keep down the number of guns in the city.
2. However, none of the councilpeople wanted to take the political heat of having a range open in their district so they then banned ranges everywhere.

That's their "strategic" thinking. And yes I am both deadly serious and working off of their information.

-Gene

wash
04-09-2011, 3:53 PM
One hand does not know what the other is doing.

I'm regularly amazed by the extent of human stupidity.

It's kind of naive to think that it has limits.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 4:05 PM
What evidence do you have that they are smart in the first place.


Other than the fact that they've managed to retain the power they have in the way that they have as long as they have, I have none. I assume that they are at least reasonably intelligent because to do otherwise exposes the flank.

Which is to say: if they continue to do dumb things, we'll just win that much more quickly and easily. But if we predicate the strategy on them doing dumb things and they get lucky and just happen to do a smart thing for dumb reasons, then we'll be caught with our pants down and will lose when we didn't have to.



They are simply trying to create a distinction where none exists because the disarmament they want can't happen.
See, this is the kind of arrogance I'm talking about. You assume the disarmament they want simply can't happen. That has yet to be proven.

I agree, it's likely that the disarmament they want will never come about, but that is vastly different from saying that it can't happen.



Already they have twice sucked the oxygen out of their own operating environment in unforced errors on their part. I'll say it again - they T'ed up ranges for us!
I know, and it has been very entertaining to watch. :43:



You didn't explain why they banned ranges first before moving to zoning.
They banned ranges first because they thought that would be sufficient. They thought that one level of indirection would be sufficient to negate RKBA, and they thought they'd get away with that.

Look, let me put it this way: as of now, they have had one loss on the RKBA front. One loss does not a trend make. I think their arrogance causes them to not think in terms of the possibility that they will lose a second time.

But you're assuming that line of thinking will continue, even in the face of an additional loss. I am not willing to assume that kind of stupidity on the part of my enemy.


As you say, they're playing checkers when we're playing chess. That's well and good as far as it goes, but it does not do us any good to assume that they will never rise to the level of playing chess.

Fortunately, our strategy so far has not been predicated on their stupidity. We're playing good chess no matter what. I'm saying we dare not let our guard down just because they have, up until this point in time, been acting stupidly.


It's not up to me to try to explain to you why your strategic thinking is wrong when you are being blind to your own way of thinking. Politicians, like marketing people, don't think like you. They have very different incentives.
Most certainly, but no matter what kind of thinking a person may have, they are subject to the real world. Either they adapt to the real world or they lose. I will not bet on my enemy losing until they have actually lost. I will not count my victories prematurely.



I'll give you some hints about why this went the way it did and it should show you that you're not understanding the frame.

1. They wanted to require live fire training to vastly cut into the number of people who would acquire handguns in Chicago specifically to keep down the number of guns in the city.
2. However, none of the councilpeople wanted to take the political heat of having a range open in their district so they then banned ranges everywhere.

That's their "strategic" thinking. And yes I am both deadly serious and working off of their information.
Well, if they don't learn differently, then it will be all kinds of good for us. But I will not assume that they won't learn until we actually have complete victory in hand.


How many times has someone lost a fight because they presumed their enemy to be smarter than they actually turned out to be?

dawgcasa
04-09-2011, 4:22 PM
One hand does not know what the other is doing.

I'm regularly amazed by the extent of human stupidity.

It's kind of naive to think that it has limits.

I'm regularly amazed at how completely committed some people are to an agenda that they fully embrace a world view that the end justifies the means ... Any means ... In the case of the Chicago political machine they believe that any means to affect a handgun ban is legit, regardless of those means being unconstitutional, illegal, irrational, or illogical. They believe so fundamentally that a handgun ban is 'right' that circumventing constitutional law and trampling individual rights to achieve it is just a necessary means to overcome an inconvenient obstacle to their goal. Its not that they are naive, it's that they don't place the same value on individual rights that you and I do ... They believe their version of "the greater good" has a much higher value than individual rights. The thing these Chicago politicians and their legal minions are blind to is that elevating one person's or a political group's opinion of "greater good" above the protection of fundamental individual rights is a dangerous slippery slope that has always led to autocratic domination by political elite castes and resulting human suffering throughout human history. Hitler's and Stalin's versions of "greater good" didn't work out so well for several millions of souls.


"My son has taught me everything I know about baseball ... Baseball has taught him everything about himself" - Me

wildhawker
04-09-2011, 4:22 PM
kc, I often see people lose by overthinking things. For example, I think some posters in this very thread are on the verge of it. ;)

-Brandon

sfbadger
04-09-2011, 4:24 PM
See, this is the kind of arrogance I'm talking about. You assume the disarmament they want simply can't happen. That has yet to be proven.

I agree, it's likely that the disarmament they want will never come about, but that is vastly different from saying that it can't happen.

I don't think Gene's thinking shows arrogance, but he's simply stating that as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as it is written, disarmament can't happen.


Look, let me put it this way: as of now, they have had one loss on the RKBA front. One loss does not a trend make. I think their arrogance causes them to not think in terms of the possibility that they will lose a second time.

If you count Ezell, I believe that's two RKBA losses for Chicago.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 4:26 PM
kc, I often see people lose by overthinking things. For example, I think some posters in this very thread are on the verge of it. ;)


LOL!!!!

I like very much how you said this. Nicely done. :D


By the way, I'm not really talking about overthinking things (that is most certainly a danger to be cognizant of), but rather simply assuming that the enemy is going to be intelligent in their actions. Of course you have to plan for the possibility that they'll be idiots, but that's usually relatively straightforward, no?

Mofo-Kang
04-09-2011, 4:31 PM
I think you may have missed when Judge Kanne pointed out that all Federal Courthouses had firing ranges in them. It's why he pointed out to Chicago's counsel that they and the team working for Chicago had clearly never been to to gun range. The court here is well aware of the realities of an indoor range since there is one in the building where this argument took place.

-Gene

It's where US Marshals can train, and I imagine it's open to other law enforcement (especially feds), too.

hoffmang
04-09-2011, 4:39 PM
They banned ranges first because they thought that would be sufficient.

No. They banned ranges because they were politically lazy. If they were willing to put up with their own political pressure, the would have started with zoning which would require studies and work. Also recall that on a straight up vote in Chicago these politicians' constituents would have a majority vote to ban handguns - just like San Francisco. Their operating environment includes the political pressure of the other side which I doubt seriously you are factoring into your analysis.

The last point is why DC appealed the loss in Heller. LCAV and Brady begged them not to but they did as the political heat locally for not appealing was worse than doing the right strategic thing. I'm not betting on lazy or stupid, I'm factoring in politically realities that don't often cut the way they look like the should on the first glance. A version of this analysis is why I doubt seriously you'll ever see the California legislature touch carry laws after a SCOTUS bear = carry case.

-Gene

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 4:41 PM
I don't think Gene's thinking shows arrogance, but he's simply stating that as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as it is written, disarmament can't happen.


Well, remember that it is still very early in the game. The Supreme Court generally only answers the questions put before it, those questions (and, I expect, the order in which they're asked) largely determine the answer, the Court has its own set of internal politics (and as such can change its answer depending in part on the motivations of the individuals within it, the compromises they have agreed to, etc.), and the makeup of the court is subject to revision.

We have limited control over which questions arrive at the Supreme Court, the order in which they arrive, and the time they arrive. If a Gorski case winds up at the Supreme Court before one of ours, it could prove disastrous, even if the Supreme Court is interpreting the 2nd Amendment as you say.


The strategy we have in place accounts for all those things as best it can, of course, but it's only as best as it can. We like to say that we're playing chess, but we're really playing a game that has a much stronger element of chance in it. And luck runs out.



If you count Ezell, I believe that's two RKBA losses for Chicago.You're counting Ezell before we have actually won it. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 4:55 PM
No. They banned ranges because they were politically lazy.


Okay, but are you saying, then, that they did not think that banning ranges would be sufficient? Which is to say, are you asserting here that they banned ranges knowing that it wouldn't be enough?

Or are you in part agreeing with me in that they did think that banning the ranges would be sufficient, but they also chose that because it was the easiest path for them?


If the latter, then my point really does stand. If they thought banning the ranges would be sufficient then why would they choose a different and more expensive (politically or otherwise) approach?


ETA: assuming they weren't completely devoid of thought, might not they also have thought of zoning or other more politically difficult methods as workable fallbacks? It is much easier to argue for a more politically expensive option when the cheaper option has been taken away from you, no?



If they were willing to put up with their own political pressure, the would have started with zoning which would require studies and work. Also recall that on a straight up vote in Chicago these politicians' constituents would have a majority vote to ban handguns - just like San Francisco. Their operating environment includes the political pressure of the other side which I doubt seriously you are factoring into your analysis.
That's true only to the degree that the political pressure matters. If political pressure from the constitutents is the primary driver of the anti-gun actions of Chicago and the effects of a gun ban on the distribution of power are not, then yes, my analysis is flawed.

However, I thought most of the politicians' voting constituents were dead. :D



The last point is why DC appealed the loss in Heller. LCAV and Brady begged them not to but they did as the political heat locally for not appealing was worse than doing the right strategic thing. I'm not betting on lazy or stupid, I'm factoring in politically realities that don't often cut the way they look like the should on the first glance. A version of this analysis is why I doubt seriously you'll ever see the California legislature touch carry laws after a SCOTUS bear = carry case.
Fair enough. I'm certainly ill-equipped to answer the political externalities the politicians in Chicago actually answer to, since I was rather under the impression that such externalities were relatively small and tightly knit. Which is to say, I was under the impression that the politicians there answered to a relatively small number of very wealthy/powerful individuals, and that the actual voters themselves mattered little there.

After all, the mayor's race always seems to be a lock for whoever is currently the mayor or whoever he chooses as his successor, no? Why would it be different for any other political candidate there?

sfbadger
04-09-2011, 5:11 PM
The last point is why DC appealed the loss in Heller. LCAV and Brady begged them not to but they did as the political heat locally for not appealing was worse than doing the right strategic thing.

-Gene

Please tell us more about LCAV and Brady begging? We love it when things don't go their way! :43:

N6ATF
04-09-2011, 5:15 PM
No. They banned ranges because they were politically lazy. If they were willing to put up with their own political pressure, the would have started with zoning which would require studies and work.

If ranges were not a specifically permitted use in the zoning regs in the first place like AG said, why did Chicago even have to take the affirmative step of banning ranges? They could have just sat back while the paper pushers rejected all the applications and told their criminal constituents, if asked: "don't worry, ranges aren't zonable in the city to begin with, and we're not going to add them."

hoffmang
04-09-2011, 7:57 PM
Which is to say, are you asserting here that they banned ranges knowing that it wouldn't be enough?
Nope. They had decided to spite us by requiring range time. But then they had the "Oh Sh t" moment where they realized there would have to be ranges in someones district and no politician wanted to answer to their anti-gun constituents about why there was a range there - so they banned them. It really is that dumb. You need to go attend your local city or county counsel and get a feel for the level of inane that is local politics. You keep thinking "diaboloical" when "crass and juvenile" will do. It's not underestimating them. Overestimating them - as you continue to do - is an equal path to failure.
If ranges were not a specifically permitted use in the zoning regs in the first place like AG said, why did Chicago even have to take the affirmative step of banning ranges? They could have just sat back while the paper pushers rejected all the applications and told their criminal constituents, if asked: "don't worry, ranges aren't zonable in the city to begin with, and we're not going to add them."
Go find a Chicago City Councilperson and listen to one of their speeches. Corrupt they can do, diabolical is way past their capabilities. Had they not banned ranges, a range would have applied for a zoning permit and the bureaucratic functionary would have taken the check and sent the permit. Weeks after and as the range had just opened a "sky is falling, news at 11" would have run and then the council would be "doing something about it." At that point, it would be very hard for the range to have been closed down.

kcbrown - have you ever actually tracked an issue from start to finish through a political process and physically met the politicians in that process? I suggest you Google around as I think the hearings on Chicago's gun ordinance are available. It's enlightening.

Also, as to your "OMFG they'll just overturn Heller and McDonald", again you miss the political reality. It's very easy to be vote 4 against the Second Amendment, it's VERY hard to be vote 5. If we lose the 2A we have Constitutional Amendment majorities - and yes, that would end the issue. With those majorities, the worst case would be that we would pass an additional amendment removing the entire Supreme Court in protest.

The ballot box remains very strong if the middle is pushed.

Devils advocacy isn't of much value to anyone but you.

-Gene

Dreaded Claymore
04-09-2011, 8:11 PM
Kcbrown, alcohol is a depressant. If you drink, I think you should probably quit. You're embarrassing yourself here.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 8:42 PM
Nope. They had decided to spite us by requiring range time. But then they had the "Oh Sh t" moment where they realized there would have to be ranges in someones district and no politician wanted to answer to their anti-gun constituents about why there was a range there - so they banned them. It really is that dumb. You need to go attend your local city or county counsel and get a feel for the level of inane that is local politics. You keep thinking "diaboloical" when "crass and juvenile" will do. It's not underestimating them. Overestimating them - as you continue to do - is an equal path to failure.


Wow. Just wow.

You win. But that leaves this tiny, little nagging question: how have these complete morons managed to stay in power the way they have for so long? Why haven't other people with some modicum of intelligence managed to wipe the floor with these people?


As to overestimating the enemy being an equal path to failure: can you cite examples of that actually happening?





kcbrown - have you ever actually tracked an issue from start to finish through a political process and physically met the politicians in that process? I suggest you Google around as I think the hearings on Chicago's gun ordinance are available. It's enlightening.
Sounds like a worthwhile exercise.

My Google-fu must be particularly weak for dragging things like this up. I find tons of news stories, but no actual transcripts or recordings. So far, the closest thing I've been able to find is this: http://www.chicityclerk.com/journals/2010/july2_2010/070210SP.pdf

That doesn't seem to have any discussion whatsoever.



Also, as to your "OMFG they'll just overturn Heller and McDonald",
That's not quite what I was saying. Heller and McDonald could easily remain as they are while the Supreme Court later finds all manner of regulation, that has the de facto effect of banning firearms carry (if not ownership) under most conditions, to be "Constitutional". The Supreme Court left themselves a wide open avenue for it: "sensitive places".

Kelo is an example of the Supreme Court doing that with the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.




again you miss the political reality. It's very easy to be vote 4 against the Second Amendment, it's VERY hard to be vote 5. If we lose the 2A we have Constitutional Amendment majorities - and yes, that would end the issue. With those majorities, the worst case would be that we would pass an additional amendment removing the entire Supreme Court in protest.
I keep forgetting about that option. I won't do so again (er, hopefully :D ).

However, if that is the case then why do you think it's even relevant how many Supreme Court justices get nominated by Obama? If they rule against the 2nd Amendment, even with more than a 5-4 split, won't we just overrule them via Constitutional Convention?

I suppose we could say it's the same sort of thing as the upcoming anti-gun legislation here in California and what governor Brown may do if it lands on his desk. It's much better to not have to fight bad bills in court if it can be avoided, but it's nice to know that we have the option. Similarly, I suppose it's much better to not have to need a Constitutional Convention to fix the Supreme Court's screwups, but it's nice to know the option is there.



The ballot box remains very strong if the middle is pushed.

Devils advocacy isn't of much value to anyone but you.
Perhaps so, but I nonetheless retain a very strong belief that it is better to overestimate the enemy than underestimate them. I've never heard of a situation where doing the former resulted in losing, and eagerly await your examples of that. I've heard of plenty of situations where doing the latter did.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 8:43 PM
Kcbrown, alcohol is a depressant. If you drink, I think you should probably quit. You're embarrassing yourself here.

Nope, I don't. You can see I have no need to. :D

N6ATF
04-09-2011, 8:57 PM
Go find a Chicago City Councilperson and listen to one of their speeches. Corrupt they can do, diabolical is way past their capabilities. Had they not banned ranges, a range would have applied for a zoning permit and the bureaucratic functionary would have taken the check and sent the permit. Weeks after and as the range had just opened a "sky is falling, news at 11" would have run and then the council would be "doing something about it." At that point, it would be very hard for the range to have been closed down.

Paraphrasing AG, even without Chicago banning ranges redundantly post-McDonald with the preexisting disallowance of them in the zoning regs (everything unlisted is disallowed), ranges still would not have been permitted had they not made any change in the law.

The bureaucratic functionary might have taken the check :43:, but would NOT in any circumstance have sent the permit, because they were not authorized by law to issue permits for gun ranges, an unlisted, and therefore, disallowed use under the preexisting zoning regs.

If this is a proper paraphrase, you should be arguing this point with Alan, not me.

Shiboleth
04-09-2011, 10:16 PM
Wow. Just wow.

You win. But that leaves this tiny, little nagging question: how have these complete morons managed to stay in power the way they have for so long? Why haven't other people with some modicum of intelligence managed to wipe the floor with these people?

General apathy of the voting public, and soundbite news/politics would be my guess.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 10:44 PM
General apathy of the voting public, and soundbite news/politics would be my guess.

Why wouldn't an intelligent opponent be able to take advantage of or do these things much better than the morons they have now?

sfbadger
04-09-2011, 10:47 PM
General apathy of the voting public, and soundbite news/politics would be my guess.

That and the fact that the Chicago Democrat political machine has been in place and in power for some five decades. Changing the status-quo in power has never been an easy task!

hoffmang
04-10-2011, 12:46 AM
But that leaves this tiny, little nagging question: how have these complete morons managed to stay in power the way they have for so long? Why haven't other people with some modicum of intelligence managed to wipe the floor with these people?
See below.

As to overestimating the enemy being an equal path to failure: can you cite examples of that actually happening? Nagasaki. It didn't result in losing if you weren't an unnecessary civilian casualty.


Sounds like a worthwhile exercise.

My Google-fu must be particularly weak for dragging things like this up. I find tons of news stories, but no actual transcripts or recordings.
It's uploading to vimeo because the Chicago video server stinks and I'll post when its done re-encoding. Anyone that can has left Chicago. Explain to me how the SF city government stays elected.


The bureaucratic functionary might have taken the check :43:, but would NOT in any circumstance have sent the permit, because they were not authorized by law to issue permits for gun ranges, an unlisted, and therefore, disallowed use under the preexisting zoning regs.

When you're a dude opening a gun range you fill out a form and send it to the lowly clerk it just gets processed. When you depose the head of zoning, you get the answer that AG got which is laughable - why he points it out.

-Gene

kcbrown
04-10-2011, 1:13 AM
See below.

Nagasaki. It didn't result in losing if you weren't an unnecessary civilian casualty.


This isn't an example of the side that overestimated the enemy losing, which is specifically what I'm asking for.

If the Japanese had overestimated the ability of the U.S., they had a funny way of showing it.


If you're saying that overestimating the enemy may result in excessive damage to the enemy, then I certain agree with that. But that's not really what I'm talking about. And in any case, if that was what you were referring to then I have to wonder why you would concern yourself with excessive damage to the anti-gun side. :43:



It's uploading to vimeo because the Chicago video server stinks and I'll post when its done re-encoding. Anyone that can has left Chicago.
Excellent. Thank you sir! I suspect this will be most entertaining. :43:



Explain to me how the SF city government stays elected.
If the SF city council is as dumb as the Chicago one, then I'm left asking the same thing with respect to it as I am with Chicago: why hasn't someone with intelligence gone in and wiped the floor with them? In fact, doesn't the fact that the current city council members are as dumb as rocks (in both Chicago and SF) present a rather monumental opportunity for our side? Why bother with litigation against the city when you can simply oust the current city councils in both locations and fix things from the inside?



When you're a dude opening a gun range you fill out a form and send it to the lowly clerk it just gets processed.
This implies that you can fill out the form and send it in, and as long as the type of business you list on the form isn't in the magic list of business types that can be zoned, you will get a zoning permit for your business anywhere that any business at all can, because the implication is that the clerk won't bother to flag the application for further examination (and thus denial for not being a zonable business type).

Does it really work like that in Chicago?

Patrick-2
04-10-2011, 5:10 AM
Everyone talks about the Chicago Machine but they do not understand it. I get Gene's comparison to San Francisco, but it goes much deeper.

The Layman's version of "How Chicago works":

Dems are in charge. I won't go throug the history of how and why, but much of it can be traced back to labor issues and the progressive movement early last century. Suffice to say, the Democratic Party is in charge and will remain that way. Here's why:

The Alderman: there are about 50 of them. Chicago is massively bureaucratic and the process intentionally labyrinthian. That is not hyperbole, it is truth. To do most anything in the city requires a permit or a process, almost all of which require you to go to your local Alderman and get him/her to help you out. Some things will simply not happen without an Alderman approving it. In some cases this is the official rule, in others the unofficial rule. The effect is the same.

Labor: You buy a three-flat in Lincoln Park. It needs some TLC so you pull the permit (see above) and start in some DIY renovations. Drywall, some painting and new bath and light fixtures. Some contractors stopped by and offered you a good deal to do the work for you, but you like to get dirty and prefer to do it yourself. One day you wake up and find men standing in front of your house. The are protesting your anti-union work. The local Home Depot drivers won't deliver your cabinets because they won't cross the line - two guys sitting out front of your place in a truck warning everyone else away.

You make arrangements to pick up the cabinets yourself, using a rented truck. Two days later you wake up and find your car tires slashed. You eventually hire out some local help just to finish up the drywall. They are just guys you met and they are good, but they don't work for anyone. It's just a few hours.

The city shows up and asks to see your contractors license and proof of workers comp and fidelity bond. Permits are not approved, inspections go bad and you are getting fined for all kinds of BS stuff. You are never going to finish and get this place rented out. The mortgage is piling up. You ask the local Alderman for help working with the city.

Then two guys from a local union contractor show up at your door and offer to finish the work for a not-so-great price. They come to you recommended by the Alderman.


This is not fiction. It is the personal experience of people I know in that town.

For those who like DIY work, let me share one detail with you to prove the point: you cannot run Romex wire in Chicago. It is illegal. It cannot even be sold and the city stakes out suburban home stores on the weekend looking for Chicago residents to bust. It is a crime to possess, though I am not sure whether this is in code or not.

Every bit of electrical must be BX shielded and certified by a union electrician, who will not certify unless his shop did the work. They will draw the wire from spools, one strand at time. Three conductors (red, black and ground) will each come from a different spool and are fed through the BX or conduit by hand. Sometimes they use blue or green wire for the live load just for fun.

I have done electrical in Chicago; I am not an electrician nor have I worked the trades since college (I was union at that time and hated the system). I have also performed midnight garbage runs from a renovation project to a suburban location, where we wait until the morning to dispose of the garbage. We have to hide the trailer several blocks away from the house to avoid a work action. I have snuck drywall up three floors at night. I fly into town to renovate because it is cheaper than hiring local. This is my brother-in-laws house, and he is union. Fortunately he knows how the system works and desnt have issues like the with folks I mentioned earlier.


This a small example of how the machine affects even the small people. This is Chicago and it makes San Fran look like amateur hour.

On the upside, there are so many 'illegal' apartments and renovations in the city, stretching back so long, that is is impossible to prove you did the work when you sell. My sister-in-law is a realtor and says 90% of the places she works have illegal mods. If you get away with it, you are fine. Unless someone rats you out.


What does it have to do with guns? Not much, but it might help you understand the patronage system there. In our favor, that system is harming the Chicago case. It is rare that an outside federal court gets to look at the actions of the council. They are not used to being questioned.

pointedstick
04-10-2011, 10:06 AM
If the SF city council is as dumb as the Chicago one, then I'm left asking the same thing with respect to it as I am with Chicago: why hasn't someone with intelligence gone in and wiped the floor with them? In fact, doesn't the fact that the current city council members are as dumb as rocks (in both Chicago and SF) present a rather monumental opportunity for our side? Why bother with litigation against the city when you can simply oust the current city councils in both locations and fix things from the inside?

I think you're confusing politics for the market. All the irrational and stupid traits that would get one flayed alive in a competitive market are often no impediment whatsoever to a long and successful political career. All you have to do is convince the proportion of the populace that votes to support you. As long as you can do that, you could be as dumb as a bag of rocks and possess no experience or skill at all. Most people don't pay enough attention to politics to vote, and the ones who do don't pay enough attention to understand even the barest of facts about the candidates, and the ones who do mostly don't care if a candiate is stupid or inexperienced or has never produced any value for society at all. It sucks, but that's democracy for you. I recommend http://mises.org/daily/5036/How-to-Win-an-Election

N6ATF
04-10-2011, 10:22 AM
When you're a dude opening a gun range you fill out a form and send it to the lowly clerk it just gets processed. When you depose the head of zoning, you get the answer that AG got which is laughable - why he points it out.

-Gene

So the "lowly" clerks are given carte blanche to process every single app they receive, no matter what the use? They aren't required to check the list of allowable uses and only process what is allowed? Or do they just have to be bribed to process what is disallowed? That sounds like a unlimited amount of authority vested in a low-level position. For lack of a better analogy, that would be like a senior volunteer at the police department who is tasked with issuing bicycle licenses giving people CCWs.

hoffmang
04-10-2011, 10:54 AM
22187605

Someone tell me if they see a single individual at this who could survive in the private sector. The fireworks on range placement were at the Police Committee meeting a couple of days earlier that I haven't located video for. The "no alderman wants a range" does pop up in a speech made one of the aldermen at about 50 minutes in.

For more details on the earlier committee meeting, I believe there is more in the filings on the docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.docket.html) in the lower court.

-Gene

pointedstick
04-10-2011, 11:20 AM
22187605

Someone tell me if they see a single individual at this who could survive in the private sector. The fireworks on range placement were at the Police Committee meeting a couple of days earlier that I haven't located video for. The "no alderman wants a range" does pop up in a speech made one of the aldermen at about 50 minutes in.

For more details on the earlier committee meeting, I believe there is more in the filings on the docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.docket.html) in the lower court.

-Gene

Oh man. There are some dim bulbs here and a couple of real pieces of work. I'm going to keep editing this post with all the ridiculous things they're saying as I watch the video.

"I would encourage those gangbangers who get those guns unlawfully… to stop getting them unlawfully." :wacko:

"We recognize that the decision that was made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interest of our citizens … That should be a strong message to the supreme court that what we go through in this city and other big cities in this country is because there are handguns out there and those handguns are shooting and maiming other people."

"We don't want people walking around with guns. We don't want people just walking around with guns! Having a lot of guns is a lot worse in a large municipality. What do they need all of those guns for? … If the second amendment, crafted in the 1700s, is still suitable today, then we must have regulations and restrictions on them to keep the mass of law-abiding citizens safe."

"I don't know how they can assume and say that we would be safer by allowing individuals—even if they are law-abiding people—to own, by owning and possessing firearms in their homes and the city of Chicago. We are here because we need now to jump hoops [sic] to try to restrict those who are gonna be able to possess a firearm in the city of Chicago by restricting through this ordinance those that we know that should not own a firearm in their homes. I hope that we can just pass this ordinance as soon as possible and I hope that we can go back to the days where we can re-enact the ordinance that will expire on July 31st."

"While I'm not a lawyer, I consider it a blatant misreading of what seems to be clear constitutional language that well-regulated militas and not individuals have a right to a gun. Under the current Chicago law, nearly three dozen public school students were murdered, over 300 wounded, yet the Supreme Court makes it law that people can just go buy a gun."

"As I see it, the constitution guarantees a right to bear arms for a militia, but you know but they guaranteed a right to carry muskets, not Uzis. This really breaks my heart today that the city of Chicago is being forced into this position. I thank everyone who's worked to create as restrictive a tool as possible and to try to create some kind of accountability here, but we all know darn well that anyone who wants a gun is going to get it. My son was held up by two guys with two guns just a couple months ago in my neighborhood—yes it happens, you know, on the, on the lakefront—and if he had left the house thinking he was safer carrying a weapon, what would have happened? He didn't carry a weapon—that's not how our household is—and so we did what we taught you to do as a kid which is anytime anybody approaches you with a weapon, you say 'Take whatever you want, take whatever you want.' But if he had thought that he needed to carry a gun in order to walk to the L, I can only imagine what might have taken place. I think what has been thrust upon us is very costly, very unfair, and very dangerous."

"I can't imagine why anyone would oppose these reasonable regulations, these reasonable restrictions, but I know there will be are those that believe that this right to bear arms is unrestricted and that that anyone can have any weapon anywhere at all. Fact is, is that for every person who is stopped—for every intruder who is stopped by someone who has a handgun in their home there are at least 9 or 10 family members who are killed by a handgun because of accidents or because of family disagreements that occur in the heat of passion."

"Because you have a gun in your home does not necessarily mean you are entitled to use it whenever you want to." :rofl:

"I think that 400 years from now students are going to study United States history just in shock and awe and they are going to be amazed that in a country that tells itself [sic] to be the leader of the free nation [sic] that we have such a reckless love affair with guns that we racked up the numbers of children that were murdered each and every year. They are going to look at Canada, they are going to look at the United States, they are going to look at Britain and they're gonna say, 'What was wrong with those people in the United States? Did they really watch TV and believe that John Wayne was real? Was this some kind of cowboy mentality that made them feel they had the inalienable, inviolable right to walk around packed and loaded [sic]?' That they spent millions of dollars litigating the disgusting [sic] whether or not people would have the right to carry mini mass weapons of destruction [sic]?" :rofl2: :rofl2:

This lady also has a crazy rant about somebody's kid causing damage not being covered by renter's insurance. She is one of the least clear thinkers I've seen in a while. I would have transcribed her whole screed but I was too busy rolling in the floor! You really have to watch her to believe it. 32:00 - 40:46. Just incredible.

"All my life I believe [sic] in the 10 commandments where it says 'thou shalt not kill', and I believe even today that thou shalt not kill. Whether it being [sic] with a handgun or any other kind of weapon you should not take another person life [sic]. But unfortunately that's not the world we live in, there are people who do take other person's life from one another [sic] … and I'm reminded of every time I sit here what could happen if someone were to come in here to shoot and we lose our lives. But that's on another person, and we have to have faith and we have to believe that guns is not the answer [sic], "I dont care who ruins it" is not the answer, but peace and love can be an answer and the kids need to be taught that. But unfortunately since we have to have a law, I would rather have a law than no law. So I am here today in support of this ordinance that we continue to move forward and we never give up, we don't stop the right, we still don't need guns in the home, we don't need guns to protect ourselves. We have to be protected each and every day our life [sic]. I been going all my life [sic], 55 years old I never had a gun, never had one, don't need one, I'm walking by faith and not by sight."

"If the founding fathers… were here today, they would see it differently. I'm not sure that they envisioned 50 states, 300 million people. I don't think they envisioned… technology, our social breakdown in cities like Chicago, and many across the country and the world. And if you look at instability across the world you will see that, it is due… to massive weapons on the streets, whether it's in Africa… or it's in South America… or any part of the earth. I think the fact that we restrict, in this manner… methodically, to save… lives, to attack a problem, that by, on the one hand… clearly restricts… us… from banning weapons—our constitution says it; we respect out constitution—but we also must… as people that represent, our constituents, and as leaders of our communities, we must also have—and we have an awesome responsibility I should say—to protect… people as well in general… from people that cannot… abide… our laws. In essence, our enemy of today… is ignorance. It is the senseless disrespect for human life. So that's wat we're dealing here today [sic]." (IQ of about 75 on this guy)

"And also I feel that the children who are caught with these guns, that their parents should somehow be held accountable because they're underage."

"And I wish frankly that we weren't in this position, that we weren't in the position where we're struggling to figure out a way in which we can limit the guns on our streets and still meet the test that the Supreme Court has set for us."

nick
04-10-2011, 11:35 AM
You win. But that leaves this tiny, little nagging question: how have these complete morons managed to stay in power the way they have for so long? Why haven't other people with some modicum of intelligence managed to wipe the floor with these people?

The same ways government employees everywhere manage to hang on to their jobs without having the skills to do it - connections, tenure, licking the right butt, family ties, being a loyal part of the machine, volunteering for the campaigns in exchange for a government job is the campaign is won, etc.

If you're talking about the elected officials, most of them are pretty much institutionalized once they've been in politics for some time. They become a part of their party's machine, and most voters vote for the party, not the candidate.

These are generalizations, of course, as each case is somewhat different. However, I'm sure you'll find at least some of the above in most cases.


As to overestimating the enemy being an equal path to failure: can you cite examples of that actually happening?


Finally we're talking History, this thread was getting boring without it :p

Overestimating one's enemy leads to inaction and surrendering the initiative to the said enemy. For example,
McClellan's overestimation of the Army of Northern Virginia led to less than stellar performance as a commander (as opposed to an organizer/administrator, at which he has proven to be very good when building up the Army of Potomac). The Battle of Varese (I just read about it, so I just have to mention it :)) is another example. Austrians' overestimation of the Hunters' numbers was one of the major factors that led to their retreat. As is common with such retreats, they lost more people retreating that they would've likely lost if they stood and fought, even if their estimation of the opposition was correct.

Another example. Most of the capital ships of the British Home Fleet were tied up for most of WWII because of the threat from 1 (one) German battleship, the scary Tirpitz.

press1280
04-10-2011, 12:27 PM
1 or 2 of the speakers were a little bit better than the others by acknowledging law-abiding citizens were the only ones affected by the ban. Another said the ban had gotten mixed reviews on whether it worked or not. Of course the rest spoke of the ban being a "common sense regulation" which is laughable.

safewaysecurity
04-10-2011, 2:22 PM
Can these statements be used against them in court in order to prove that they were indeed trying to create a restrictive ordinance as possible in order to prevent those whom wanted to exercise their rights from doing so?

wildhawker
04-10-2011, 2:36 PM
Safeway, see King's statements in Nordyke and how the court found those immaterial.

pointedstick
04-10-2011, 2:39 PM
After watching that whole thing, I really have to say, our opponents—at least in Chicago—are a bunch of muddle-headed imbeciles. Almost nobody who spoke was capable of making a rational argument supported by facts. Only one or two exhibited the least bit of strategic thought at all regarding how they could work around the ruling, with the rest simply venting with lots of rambling and a ton of outrage. But none of these guys have any clue what kind of hammer can and will be dropped on them if they don't cooperate and start respecting the fundamental right they're intentionally repressing.

hoffmang
04-10-2011, 8:33 PM
Safeway, see King's statements in Nordyke and how the court found those immaterial.

That's actually still an open question. There are some speech restrictions where legislators motivations matter - even off the record. As the contours of 2A scrutiny get fleshed out, off the record legislative intent may get looked at - especially as a lot of these laws were blatantly racist when originally passed.

-Gene

JRob
04-10-2011, 10:23 PM
I'm dreaming of a country without zoning laws, building codes, land-use regulations…


Chicago has the best zoning laws, building codes, land-use regulations that money can buy (under the table)

safewaysecurity
04-10-2011, 10:57 PM
That's actually still an open question. There are some speech restrictions where legislators motivations matter - even off the record. As the contours of 2A scrutiny get fleshed out, off the record legislative intent may get looked at - especially as a lot of these laws were blatantly racist when originally passed.

-Gene

Yeh I thought you could use the words of the legislators to prove intent behind the law if it was relevant.

sfbadger
04-10-2011, 11:16 PM
Yeh I thought you could use the words of the legislators to prove intent behind the law if it was relevant.

I would think that would be more beneficial if you were going after individual legislators in a criminal/civil complaint rather than the group who crafted the legislation?

pointedstick
04-10-2011, 11:23 PM
Chicago has the best zoning laws, building codes, land-use regulations that money can buy (under the table)

Patrick-2's story gives me hope that Chicago will be a fertile paradise for the civil rights lawyer who wants to find examples of blatantly discriminatory building and construction laws that even the most statist of the Supremes would have a hard time defending. Someday…

Patrick-2
04-11-2011, 6:23 AM
To PointedStick: let me just say thanks for that running commentary. That is a lot of good work you did there. And thanks to Gene for digging up the material and posting it.

Everyone else: These are our opponents. Rejoice!

yakmon
04-11-2011, 10:23 AM
someone once said "god grant me a stupid enemy"
think it was a civil war general. or maybe i'm paraphrasing sun tzu.

7x57
04-11-2011, 1:21 PM
Why wouldn't an intelligent opponent be able to take advantage of or do these things much better than the morons they have now?

[[ETA: now with added grammar]]

You fail to grasp the implications of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. To review, there are two classes of people in any bureaucracy: those trying to do the job the bureaucracy was created to do, and those working for the good (expansion of budget, staffing, breadth of mandate, etc.) of the bureaucracy itself. The Iron Law says that only people from the second class end up in charge. Why? Fitness. They play by the rules that actually get you promoted, not the ones that would be advantageous to those outside the bureaucracy that it was supposed to serve.

Now consider the implications for your search for where the brains are. First, you aren't looking for someone good at governing--that would be someone highly fit by the standards of the first class, and therefore that person will not be in charge. You are looking for someone good at serving the system itself--expanding government, collecting more taxes, and so on. I don't know where the real power in Chicago lies (it probably isn't on the council, to hazard a blind guess), but someone in Chicago seems to be effective at those things.

Second, you have to expect that the *real* system, the machine if you will, may not be congruent with the visible one. From Patrick-2's description, it's clear that the unions are part of the actual functioning system, even though they're not elected and not legally part of it.

Third, it makes no sense to look for brains everywhere. It isn't in the interests of a good machine boss to run a meritocracy--people with real merit are hard to find, and they tend to have opinions and occasionally a spine. They're less likely to obey, and they're harder to punish because they are not as easily replaced. So what is *actually* in the interest of the machine is to make loyalty the primary survival trait in the hierarchy--nobody needs to be smart except the boss and a few good lieutenants and allies.

This is, oddly enough, precisely the gun-rights goal that Gene [[ETA: or maybe one of our other luminaries?]] has expressed: we haven't won until the really good lawyers have established precedents so clear that any bozo public defender can get someone acquitted in a normal self-defense situation. See, it isn't in *our* interest for great talent to be required either, because we don't have enough Guras and Kilmers and they also command a pretty stiff salary.

Finally, you have to ask how such a system matures. It may well take real talent to set up such a machine--but it takes much less to keep it running. If that weren't true, bureaucracies wouldn't be such long-lived entities as they are: notice that as time goes on most of the candidates for top positions (I didn't say "office" since I don't assume that elected office and machine leadership are necessarily congruent) spent more and more time rising up in a system where loyalty, not talent, was the major survival skill. The machine would fall apart if the new boss had to be as smart as the old boss, and we see this in history--for example, Alexander's empire shattered because he was too young to have set up the machine he needed for his empire to endure. But the new boss doesn't have to be that good--the machine is already designed and implemented, he just has to work with the machine he inherited. My suspicion is that this process can continue a long way toward autonomous function regardless of how incompetent the leadership eventually becomes, because entrenchment is a huge advantage. A mature bureaucracy can smash challenges from more able would-be players simply because size and establishment are also survival strategies. Observation suggests this: bureaucracies live indefinitely, and that wouldn't be true if they required good leadership indefinitely.

That's all just sort of general musings, but I rather suspect they apply to Chicago, with suitable modifications for local conditions and the accidents of history.

Bottom line: don't assume that competence as you define it is a survival skill anywhere but at the top, and don't assume that it remains so indefinitely even at the top. I'm sure King Richard I was skilled at machine politics, and my guess is that The Dauphin of Chicago (Rahm) is as well (though I don't automatically assume that the mayor must be the real captain of the machine--that requires local knowledge of the real loci of power). But I imagine such royalty probably much prefers the aldermen to be dumb but loyal, and I wouldn't be surprised if the machine could keep its monopoly on power and fend off challengers even if the reigns of power fell to a moron. As it must eventually fall to a moron if the machine lives long enough, and if it hasn't happened already.

Part of the reason small government is good is because of the Iron Law, you know.

7x57

Glock22Fan
04-11-2011, 1:51 PM
You fail to grasp . . . .is good is because of the Iron Law, you know.



7x57, I always totally appreciate your thoughts such as these. You phrase things so concisely and perfectly that they are always a treat to read and shed light where light needs to be shed, but often isn't.

Thank you.

7x57
04-11-2011, 3:12 PM
Dustin

There I go, forgetting to maintain my vital nom de guerre again. Regrettably, I shall now have to kill everyone who has viewed this thread in order to maintain OpSec. Edit your post and I will let you live, though, because I very much like your work flogging anti-gun sheriffs. :D And because of the kind words--I'm cheap, and can easily be bought with flattery.

ETA: forgot to add that nothing gives me more pleasure than giving Rahm Imanuel a metaphorical title that is pronounced something like "doof". :D

7x57

Librarian
04-11-2011, 4:12 PM
T Regrettably, I shall now have to kill everyone who has viewed this thread in order to maintain OpSec.

Isn't OpSec that new TV channel started by that billionaire daytime talk-show host?

Glock22Fan
04-11-2011, 4:23 PM
Edit your post and I will let you live, though, because I very much like your work flogging anti-gun sheriffs. :D And because of the kind words--I'm cheap, and can easily be bought with flattery.

7x57

Edited as requested. Not that I needed you to spell it out, my memory isn't that bad, but I wouldn't have "outed" you to the less initiated if you hadn't typed it yourself :D

kcbrown
04-11-2011, 6:54 PM
[[ETA: now with added grammar]]

You fail to grasp the implications of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. To review, there are two classes of people in any bureaucracy: those trying to do the job the bureaucracy was created to do, and those working for the good (expansion of budget, staffing, breadth of mandate, etc.) of the bureaucracy itself. The Iron Law says that only people from the second class end up in charge. Why? Fitness. They play by the rules that actually get you promoted, not the ones that would be advantageous to those outside the bureaucracy that it was supposed to serve.


That's not actually quite the question I was asking.

You don't have to be stupid to be evil. Someone who has brains and is working for the good of the bureaucracy itself might be classified as "evil" for our purposes (and even that is a rather cartoonish caricature).

The question is: given two people who are working towards the same goal, why does intelligence seem to be a drawback? That's exactly the opposite of what you'd expect. You'd expect someone of intelligence to be on average more effective at achieving whatever goal he has in mind, compared with someone with less intelligence.


It may be that intelligence is anti-correlative with loyalty. If that's so, then I can see how the system would be intentionally arranged to screen out people with intelligence. But that means that the person at the very top (who ostensibly has a large degree of intelligence) has to take full control of all strategic and tactical decisions.

Which includes decisions such as what laws to pass in order to satisfy an anti-gun agenda.




Finally, you have to ask how such a system matures. It may well take real talent to set up such a machine--but it takes much less to keep it running.
That's true as far as it goes, as long as the environment doesn't change out from underneath you. Someone with real intelligence will anticipate the possibility of an environmental change and will arrange the system accordingly, no?



If that weren't true, bureaucracies wouldn't be such long-lived entities as they are: notice that as time goes on most of the candidates for top positions (I didn't say "office" since I don't assume that elected office and machine leadership are necessarily congruent) spent more and more time rising up in a system where loyalty, not talent, was the major survival skill.
And if intelligence is anti-correlative with loyalty then I can see how this might come about. If not, however ...



The machine would fall apart if the new boss had to be as smart as the old boss, and we see this in history--for example, Alexander's empire shattered because he was too young to have set up the machine he needed for his empire to endure. But the new boss doesn't have to be that good--the machine is already designed and implemented, he just has to work with the machine he inherited. My suspicion is that this process can continue a long way toward autonomous function regardless of how incompetent the leadership eventually becomes, because entrenchment is a huge advantage. A mature bureaucracy can smash challenges from more able would-be players simply because size and establishment are also survival strategies. Observation suggests this: bureaucracies live indefinitely, and that wouldn't be true if they required good leadership indefinitely.
That's true as far as it goes, but that's not really the same thing as saying that intelligence is a survival disadvantage. Yet, one can hardly conclude anything else as regards Chicago.




Bottom line: don't assume that competence as you define it is a survival skill anywhere but at the top, and don't assume that it remains so indefinitely even at the top. I'm sure King Richard I was skilled at machine politics, and my guess is that The Dauphin of Chicago (Rahm) is as well (though I don't automatically assume that the mayor must be the real captain of the machine--that requires local knowledge of the real loci of power). But I imagine such royalty probably much prefers the aldermen to be dumb but loyal, and I wouldn't be surprised if the machine could keep its monopoly on power and fend off challengers even if the reigns of power fell to a moron. As it must eventually fall to a moron if the machine lives long enough, and if it hasn't happened already.
But this again goes back to my original point above: if those who hold power want dumb people below them, then they take responsibility for tactical and strategic decision making, since otherwise the machine they operate is highly vulnerable to environmental changes as well as challenges from competent enemies.

Which is to say: you put stupid people under you in order to do things that do not require intelligence. And good decision making requires intelligence.


So what happened in Chicago? Is the system itself such that those who hold real power are no longer in charge of the strategic and tactical decision making? If so, then one can expect those in power to start taking control of the situation shortly. If not, then even those at the top (who hold real power) must be as dumb as the city council, for I find it hard to believe that such people would want the masses to be armed.

It is the former possibility that we should be concerned with, at least as long as it really is a real possibility.



By the way, it's great to have you back! Where ya been, man?

wash
04-11-2011, 7:52 PM
Intelligent people have enough confidence in themselves that they feel they can earn a living and support themselves without being corrupt in the private sector.

A person who is smart and corrupt can make a lot of money, like Meg Whittman but she eventually wanted a power fix that her millions could not provide so she tried to buy an office instead of suck up her way to the top like an ordinary crook (politician).

7x57
04-11-2011, 8:17 PM
...I wouldn't have "outed" you to the less initiated if you hadn't typed it yourself :D

Indeed. It's a pity that millions must die because of my thoughtlessness. :chris:

7x57

7x57
04-11-2011, 8:42 PM
\It may be that intelligence is anti-correlative with loyalty. If that's so, then I can see how the system would be intentionally arranged to screen out people with intelligence.


I did not think to mention another important factor: predictability. What would a machine boss need most from a city councilman? That they won't generate surprises. I *am* quite comfortable in asserting that intelligence correlates with unpredictability. We have an enormous body of practical experience in this matter. Every day in every court in the country, we engage in a massive contest to choose predictable jurors; each side desires jurors inclined to rule in their favor so efforts to stack the jury cancel somewhat, but both desire predictability and so those efforts reinforce. Now, what sort of analytical abilities do these highly skilled selectors of predictable persons select for?


But that means that the person at the very top (who ostensibly has a large degree of intelligence) has to take full control of all strategic and tactical decisions.


Do you wish to argue that this does *not* resemble, say, Chicago under King Richard I? Did aldermen introduce legislation that was a surprise to His Majesty and remain aldermen for long? Maybe, but I never heard about it.


That's true as far as it goes, but that's not really the same thing as saying that intelligence is a survival disadvantage. Yet, one can hardly conclude anything else as regards Chicago.


And does this surprise you in any way?

We can recall another common choice of powerful individuals--to systematically eliminate anyone capable of challenging them. Suppose someone apparently loyal to the machine wants to run for the city council who appears to be as smart, competent, and ruthless as the boss. What should the boss do? Probably eliminate him quick and replace him with someone not capable of being a real threat.

One other point which I think you're missing: really smart people get bored easily. Being the spider at the center of the web may hold interest, but going to city council meetings surely does not. I'm not really smart in the way a machine boss should be, but even just the thought of going to a city council meeting makes me want to gnaw my own leg off to escape. I know because I really should start monitoring local meetings, and that was my immediate reaction.


But this again goes back to my original point above: if those who hold power want dumb people below them, then they take responsibility for tactical and strategic decision making,


Not really an objection. Deciding to run a not-really-legal political machine requires supreme self-confidence, and such a man will not fear to take that responsibility. Besides, you're assuming that just because the council may be dumber than a sack of hammers he doesn't have any talented lieutenants. On the contrary, I suspect the point is not to waste them on such a dullard's job as voting correctly in council meetings, and maybe also to make sure that they don't have too much of a personal power base of their own (that's another way to prevent challenges, you see).

IOW: why are you arguing from the apparently "very, very special" Chicago city council for the conclusion that there aren't smarter people in better and less public positions. That seems unlikely. For that matter, the Dauphin is a contemptible, evil man, but I have never heard that he's stupid. But then, he has a better job closer to the top.

Don't generalize from the Special Olympians.


By the way, it's great to have you back! Where ya been, man?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=415595

7x57

kcbrown
04-11-2011, 10:36 PM
I did not think to mention another important factor: predictability. What would a machine boss need most from a city councilman? That they won't generate surprises. I *am* quite comfortable in asserting that intelligence correlates with unpredictability. We have an enormous body of practical experience in this matter. Every day in every court in the country, we engage in a massive contest to choose predictable jurors; each side desires jurors inclined to rule in their favor so efforts to stack the jury cancel somewhat, but both desire predictability and so those efforts reinforce. Now, what sort of analytical abilities do these highly skilled selectors of predictable persons select for?


Well, okay, but again, that argues for the guy at the top not giving them any actual tactical or strategic decision making capabilities, because such decisions have to be made intelligently for the overall organization to survive intelligent attack.



Do you wish to argue that this does *not* resemble, say, Chicago under King Richard I? Did aldermen introduce legislation that was a surprise to His Majesty and remain aldermen for long? Maybe, but I never heard about it.
That may be the case, but the fact of the matter is that they did introduce legislation that appears to have been a strategic blunder, as Gene noted.

If the guys in charge are intelligent, why would they allow such a thing to happen?



Not really an objection. Deciding to run a not-really-legal political machine requires supreme self-confidence, and such a man will not fear to take that responsibility. Besides, you're assuming that just because the council may be dumber than a sack of hammers he doesn't have any talented lieutenants. On the contrary, I suspect the point is not to waste them on such a dullard's job as voting correctly in council meetings, and maybe also to make sure that they don't have too much of a personal power base of their own (that's another way to prevent challenges, you see).
You misunderstand my point. It's not that such a person wouldn't be willing to take on said responsibility, it's that it appears to not have happened with the gun range prohibition.

Either the intelligent guy at the top takes responsibility for making such decisions and does so, or he doesn't. Which is it in this case? If he does, then he appears to have blundered badly here. If he doesn't, then why not?



IOW: why are you arguing from the apparently "very, very special" Chicago city council for the conclusion that there aren't smarter people in better and less public positions. That seems unlikely. For that matter, the Dauphin is a contemptible, evil man, but I have never heard that he's stupid. But then, he has a better job closer to the top.

Don't generalize from the Special Olympians.
I'm not (anymore). I'm generalizing from Chicago as a whole.


This goes back to the original discussion. Gene is saying that we would be overestimating the enemy if we credit Chicago with much intelligence, and bases that statement on the actions and deliberations of the city council. But who is the enemy? By your argument here, it's not the city council -- they're just stooges following orders.

If he's right then there is no intelligence backing them, and that is something that, given your description, I find dubious, because one is left having to answer how a system that has no intelligence in it at all can withstand attack from intelligent enemies.


If it has intelligence behind it, then where is it, and why would that intelligence make the strategic blunder of passing legislation banning ranges? More importantly, if it has intelligence behind it and that intelligence did make this blunder, then shouldn't we be careful not to underestimate the overall intelligence of the Chicago machine, since a blunder such as this isn't something to count on in the future under those conditions?





http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=415595
LOL! April fools, 7x57 style! Awesome. :rofl2:

sfbadger
04-11-2011, 10:51 PM
If it has intelligence behind it, then where is it, and why would that intelligence make the strategic blunder of passing legislation banning ranges? More importantly, if it has intelligence behind it and that intelligence did make this blunder, then shouldn't we be careful not to underestimate the overall intelligence of the Chicago machine, since a blunder such as this isn't something to count on in the future under those conditions?


Maybe the reason they committed such a huge blunder was because they underestimated their opponents, ... our team!?

We can certainly bask in the glory of our victories, for a time, but it's still prudent to never underestimate your opposition.

7x57
04-11-2011, 11:02 PM
That may be the case, but the fact of the matter is that they did introduce legislation that appears to have been a strategic blunder, as Gene noted.


But not under Richard I. Recall that my point was that whatever skill it took to create the machine (in fact I don't know whether Daley created it), it doesn't take that much to keep it running. And it probably takes less and less as time goes on--bureaucracies are pretty good at becoming self-perpetuating without anyone competent at the helm.


If he's right then there is no intelligence backing them, and that is something that, given your description, I find dubious, because one is left having to answer how a system that has no intelligence in it at all can withstand attack from intelligent enemies.


My point was that once established, bureaucracies need less and less leadership to keep going. I argued that competence at the top may no longer be necessary, assuming it ever was (I don't know the origin of the Chicago machine, so I can't say what creating it required). I also argued that "competence" is a slippery word. Someone competent at the real business of the machine--taking bribes, peddling influence, making kissy-face with the unions, generally oppressing the masses, and crushing anyone who shows signs of being a "problem"--may *not* be competent at planning legal strategy. And they may not be aware that they're not competent, as a certain paper that is well known around these parts argues.


If it has intelligence behind it, then where is it, and why would that intelligence make the strategic blunder of passing legislation banning ranges?


Because (1) there is not clear need for great competence by now, and (2) if it exists, it need not be competence *at playing civil rights games in federal court.*

Here is, I think, a sufficient disproof of your line of argument: presumably Ross Perot was competent at making money. But he was apparently not competent at judging whether the CIA had a massive operation to disrupt his daughter's wedding (or something--don't care enough to refresh my memory). Competence is *specific*. Being good at one thing doesn't make you good at another. So the incompetence of the city council at defending Infringement in federal court doesn't mean they don't play a perfectly adequate role in the machine.

Also don't forget that there is evidence that Chicago wouldn't be unusual in this--DC didn't exactly acquit themselves brilliantly, and Sacramento is blessedly incompetent at oppressing us (if if they weren't, there wouldn't be any OLLs). Whatever it takes to get yourself on a city council doesn't appear to be what it takes to plan a federal court strategy. And why would it be, anyway?


LOL! April fools, 7x57 style! Awesome. :rofl2:

I'll put in a good word with LCAV for you, maybe it won't be necessary to send the goons to knock on your door some night. :D

7x57

MrPlink
04-11-2011, 11:18 PM
I actually do know of somebody who was killed at a gun range as the result of a dispute. He was shot by the RSO no less.
Wasnt in America though, and anecdotal evidence at best.

kcbrown
04-11-2011, 11:27 PM
Maybe the reason they committed such a huge blunder was because they underestimated their opponents, ... our team!?

We can certainly bask in the glory of our victories, for a time, but it's still prudent to never underestimate your opposition.

Exactly. And that's what I'm concerned about here.


The assertion that Gene appears to be making is that, essentially, Chicago wouldn't be smart enough to properly act in their own self-interest (where said self-interest is maintaining their power), and he cites the deliberations of the city council as evidence of that lack of intelligence.

Originally we were talking about the city police not being willing to move their ranges to areas that are commercially nonviable for such ranges, in order to have the effect of depriving the citizenry of their ability to own firearms through a Renton style attack (which is something that, I might add, I don't think will work since I don't think they'll be able to find the required evidence to support themselves in court). Gene's assertion boils down to the notion that they're not smart enough to do that. But if Chicago has reasonably intelligent guys in the top, the police will get their orders to move the ranges and that will be that. The guys at the top will most certainly be no more tolerant of police officials being intelligent or defiant than they would anyone else in the city, right?


Essentially, my argument is precisely what you say: that we are best off not underestimating the enemy that is Chicago. Chicago may have blundered strategically but if they have anyone with intelligence at the top then those blunders will cease. The people involved may believe that this is a fight they cannot lose long term but nobody with a modicum of intelligence actually acts on such a belief. Which is to say: it is just as stupid of them to underestimate us as it would be of us to underestimate them.

sfbadger
04-11-2011, 11:45 PM
Judging by what I saw in the video Gene posted there is no shortage of stupidity in the chambers of Chicago's City Council, still, even the lowest of God's creatures learn from experience, ie, the ability of virus cells to adapt to medications. I would expect Chicago's power brokers to get smarter as we encounter them in the future.

wildhawker
04-11-2011, 11:49 PM
kc, their blunders will continue into the margin; by the time entities such as Chicago truly understand the field of play and incorporate that knowledge into their tactics, we'll have secured the rights necessary to keep and bear arms for the purposes we need them. (If they don't, we'll have advanced into the margin though other vehicles, anyway.) In the final analysis, those rights may not be exactly what we desire them to be, but they will be functional.

Their focus is and will remain pushing the ceiling down; fortunately, the politics of Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, et al (for the period in which these issues will be legislated and litigated) ensure that we'll have no shortage of opportunity to make ground-breaking (and taking) constitutional arguments due to their predictably reactionary over-reach.

Consider that our risk is not in underestimating them, but in overestimating the likelihood of 5 USSC justices agreeing with us.

In re the movement of all law enforcement ranges, I'm hoping that no one seriously thinks it's even on the table.

-Brandon

sfbadger
04-11-2011, 11:55 PM
kc, their blunders will continue into the margin; by the time entities such as Chicago truly understand the field of play and incorporate that knowledge into their tactics, we'll have secured the rights necessary to keep and bear arms for the purposes we need them. (If they don't, we'll have advanced into the margin though other vehicles, anyway.) In the final analysis, those rights may not be exactly what we desire them to be, but they will be functional.

Their focus is and will remain pushing the ceiling down; fortunately, the politics of Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, et al (for the period in which these issues will be legislated and litigated) ensure that we'll have no shortage of opportunity to make ground-breaking (and taking) constitutional arguments due to their predictably reactionary over-reach.

Consider that our risk is not in underestimating them, but in overestimating the likelihood of 5 USSC justices agreeing with us.

In re the movement of all law enforcement ranges, I'm hoping that no one seriously thinks it's even on the table.

-Brandon

This! +1

kcbrown
04-12-2011, 12:14 AM
But not under Richard I. Recall that my point was that whatever skill it took to create the machine (in fact I don't know whether Daley created it), it doesn't take that much to keep it running. And it probably takes less and less as time goes on--bureaucracies are pretty good at becoming self-perpetuating without anyone competent at the helm.


Well, if that's the case then wouldn't the Chicago machine have fallen long ago? It's not like they don't have plenty of things that can be attacked by an intelligent enemy...

Or perhaps we happen to be at the juncture where the level of intelligence behind the machine has dropped enough to assure a relatively easy victory. While I acknowledge that possibility, it's rare indeed that one gets so lucky (such that the timing for 2nd Amendment rights litigation is just right the way this implies).

I don't know whether or not there's someone reasonably bright at the helm at this point. If there is, then we'd do well not to underestimate them, no?



My point was that once established, bureaucracies need less and less leadership to keep going. I argued that competence at the top may no longer be necessary, assuming it ever was (I don't know the origin of the Chicago machine, so I can't say what creating it required). I also argued that "competence" is a slippery word. Someone competent at the real business of the machine--taking bribes, peddling influence, making kissy-face with the unions, generally oppressing the masses, and crushing anyone who shows signs of being a "problem"--may *not* be competent at planning legal strategy. And they may not be aware that they're not competent, as a certain paper that is well known around these parts argues.
Once they've had their butt handed to them at the Supreme Court level, wouldn't anyone of any reasonable intelligence realize that, in fact, they may actually need to hire some real competency in that arena, and start planning accordingly?



Because (1) there is not clear need for great competence by now, and (2) if it exists, it need not be competence *at playing civil rights games in federal court.*
I would argue that taking a loss at the Supreme Court in the way Chicago did is clear evidence of the need for great competence at playing civil rights games in federal court and, furthermore, that since the city ordinances themselves are being challenged, it follows that the ordinances one later passes must be included in the strategy.



Also don't forget that there is evidence that Chicago wouldn't be unusual in this--DC didn't exactly acquit themselves brilliantly, and Sacramento is blessedly incompetent at oppressing us (if if they weren't, there wouldn't be any OLLs). Whatever it takes to get yourself on a city council doesn't appear to be what it takes to plan a federal court strategy. And why would it be, anyway?
That's true enough, but such things are easily steamrollered by competent enemies. If all the intelligence behind a bureaucracy is gone, then how will it survive attacks by intelligent enemies?

This is, in essence, an "evolution" kind of thing: the bureaucracies that lose their intelligence inevitably must fall as a result of their own ineptitude, while the ones that don't will survive (or, at least, survive longer). How long a given bureaucracy survives is thus, given that, at least a partial indicator of the intelligence within, no?



I'll put in a good word with LCAV for you, maybe it won't be necessary to send the goons to knock on your door some night. :D
Thanks. That's much appreciated. :rofl2:

kcbrown
04-12-2011, 12:21 AM
Or perhaps we happen to be at the juncture where the level of intelligence behind the machine has dropped enough to assure a relatively easy victory. While I acknowledge that possibility, it's rare indeed that one gets so lucky (such that the timing for 2nd Amendment rights litigation is just right the way this implies).


It occurs to me that this probably isn't luck. This is us selecting the right opponent.

Which is to say, we've done our homework, and Chicago really is at the proper juncture, where the bureaucracy has lost its intelligence but hasn't yet fallen to enemy forces.

And what a tempting target it is! How could one not take that opportunity to cause them to fall to enemy forces? :43:


So okay, I'll roll with that for now, while at the same time hoping that we did indeed judge them properly (certainly the evidence thus far suggests we did)...

And now, hopefully, I'm finally starting off with the right axioms. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/43.gif


That said, the implication is that we did get lucky with Heller, because the number of federal-only enclaves that could be used has got to be minuscule.

wildhawker
04-12-2011, 12:28 AM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2006/04/ELife-best-www-apr-16-to-22.jpg

ETA: Heller wasn't luck either.

kcbrown
04-12-2011, 12:35 AM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2006/04/ELife-best-www-apr-16-to-22.jpg


LOL!!! :rofl2:



ETA: Heller wasn't luck either.How did the "enemy selection" process work for that? Which is to say, what other alternatives were available that we didn't take?

I'm saying the "luck" factor is that DC has a bureaucracy that was apparently roughly as incompetent as Chicago's; that it, too, just happens to be at the juncture where it has lost its intelligence but hasn't yet fallen to its (almost certainly numerous) enemies.

What you're suggesting here is that we selected DC in large part because of where their bureaucracy is in that regard, but that suggests that there were other alternatives. Or, I suppose, that this was really a question of a waiting game: wait for the state of the DC bureaucracy to be right and for the makeup of the Supreme Court to be right at the same time.

One can easily see that one could be waiting a long time indeed for that. Hence, luck.

Librarian
04-12-2011, 1:10 AM
LOL!!! :rofl2:


How did the "enemy selection" process work for that? Which is to say, what other alternatives were available that we didn't take?

I'm saying the "luck" factor is that DC has a bureaucracy that was apparently roughly as incompetent as Chicago's; that it, too, just happens to be at the juncture where it has lost its intelligence but hasn't yet fallen to its (almost certainly numerous) enemies.

What you're suggesting here is that we selected DC in large part because of where their bureaucracy is in that regard, but that suggests that there were other alternatives. Or, I suppose, that this was really a question of a waiting game: wait for the state of the DC bureaucracy to be right and for the makeup of the Supreme Court to be right at the same time.

One can easily see that one could be waiting a long time indeed for that. Hence, luck.

I recovered this WaPo article from 2007 last week - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html They talk to Bob Levy about the preliminaries to Heller.

kcbrown
04-12-2011, 1:47 AM
I recovered this WaPo article from 2007 last week - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html They talk to Bob Levy about the preliminaries to Heller.

Nice article. Thanks.

It really was luck. Luck that the DC bureaucracy was incompetent and stupid, that someone with deep pockets had his sensibilities violated by the law, that the person with said deep pockets had enough sense to hire someone as talented as Alan Gura, and that the Supreme Court had the makeup it had at the time.

Had any one of those things not been what it was at the time, Heller might have gone the way the NRA feared.


Once you clear those hurdles, though, then it's no longer really luck as such -- skill starts to really matter.

Patrick-2
04-12-2011, 4:02 AM
kc, their blunders will continue into the margin; by the time entities such as Chicago truly understand the field of play and incorporate that knowledge into their tactics, we'll have secured the rights necessary to keep and bear arms for the purposes we need them. (If they don't, we'll have advanced into the margin though other vehicles, anyway.) In the final analysis, those rights may not be exactly what we desire them to be, but they will be functional.

Their focus is and will remain pushing the ceiling down; fortunately, the politics of Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, et al (for the period in which these issues will be legislated and litigated) ensure that we'll have no shortage of opportunity to make ground-breaking (and taking) constitutional arguments due to their predictably reactionary over-reach.

Consider that our risk is not in underestimating them, but in overestimating the likelihood of 5 USSC justices agreeing with us.

In re the movement of all law enforcement ranges, I'm hoping that no one seriously thinks it's even on the table.

-Brandon

The thing we need to worry about is central coordination with the power of suggestion. These municipalities will generally march to their own drum, but a central authority that can influence (pay off) strategy would be a bad thing. Bloomberg wants to try, but even he cannot influence Chicago, LA or even NYC the way he wants.

Who could?

The White House.

The could use everything from federal funding to the more effective 'visit from the president for a fund raiser' gambit to keep local mayors and councils in control. Every president has done it.

You get one really strategic thinker in the White House who the president will support, and the fight suddenly gets hard.