PDA

View Full Version : Ezell continues


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
08-29-2011, 10:46 PM
The Ezell case against Chicago's gun range ban has returned to the District Court and is moving forward. Chicago argued (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.115.0.pdf) that the case is moot, but SAF/Gura filed this opposition (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.118.0.pdf) (attachment of the third, newly proposed ordinance (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.118.1.pdf)) earlier today.

Importantly, the Ezell (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/AS1FG21Z.pdf) 7th Circuit opinion is binding circuit precedent and will remain. What we may end up with is an Ezell II though.

-Gene

Librarian
08-29-2011, 10:54 PM
While the gun range law remains in flux, what is absolutely clear is that even in the face of Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit rulings, the City will do everything it can to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental rights to operate and access gun ranges. And if the Defendant can no longer achieve this improper goal through an outright ban, it will make legislation that renders Second Amendment rights so burdensome, expensive and complicated that people will not be able to get past the hurdles and roadblocks. The Defendant essentially says “trust us,” ignoring the fact that its legislative fig leaves have not addressed the basic issue in the case. It is perfectly clear the conduct at issue will persist until a Court finally puts a stop to it. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit’s guidance in this case guarantees such an outcome. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this matter as moot must be denied.

Oh, my.

Owned.

dantodd
08-29-2011, 10:55 PM
Possibly the best opening sentence ever:

"The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed,
is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness."

taperxz
08-29-2011, 10:59 PM
The way Chicago operates and their smugness towards the 2A, Ray Charles could have seen those restrictions coming. Go get em Mr. Gura!

safewaysecurity
08-29-2011, 11:04 PM
Possibly the best opening sentence ever:

"The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed,
is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness."

It's so epic!

kcbrown
08-29-2011, 11:06 PM
Possibly the best opening sentence ever:

"The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness."

:rofl2:

Wow, that is awesome!

Now I'm going to have to go read the MTD opposition in which the above is contained. It sounds like very entertaining reading...

stix213
08-29-2011, 11:07 PM
It's so epic!

I LOL'd pretty bad at that one. I was about to post it until I saw you beat me to it.

wildhawker
08-29-2011, 11:09 PM
Possibly the best opening sentence ever:

"The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness."

Concur.

Shiboleth
08-29-2011, 11:20 PM
I love Gura's ability to succinctly convey his ideas without falling prey to the sterility of so many legal arguments.

Connor P Price
08-29-2011, 11:35 PM
To elicit histerical laughter just one sentence into an opposition while remaining professional and persuasive is no easy task. Gura was good from the start, but I truly believe he's getting better with each document.

KarLorian
08-29-2011, 11:47 PM
To elicit histerical laughter just one sentence into an opposition while remaining professional and persuasive is no easy task. Gura was good from the start, but I truly believe he's getting better with each document.

Additionally every time I read another of Gura's "pieces" I start to understand more of the supporting case law and why it's important. That's a big thing to say for me, as I have no real training of the legal system. I am starting to think more like a layer just by reading his work.

He double or even triple backs up his claims with multiple cases of various backgrounds that all lend a hand to his argument. He presupposes the arguments of his opponents and crushes them mercilessly.

All that's left is to hear the lamentations of opposing counsel...

eaglemike
08-30-2011, 12:01 AM
Goodness! Gura is rocking with this one.

Chicago is obviously full of fail with those requirements. Let's hope they (again) get smacked in the face with the cold dead fish of reality. :)

kcbrown
08-30-2011, 12:12 AM
I actually want to see the court grant the MTD, and to see this punted back to the 7th, enough times that the 7th smacks the district court down really hard -- not just through words, but through actions.

I want to see the upper courts assert their authority over the lower courts and municipalities so resoundingly that the lower courts and municipalities fear to play games with our rights.

Because you know that, to Chicago, this is just a game, and that they think they can thumb their noses at the courts with impunity. They wouldn't be playing these games with the range ordinances otherwise.

Gray Peterson
08-30-2011, 12:15 AM
Here's the nice part.

The same panel keeps the litigation when it goes up to the 7th given their familiarity with the case. Same thing happened with McDonald.

Citizen 14
08-30-2011, 12:34 AM
Man, they really are going to do the whole kicking & screaming routine aren't they.

Maestro Pistolero
08-30-2011, 12:49 AM
The Defendant essentially says “trust us,” ignoring the fact that its legislative fig leaves have not addressed the basic issue in the case. It is perfectly clear the conduct at issue will persist until a Court finally puts a stop to it. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit’s guidance in this case guarantees such an outcome. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this matter as moot must be denied.Legislative fig leaves for FTFW.

press1280
08-30-2011, 3:02 AM
Here's the nice part.

The same panel keeps the litigation when it goes up to the 7th given their familiarity with the case. Same thing happened with McDonald.

I was about to ask about this. I was worried we'd see something like a Chester turn into a Masciandaro.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-30-2011, 5:13 AM
I actually want to see the court grant the MTD, and to see this punted back to the 7th, enough times that the 7th smacks the district court down really hard -- not just through words, but through actions.

I want to see the upper courts assert their authority over the lower courts and municipalities so resoundingly that the lower courts and municipalities fear to play games with our rights.


While the wait would be annoying, the slapdown would be fun to see.


Because you know that, to Chicago, this is just a game, and that they think they can thumb their noses at the courts with impunity. They wouldn't be playing these games with the range ordinances otherwise.


That's because up until now, it HAS all been a game to them. One the Ill. courts have been more than happy to allow Chicago to play. Here's to Mr. Gura & his magic butt-kicking typewriter.


The Raisuli

VegasND
08-30-2011, 6:32 AM
It's rather mind-boggling to read this stuff; If this keeps up Chicago may make gun restrictions impossible for any location in the US.



I can hope, right?

Sutcliffe
08-30-2011, 6:35 AM
I love Gura's ability to succinctly convey his ideas without falling prey to the sterility of so many legal arguments.

The dude has an easy charm that conceals a first class wit and quick mind. Nice to have someone like that on our side.

putput
08-30-2011, 7:42 AM
Not within 1000 feet!

Oh um, 500!

Wha? Oh um, 250?

125?

75?

37.5?

19?

9?

4.5?

2?

1?

.5?

.25?

3 Inches!

Wha?, oh…

vantec08
08-30-2011, 8:31 AM
This should answer the question some on the forum have asked about "will they ever stop"?

HowardW56
08-30-2011, 9:00 AM
While the wait would be annoying, the slapdown would be fun to see.





That's because up until now, it HAS all been a game to them. One the Ill. courts have been more than happy to allow Chicago to play. Here's to Mr. Gura & his magic butt-kicking typewriter.


The Raisuli

typewriter????

I haven't even seen a typewriter in years.... ;)

Untamed1972
08-30-2011, 9:06 AM
WOW! :eek: The arrogance of Chicago city counsel is almost breathtaking! But damn they sure make getting good case law established really easy.

What I would love to see is the Judges order every member of the city counsel to appear in court and tell them that they have one more chance to get it right or they will all be facing some time in a federal jail cell for contempt of court and conspiracy to deprive citizens of civil rights under color of authority......and they can expect to be writing some sizeable checks to the court out of their own bank accounts too.

AND

An order which requires to the City to immediately open ALL of it's city owned gun ranges to the public, for use free of charge, until such time as a sufficient number of public ranges have been established for the public to use.

markm
08-30-2011, 9:36 AM
WOW! :eek: The arrogance of Chicago city counsel is almost breathtaking! But damn they sure make getting good case law established really easy.

What I would love to see is the Judges order every member of the city counsel to appear in court and tell them that they have one more chance to get it right or they will all be facing some time in a federal jail cell for contempt of court and conspiracy to deprive citizens of civil rights under color of authority......and they can expect to be writing some sizeable checks to the court out of their own bank accounts too.

AND

An order which requires to the City to immediately open ALL of it's city owned gun ranges to the public, for use free of charge, until such time as a sufficient number of public ranges have been established for the public to use.

Hey Untamed1972,

Your opinion is right-on!

However, this goes against our society's current sense of fairplay. Liberals always get a "pass" or "do-over". It is built into our cultural sense of ethics.

In a just-and-fair world, the judge would slap them with contempt for stonewalling, before a lawsuit is filed.

markm

Big Ben
08-30-2011, 9:42 AM
Wow. That made my morning. Put a big smile on my face to read the Gura beat down.

hoffmang
08-30-2011, 1:15 PM
Because you know that, to Chicago, this is just a game, and that they think they can thumb their noses at the courts with impunity. They wouldn't be playing these games with the range ordinances otherwise.
They got a stern warning in the Second Amendment Arms case from the District Court Judge who can read the contempt that CA-7 had for them in Ezell. I expect you're going to see attitudes adjust - partially because of below.
It's rather mind-boggling to read this stuff; If this keeps up Chicago may make gun restrictions impossible for any location in the US.
This is basically what Chicago is doing. They've used up any benefit of the doubt or clean hands. As such we get to keep smacking them back and set a much lower bar for us to beat back these sorts of stupid laws. The only bad news here is that I think the new Mayor is smarter and will stop being our punching bag quickly.

-Gene

Apocalypsenerd
08-30-2011, 1:18 PM
This is basically what Chicago is doing. They've used up any benefit of the doubt or clean hands. As such we get to keep smacking them back and set a much lower bar for us to beat back these sorts of stupid laws. The only bad news here is that I think the new Mayor is smarter and will stop being our punching bag quickly.

-Gene

No doubt Rahm is smarter. I hope his ideology overpowers his intelligence and you guys keep hammering away.

curtisfong
08-30-2011, 1:24 PM
No doubt Rahm is smarter. I hope his ideology overpowers his intelligence and you guys keep hammering away.

If he is of sufficient intelligence, he may just realize that gun rights are civil rights, and switch sides. And that there is no down side to being pro-civil rights on ALL fronts.

But we all know he's not *that* smart.

Kharn
08-30-2011, 3:39 PM
No doubt Rahm is smarter. I hope his ideology overpowers his intelligence and you guys keep hammering away.Its not the mayor's ideology we're contending with, its the city council's. And they love gun control with every fiber of their being. :devil2:

BigDogatPlay
08-30-2011, 3:55 PM
This is basically what Chicago is doing. They've used up any benefit of the doubt or clean hands. As such we get to keep smacking them back and set a much lower bar for us to beat back these sorts of stupid laws. The only bad news here is that I think the new Mayor is smarter and will stop being our punching bag quickly.

-Gene

But wasn't it not the new Mayor who, essentially, drove the half hearted attempt to moot, only to receive this latest spanking?

I share your optimism, and yes the man is smart. But he is also a particularly ruthless and utterly devoted ideologue who really, really hates to lose at anything. I suspect he doesn't care one whit about what damage he might do to the rest of his side of the ball so long as he keeps fighting for what he thinks in his own mind is right.

Which, of course, plays directly into the hands of Mr. Gura and his team. Not a bad thing, in that respect.

taperxz
08-30-2011, 4:07 PM
They got a stern warning in the Second Amendment Arms case from the District Court Judge who can read the contempt that CA-7 had for them in Ezell. I expect you're going to see attitudes adjust - partially because of below.

This is basically what Chicago is doing. They've used up any benefit of the doubt or clean hands. As such we get to keep smacking them back and set a much lower bar for us to beat back these sorts of stupid laws. The only bad news here is that I think the new Mayor is smarter and will stop being our punching bag quickly.

-Gene

Something tells me his ego might get in the way of his intellect. Just saying.

taperxz
08-30-2011, 4:07 PM
I think they are all in museums!!:D

I still have one??:confused:

wash
08-30-2011, 4:10 PM
Do you live in a museum?

taperxz
08-30-2011, 4:10 PM
Do you live in a museum?

NO, but i still have one.

RKV
08-30-2011, 8:28 PM
'This should answer the question some on the forum have asked about "will they ever stop"?'

Chicago has not stopped yet, have they? I don't like that fact, but it is true nonetheless. As of today there are no public gun ranges in Chicago nor are there likely to be for months and probably years.

As much as I like Gura's filing (and one has to admire his literary style and his logic), the district court will likely agree that Chicago has mooted Ezell. Why do I say that? Look at the judge's performance at the district level - she's in on the scam and is happy to delay the inevitable.

"I expect you're going to see attitudes adjust."

If we were such bad dogs, Gene, they'd have adjusted their attitudes already. Chicago is still playing games because they know they will get away with it (at least for a while). No "come to Jesus" moment yet. The City still hasn't paid Gura and even when they do its with someone else's money - they're just not worried. I predict the district court will agree with the City and moot the complaint. I hope I'm wrong, but Judge Kendall found no irreparable harm in her opinion a year ago, and really the only harm she's worried about is harm to her paycheck/retirement, which won't be a problem even if the Court of Appeals over-rules her again. This is textbook judicial nullification, but our opponents are sure of their own righteousness vis a vis the 2nd Amendment. See Stevens error-riddled dissent on McDonald for example.

I'd like to think given their prior ruling that the Court of Appeals will have none of that nonsense when they rule on Ezell II in mid to late 2012.

Then we might get Alan Gura as Special Master for Chicago gun laws?!

Realism gentlemen. Given the nature of our opposition, their history and arrogance, it is unrealistic to expect them to cave short of being led away in chains to prison for contempt. Now, that's a pretty thought by the way. Think grudging compliance and you won't be disappointed. I wish it was over and in the bag, but its not yet. Deal with it.

And no Gene, I'm not opining about a legal theory which I as a non-lawyer am not qualified to comment on. I do know a bit about politics - this is politics, not law btw - in spite of the legal outlines of the conflict. And its Chicago politics to boot. Honor is not in their creed, all they know is advantage. With a bit of help from the Circuit Court we'll make them regret it. A lot.

OleCuss
08-30-2011, 8:47 PM
RKV:

Pretty reasonable argument.

I do disagree, however. The evidence is so strong and the citations so good for the Gura argument that I just don't see the district court wanting to get slapped around again by the circuit court.

When I did a quick once-over of the Ezell opinion it seemed to fairly drip with contempt for what the district court did and the district court simply has to know that a ruling that the case is moot is going to go right up to the circuit level and be reversed.

Being repeatedly reversed on the same case is not a good career move and makes you look stupid. I think the odds are decent (not great) that the district will rule that Ezell is not mooted by Chicago's action and will keep control of the situation.

Even if I were to make the assumption that the district court were thoroughly corrupt I'm not at all sure that the district court would moot the case.

FWIW from a non-lawyer.

Scarecrow Repair
08-30-2011, 8:48 PM
NO, but i still have one.

Then, by definition, you live in a museum.

My museum is a Pickett & Eckel (sp?) log log slide rule in a box in a closet.

Caladain
08-30-2011, 9:24 PM
'This should answer the question some on the forum have asked about "will they ever stop"?'

Chicago has not stopped yet, have they? I don't like that fact, but it is true nonetheless. As of today there are no public gun ranges in Chicago nor are there likely to be for months and probably years.
Good. We want them to continue their current hard-headed course. The more unreasonable they are, the more cases we can file, the more cases get lost, the faster those cases move up to the circuit level where they can do some real good across the nation. We're not playing to win in Chicago. We're playing to win at the appeal court and supreme court level from what i understand. I'm not a lawyer, just a software engineer ;-)

As much as I like Gura's filing (and one has to admire his literary style and his logic), the district court will likely agree that Chicago has mooted Ezell. Why do I say that? Look at the judge's performance at the district level - she's in on the scam and is happy to delay the inevitable.

Doubtful. Getting slapped around by a higher court ruins your stats, which is everything when trying to move up the court ladder. The higher court has made it clear they aren't in the mood. Read the Brady's filings as well..they're scrambling for anything to hold onto, and some (most, all?) of their arguments reak of pure desperation.

If we were such bad dogs, Gene, they'd have adjusted their attitudes already. Chicago is still playing games because they know they will get away with it (at least for a while).

They're in denial. They haven't adjusted their tactics for the new world we find ourselves in. All the better for us, as we're on the offensive and counting on just that.

Realism gentlemen. Given the nature of our opposition, their history and arrogance, it is unrealistic to expect them to cave short of being led away in chains to prison for contempt. Now, that's a pretty thought by the way. Think grudging compliance and you won't be disappointed. I wish it was over and in the bag, but its not yet. Deal with it.

That's *what we want*. We *want* them to play games, and be dragged kicking and screaming. As we drag them, we gather many, many legal cases and good, solid, binding cases that help us here in Cali and across the nation.

I do know a bit about politics - this is politics, not law btw - in spite of the legal outlines of the conflict.

Incorrect. This is all-out legal war. And what's more, we're banking on them playing Chicago politics and *missing the entire point of our offensive*.

If they wanted to shut us down immediately, they'd really moot the case and go shall issue and play nice. We'd have to go to our next "weak sheep of the herd" and attack them instead.

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 12:44 AM
Doubtful. Getting slapped around by a higher court ruins your stats, which is everything when trying to move up the court ladder.


No. It's not. Not at all.

Judges at the circuit court level and above are political appointees. Politicians couldn't give a rat's *ss about the stats of the judge in question. All that matters is how well aligned the political beliefs of the judge in question are with those of the politician(s) making the decision on whether to appoint that judge to the position or not.


Other than that, I basically agree with what you've said: we want Chicago to play games here. We want to slap them so hard that the "SMACK!!!" is heard throughout the country. It will, at a minimum, take the threat of jail for the city council members to make that happen, but it will be so worth it.


This is Civil Rights Redux.

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 12:50 AM
I do disagree, however. The evidence is so strong and the citations so good for the Gura argument that I just don't see the district court wanting to get slapped around again by the circuit court.


Why should the district court care about getting "slapped around" again by the circuit court? Short of the circuit court somehow holding the judge in question in some sort of contempt (i.e., taking some action that jeopardizes the judge's job), I see no incentive for the district court to pay any attention to what the circuit court has said.



When I did a quick once-over of the Ezell opinion it seemed to fairly drip with contempt for what the district court did and the district court simply has to know that a ruling that the case is moot is going to go right up to the circuit level and be reversed.


Oh, noes! Reversed again! The horror...

"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!"

The circuit court is going to need more than mere words to bring a sufficiently defiant district court in line.



Being repeatedly reversed on the same case is not a good career move and makes you look stupid. I think the odds are decent (not great) that the district will rule that Ezell is not mooted by Chicago's action and will keep control of the situation.


Rate of reversal has nothing to do with the career of these judges. Their political views do. Judges are political appointees. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, there is no meritocracy involved here, because the politicians can appoint whomever they please (within the limits of what they can get away with politically) to the bench. See, e.g., Sotomayor and Kagan.

hoffmang
08-31-2011, 1:09 AM
'This should answer the question some on the forum have asked about "will they ever stop"?'

Chicago has not stopped yet, have they?

DC runs away from Gura twice. First, they mooted Hanson by making the DC handgun roster the most permissive in the nation. Second, they ran so fast that they leased space in Metro PD to an FFL. Read that again. The super anti gun District of Columbia is landlord to an evil gun business.

I prey you're right about this District Judge, but I'm pretty confident you're wrong. If you were right we could get even more good case law about zoning that we can then apply to places like Emeryville, CA and their FFL opening restrictions.

-Gene

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 1:15 AM
I prey you're right about this District Judge, but I'm pretty confident you're wrong. If you were right we could get even more good case law about zoning that we can then apply to places like Emeryville, CA and their FFL opening restrictions.


Yep. In this case, the (if I'm right) relative immunity of district court judges works very much in our favor.

Gura: "Whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch!"

:D

Maestro Pistolero
08-31-2011, 1:26 AM
Re: Rham Immanuel:But he is also a particularly ruthless and utterly devoted ideologue who really, really hates to lose at anything. Right. He's smart, but he's like a pit bull. He won't be able to let go even if he's getting his legs chewed off.

My apologies to pit bulls.

Maestro Pistolero
08-31-2011, 1:32 AM
If Chicago doesn't mind getting slapped around a bit more, I hope the district court has had quite enough. They are under direct orders to issue an injunction, are they not?

Anchors
08-31-2011, 1:42 AM
DC runs away from Gura twice. First, they mooted Hanson by making the DC handgun roster the most permissive in the nation. Second, they ran so fast that they leased space in Metro PD to an FFL. Read that again. The super anti gun District of Columbia is landlord to an evil gun business.

I prey you're right about this District Judge, but I'm pretty confident you're wrong. If you were right we could get even more good case law about zoning that we can then apply to places like Emeryville, CA and their FFL opening restrictions.

-Gene

I find myself hoping that places keep doing even more stupid stuff so that we have even more ground to stand on. It catches me off guard time to time. Like when Chicago started "allowing" a gun range in an effort to moot the case, I was thinking "noooooooooo". But it seems like it all worked out because Gura is a beast.

Anchors
08-31-2011, 1:42 AM
Oh and no one used this yet.

:gura:

Caladain
08-31-2011, 5:52 AM
No. It's not. Not at all.

Judges at the circuit court level and above are political appointees. Politicians couldn't give a rat's *ss about the stats of the judge in question. All that matters is how well aligned the political beliefs of the judge in question are with those of the politician(s) making the decision on whether to appoint that judge to the position or not.

I misunderstood how the system worked..i thought it was still a numbers game at the district court and not a political appointment. Doesn't matter too much..i want the court to mess up and bounce it higher so we get some binding cases :D

RKV
08-31-2011, 6:45 AM
I appreciate the reasoned responses, as opposed to some emotional reactions on other threads. That said, I've made a falsifiable prediction - to wit, that Judge Kendall will moot Ezell at the district level. I'd like to extend that a bit, and say she will do so several times. It will run something like - well this is off a bit fix that and you're OK. Gura will file objections (again) and she'll give up a bit more. Chicago plays games in the mean time. Gura's going to need to figure how long this should go on before he files with the Court of Appeals to get best advantage. Guys, this is Illinois - remember that 3 of their Governors since the 1970s are convicted felons. If there is no money, ego or ideological reason to do the right thing the aldermen and mayor certainly won't willingly play ball. Call me cynical if you will, but history backs up the expectation. Hopefully that is to our advantage in the long run. Short run - grudging and or malicious compliance.

Caladain
08-31-2011, 7:04 AM
Gura's going to need to figure how long this should go on before he files with the Court of Appeals to get best advantage.

It'll go on however long it needs to in order to ensure that when it gets bumped upwards it's obvious the lower court is playing games and the Supreme court picks it up or the appeals court *gets upset* and lays a heavy smack down.

Guys, this is Illinois - remember that 3 of their Governors since the 1970s are convicted felons. If there is no money, ego or ideological reason to do the right thing the aldermen and mayor certainly won't willingly play ball.

That *would* be why we picked them. We're counting on it.

Short run - grudging and or malicious compliance.

Short term compliance is meaningless. Quite frankly, compliance would ruin our day entirely! We're not playing to win in Chicago. We're actually wanting to lose entirely. We're phrasing our questions in such a way that we're laying the ground work for a Appeal's court or Supreme court battle..in a very real sense most of our arguments are phrased for that audience and not for the lower courts.

RKV
08-31-2011, 8:41 AM
I believe the full text runs...

"Stop! Or I shall say Stop! again, only more sternly, with a determined look. I may even shake.my.finger.at.you"

lol

HowardW56
08-31-2011, 9:26 AM
No. It's not. Not at all.

Judges at the circuit court level and above are political appointees. Politicians couldn't give a rat's *ss about the stats of the judge in question. All that matters is how well aligned the political beliefs of the judge in question are with those of the politician(s) making the decision on whether to appoint that judge to the position or not.


Other than that, I basically agree with what you've said: we want Chicago to play games here. We want to slap them so hard that the "SMACK!!!" is heard throughout the country. It will, at a minimum, take the threat of jail for the city council members to make that happen, but it will be so worth it.


This is Civil Rights Redux.

District Court, Appellate Court, and Supreme Court judges receive lifetime appointments. Once they have been confirmed by the senate they hold the position and title for life. When they reach retirement age, they become Senior Judges, they can still hear cases and sit on the bench, but they are not obligated to work the same schedule. Some do resign their appointment to become arbritators...

Federal Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges do not have lifetime appointments, I believe their term is 12 or 14 years.

wash
08-31-2011, 10:21 AM
Short term compliance is meaningless. Quite frankly, compliance would ruin our day entirely! We're not playing to win in Chicago. We're actually wanting to lose entirely. We're phrasing our questions in such a way that we're laying the ground work for a Appeal's court or Supreme court battle..in a very real sense most of our arguments are phrased for that audience and not for the lower courts.
We are not playing to lose. Losing is easy.

We have to present a winning case with merit and hope that the corrupt politicians and judges give us opinions that allow appeals that get high enough to become binding precedence.

That is a much more difficult task and does require the unwitting participation of those corrupt politicians and judges.

bulgron
08-31-2011, 10:31 AM
Incorrect. This is all-out legal war.

Which is why Sunnyvale shouldn't pass a distance restriction on gun stores without some kind of evidence that said restrictions are needed. We've been trying to tell them that, but I fear they aren't listening.

I really wish my home town wouldn't be the one to drive the 9th circuit's side of the circuit split, because that's just going to be expensive for the city. But if they really want their name on a landmark civil rights case, I guess I'll just have to be ready to send money to whomever sues them first.

dvcrsn
08-31-2011, 10:32 AM
I think they are all in museums!!:D

I still have my grandfather's Underwood (and my older uncle on that side recently passed at almost 90):biggrinjester:

OleCuss
08-31-2011, 10:43 AM
Why should the district court care about getting "slapped around" again by the circuit court? Short of the circuit court somehow holding the judge in question in some sort of contempt (i.e., taking some action that jeopardizes the judge's job), I see no incentive for the district court to pay any attention to what the circuit court has said.




Oh, noes! Reversed again! The horror...

"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!"

The circuit court is going to need more than mere words to bring a sufficiently defiant district court in line.




Rate of reversal has nothing to do with the career of these judges. Their political views do. Judges are political appointees. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, there is no meritocracy involved here, because the politicians can appoint whomever they please (within the limits of what they can get away with politically) to the bench. See, e.g., Sotomayor and Kagan.

I think you're overly pessimistic. There are things like possible Republican Senates, possible Republican POTUS, professional pride, not wanting to be known as the "dumb*** judge", not wanting to have the district/circuit court effectively take away the case (wouldn't work well at several levels), etc.

Net effect is that from almost any angle that you can identify (even from that of the City of Chicago, and even assuming that the district court judge is owned by the City of Chicago), it does not work well for the judge to be continually reversed by the circuit when the law and controlling precedent are clear.

In this case I think the law and the precedent are very clear and the odds that the district court will moot Ezell are fairly low.

Edit: I don't think Chicago thinks their odds of getting their requested mooting are very good, either. After all, if they really thought the case would be mooted based on their ordinances at the time of their filing - then why would they be proposing new ordinances which would not be quite as insanely restrictive? If the case were to be mooted they would perceive no need for revising their ordinances and thus would not be preparing the revisions.

Caladain
08-31-2011, 11:04 AM
We are not playing to lose. Losing is easy.

We have to present a winning case with merit and hope that the corrupt politicians and judges give us opinions that allow appeals that get high enough to become binding precedence.

That is a much more difficult task and does require the unwitting participation of those corrupt politicians and judges.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. My original wording was flawed, but the essence of your statement is what i was trying to convey. We are, in essence, hoping for a loss at the lowest levels, while arguing the proper arguments for a win at the higher courts, as that actually wins the battle.

Quser.619
08-31-2011, 11:29 AM
They're in denial. They haven't adjusted their tactics for the new world we find ourselves in. All the better for us, as we're on the offensive and counting on just that.

I agree with this, in terms both politically & legally based philosophically. Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin?...) wrote an article showing that Clarence Thomas is actually a leading, if not the leading, Constitutional scholar on the SCOTUS. Regardless of one's personal views of the Justice - I'm a fan - Toobin argues that it is his strong influence, not Scalia's, that has opened up the doors for the recent 2A rulings of the court.

While the author's main focus was what that influence might spell for the future of the Individual Mandate from the Healthcare legislation passed by Congress, it signals at least some of the Left are now beginning to realize what exactly has happened & is happening to firmly established legal & political subjects that they once unthinkingly deemed unassailable.

The New Yorker is in fact calling Thomas a thinker & scholar. Juxtapose that with their historical treatment of Justice Thomas for decades & you'll see a useful primer of the distance that the City of Chicago & its mayor will have to go in order to truly comprehend how large of a losing hand that they hold.

I'm not sure that lost after lost will be enough. I'm not sure even another SCOTUS ruling in favor of the 2A will be enough for the anti-liberty minded, amongst the political class, to wake up from their complacency to acknowledge just how far removed from political & legal reality they have drifted. Nor the legitimacy of our arguments.

Given the steps taken by our Legislature recently or the antics of the city of Chicago, I'm not sure most on that side of the issue have even begun to see the tip of the iceberg that their are perilously heading towards at full speed. Until we reach that point, I don't think we've begun to see what true political/legal desperation looks like both here or in cities like New York or Chicago.

I guess we can only hope that they continue on this destructive route, giving us more legal ammunition to use to broaden & refine our attack.

Patrick-2
08-31-2011, 12:27 PM
I appreciate the reasoned responses, as opposed to some emotional reactions on other threads. That said, I've made a falsifiable prediction - to wit, that Judge Kendall will moot Ezell at the district level. I'd like to extend that a bit, and say she will do so several times. It will run something like - well this is off a bit fix that and you're OK. Gura will file objections (again) and she'll give up a bit more. Chicago plays games in the mean time. Gura's going to need to figure how long this should go on before he files with the Court of Appeals to get best advantage. Guys, this is Illinois - remember that 3 of their Governors since the 1970s are convicted felons. If there is no money, ego or ideological reason to do the right thing the aldermen and mayor certainly won't willingly play ball. Call me cynical if you will, but history backs up the expectation. Hopefully that is to our advantage in the long run. Short run - grudging and or malicious compliance.

Ezell tells us that the harm caused by Chicago is "irreparable" if it exists for even one day.

How long has it been since the order to grant the injunction? Has it been done yet?

The judge is granting extensions to Chicago. Then the judge is literally going to mail the decision. Literally, she is stretching the clock as long as she can.

That does not look like a serious review to me. I think you are right and that we end up in the Seventh yet again. Fine by me. We can settle some zoning questions and perhaps even get some words to the effect that 'irreparable harm' means, "fix it right now." I feel much better with the panel in the Seventh handling this than some lower-court judge who really, really wants Chicago to restrict guns in her city.

Apocalypsenerd
08-31-2011, 1:30 PM
Unless I'm missing something fundamental, there is no meritocracy involved here, because the politicians can appoint whomever they please (within the limits of what they can get away with politically) to the bench. See, e.g., Sotomayor and Kagan.

I don't know about Sotomayor but Kagan has tremendous merit. Just because she is a far left liberal does not mean her intelligence or legal background fails in the merit category.

wildhawker
08-31-2011, 1:34 PM
Yep. I'll take this panel irritated at the City (and District Ct.) any and every day.

-Brandon

Ezell tells us that the harm caused by Chicago is "irreparable" if it exists for even one day.

How long has it been since the order to grant the injunction? Has it been done yet?

The judge is granting extensions to Chicago. Then the judge is literally going to mail the decision. Literally, she is stretching the clock as long as she can.

That does not look like a serious review to me. I think you are right and that we end up in the Seventh yet again. Fine by me. We can settle some zoning questions and perhaps even get some words to the effect that 'irreparable harm' means, "fix it right now." I feel much better with the panel in the Seventh handling this than some lower-court judge who really, really wants Chicago to restrict guns in her city.

Maestro Pistolero
08-31-2011, 1:54 PM
Whatever the district court does, if anything, will be insufficient to relieve the ongoing irreparable harm. There will be another appeal, and this time the court's deferential 'remand and instruct' approach will be replaced with a hard ruling that takes the matter out of the hands of the district court.

That the court has (unbelievably) ignored the command from the 7th to issue the injunction is all the information necessary to see where this is going.

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 3:23 PM
I think you're overly pessimistic.


Nobody has ever accused me of that before... :D



There are things like possible Republican Senates, possible Republican POTUS, professional pride, not wanting to be known as the "dumb*** judge", not wanting to have the district/circuit court effectively take away the case (wouldn't work well at several levels), etc.


Sure, there's some of that, but at the end of the day, like I said, they're political appointees. Someone with sufficient "connections" and/or whose politics are sufficiently in line with those doing the appointing is going to get the job, no matter how bad their reversal record is (ETA: with one major exception: if the reversal record is there due to legal errors that caused them to be reversed by higher courts that were otherwise friendly to their position, then they'll certainly not be appointed. But I expect that a record built primarily of that type of reversal is likely to be rare). Remember that the context here is that they're being appointed to a higher position than what they already occupy, so part of the reason they're being appointed will be to ensure that someone below them who issues the same sorts of rulings does not get overturned.


All of which is to say that the courts primarily rule based on how they want to rule, and they use whatever legal justification they can in order to make their ruling sound as legally defensible as they can make it. This is the equivalent of a scientist deciding that he likes a particular hypothesis and selectively looking only for evidence that supports him -- something that is scientifically unethical (the proper scientific approach is to look for evidence that disproves the hypothesis, and accept the hypothesis as having merit only if contrary evidence cannot be found). That behavior goes all the way up to the Supreme Court (see Kelo). This is what happens when judges occupy their position primarily because of their political stance at the time of their appointment.



Net effect is that from almost any angle that you can identify (even from that of the City of Chicago, and even assuming that the district court judge is owned by the City of Chicago), it does not work well for the judge to be continually reversed by the circuit when the law and controlling precedent are clear.


I disagree. I don't see how reversal itself is relevant at all. Remember that reversal happens when the upper court disagrees with the lower court, and that generally happens when the political views of the upper court differ from those of the lower court.

Viewed from that perspective, having a long record of reversals might actually work in the appointee's favor. Everything depends on who is doing the appointing at the time.



Edit: I don't think Chicago thinks their odds of getting their requested mooting are very good, either. After all, if they really thought the case would be mooted based on their ordinances at the time of their filing - then why would they be proposing new ordinances which would not be quite as insanely restrictive? If the case were to be mooted they would perceive no need for revising their ordinances and thus would not be preparing the revisions.

That's certainly possible. Alternatively, they may simply be doing contingency planning...

jar
08-31-2011, 3:25 PM
The judge seems to be using the same tactics as Chicago, namely delay as much as possible and try to get away with as much as possible. The questions are, A) how much does she think she can get away with, and B) how much will the 7th Circuit panel actually let her get away with. All of the possibilities laid out in the thread seem quite plausible, but I don't think any of us know enough to weight the likelyhood.

My SWAG is that the district judge will wait as long as possible and then try to reset the clock in a way that won't bring CA7 down on her head. Something like deny the motion to dismiss, then deny the motion for PI without prejudice and say it needs to be amended based on Chicago's latest ordinance.

sholling
08-31-2011, 3:35 PM
I don't know about Sotomayor but Kagan has tremendous merit. Just because she is a far left liberal does not mean her intelligence or legal background fails in the merit category.
I can't agree with that. Aside from lying to congress in order to get her appointment confirmed (a complete and total lack of ethics), the fact that she believes that her statist political philosophy should trump the constitution means that her background lacks merit. She obviously has no understanding or respect for the supreme law of the land.

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 3:47 PM
The judge seems to be using the same tactics as Chicago, namely delay as much as possible and try to get away with as much as possible. The questions are, A) how much does she think she can get away with, and B) how much will the 7th Circuit panel actually let her get away with. All of the possibilities laid out in the thread seem quite plausible, but I don't think any of us know enough to weight the likelyhood.

My SWAG is that the district judge will wait as long as possible and then try to reset the clock in a way that won't bring CA7 down on her head. Something like deny the motion to dismiss, then deny the motion for PI without prejudice and say it needs to be amended based on Chicago's latest ordinance.

If the district judge does that, then she's playing checkers. Seems to me that Gura has already anticipated that possibility in his opposition to the MTD. He's playing chess (very well, I might add...). :43:

Patrick-2
08-31-2011, 3:51 PM
...

My SWAG is that the district judge will wait as long as possible and then try to reset the clock in a way that won't bring CA7 down on her head. Something like deny the motion to dismiss, then deny the motion for PI without prejudice and say it needs to be amended based on Chicago's latest ordinance.

Sounds like a plan.

That said, I think that outcome could be appealed. The PI has direct support from the Seventh and that little 'irreparable harm' thing attached. The MTD from Chicago is not even applicable to the current proposed laws. Everything in the PI is still a problem.

Not saying your posit won't happen (quite the opposite, I think it is possible). Just saying I think the SAF could appeal that game. A denial is a denial, even if they are allowed to re-file the complaint.

Do not know those rules so well, so I am guessing a bit here...

Scarecrow Repair
09-01-2011, 6:24 AM
I can't agree with that. Aside from lying to congress in order to get her appointment confirmed (a complete and total lack of ethics), the fact that she believes that her statist political philosophy should trump the constitution means that her background lacks merit. She obviously has no understanding or respect for the supreme law of the land.

Au contraire. No one would go to such lengths for something they thought weak and ineffective.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-01-2011, 6:43 AM
My SWAG is that the district judge will wait as long as possible and then try to reset the clock in a way that won't bring CA7 down on her head. Something like deny the motion to dismiss, then deny the motion for PI without prejudice and say it needs to be amended based on Chicago's latest ordinance.


SWAG?


The Raisuli

mofugly13
09-01-2011, 6:45 AM
"scientific wild-***-guess"

BigDogatPlay
09-01-2011, 12:30 PM
"scientific silly wild-***-guess"

Fixed it for you.... :D

krucam
09-12-2011, 2:46 PM
Defendants filed today DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AS MOOT (http://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.119.0.pdf)

Sticking to their guns in saying the statute being challenged doesn't exist (they "fixed it" as the CA7 Ezell ruling was being printed) and the case is therefore moot, and their MTD should be granted...

wildhawker
09-12-2011, 2:50 PM
Silly Chicago. Tricks are for kids.

-Brandon

Defendants filed today DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AS MOOT (http://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.119.0.pdf)

Sticking to their guns in saying the statute being challenged doesn't exist (they "fixed it" as the CA7 Ezell ruling was being printed) and the case is therefore moot, and their MTD should be granted...

wash
09-12-2011, 3:11 PM
Wow, that is either hilarious or sad.

Hilarious because I think the court will just laugh at this.

Sad if the court goes along with this nonsense and makes everyone go through all the depositions and delays all over again.

choprzrul
09-12-2011, 3:27 PM
Something tells me that the court will become really tired, really quick, of their antics.

Beyond sending in US Marshals, what enforcement tools are available for the court to use?

.

**EDIT**

Clarity, re: "...tools are available for the court to use..." I am referring to the 7th Circuit in making sure that their guidance is used. In other words, what stops the district court from ignoring the 7th's ruling?

.

Patrick-2
09-12-2011, 4:15 PM
Something tells me that the court will become really tired, really quick, of their antics.

Beyond sending in US Marshals, what enforcement tools are available for the court to use?

.

Send in the Teamsters? :eek:


In all seriousness, I don't expect the District Court judge to go out her way to see our point of view. The 7th directed the court to do something, and it is still the job of the District Court to do that task even if the law itself has changed. Changes in code do not moot civil rights claims. Chicago knows that, but pretends otherwise. The District Court will need to parse Ezell's appellate ruling and apply it to the new rules and any future rules. The decision is durable...it survives into the future. That ruling affects behavior, not just code.

The appellate ruling made it damn clear what the outcome needs to be and foresaw this event, and others like it. Now we get to see how long it takes the lower court to fumble this up.

krucam
09-12-2011, 4:48 PM
...
The appellate ruling made it damn clear what the outcome needs to be and foresaw this event, and others like it. Now we get to see how long it takes the lower court to fumble this up.

That is a real possibility and in a very perverse way, I'd love to see it.

I would seriously consider flying to IL to hear a second round of arguments for Ezell at the 7th....

chris12
09-12-2011, 5:23 PM
Even if I were to believe everything Chicago says (I do not), I don't understand why they seem to really want to end this lawsuit and start a new one instead of amending this one. In both cases they would be defending themselves from a 'zoning' law in district court.

Can someone explain (or point me to a reference) why this is such a big deal to them?

kcbrown
09-12-2011, 5:53 PM
Wow, that is either hilarious or sad.

Hilarious because I think the court will just laugh at this.


I predict the district court won't just laugh at it. But it's obvious to all that the 7th Circuit will...



Sad if the court goes along with this nonsense and makes everyone go through all the depositions and delays all over again.

Why wouldn't they? Justice delayed is justice denied, and it's not like there are any negative consequences for it...

(Remember how I said that circuit court judges and above are political appointees? Well, so are district court judges! So it looks to me like advancement of judges at all levels in the federal court system is strictly a political question).

kcbrown
09-12-2011, 5:56 PM
Even if I were to believe everything Chicago says (I do not), I don't understand why they seem to really want to end this lawsuit and start a new one instead of amending this one. In both cases they would be defending themselves from a 'zoning' law in district court.

Can someone explain (or point me to a reference) why this is such a big deal to them?

Because justice delayed is justice denied.

Chicago wants to keep the citizenry from getting their hands on firearms. It's that simple. Anything it can do to maximize the amount of time the citizenry can't exercise their 2A rights is something the city of Chicago will try to do.

If Chicago can end this lawsuit and force us to start a new one, that forces us to start from square one, and that takes time -- more time than merely continuing this lawsuit does.

chris12
09-12-2011, 6:28 PM
If Chicago can end this lawsuit and force us to start a new one, that forces us to start from square one, and that takes time -- more time than merely continuing this lawsuit does.

That is a key piece of information I did not know. I figured we could just file a complaint, whether it be a new lawsuit or an amended complaint to this one.

So what would the rough time lines be for the possibilities (in terms of how much more time Chicago wastes):
1) Judge agrees with Chicago, we file a new suit as soon as possible. (I don't see this happening.)
2) Judge agrees with Chicago, we appeal.
3) Judge agrees with SAF, allows leave to amend (without injunction on new law; because with injunction gives Chicago ~0 time).
4) Other possibilities...

OleCuss
09-12-2011, 6:37 PM
Even if I were to believe everything Chicago says (I do not), I don't understand why they seem to really want to end this lawsuit and start a new one instead of amending this one. In both cases they would be defending themselves from a 'zoning' law in district court.

Can someone explain (or point me to a reference) why this is such a big deal to them?

OK, important to realize that I Am Not A Lawyer and am not even qualified to play one on TV.

But I don't think Chicago even expects or realistically hopes the case will be mooted.

I view this more as a bargaining position. They figure that they push for mooting and the District Court will be required to seriously consider the possibility that the City of Chicago is substantially in compliance with the 7th Circuit opinion.

I think that Chicago hopes this will cause a little change in the judge's way of looking at things. So if the judge will take Chicago's argument that they really tried to comply as sincere if misguided it means that the judge may be a little more predisposed to ruling their way in the future.

So the judge comes back and says something like, "You must alter your ordinances in the following particulars and then you may resubmit your petition for mooting of the case".

See? They just might change the nature of the case they are dealing with to a question of how much they have to do to moot the case! Then once the case is mooted they can resume shafting their citizens' RKBA.

If they did not move to moot the case, then they are continually having to go before the judge to have their compliance challenged/adjusted. That means more court time and a never-ending nightmare of having to comply with the Circuit Court's Ezell opinion.

So you try to shift the case to a question of, "How much do I have to do in order to moot the case?" - and you may get the case eventually mooted and get a much freer hand to do what you want.

If that is silly talk, I hope some of those who are more knowledgeable will tell me how I'm wrong. (And no, I'm not predicting Chicago success in mooting the case - I'm just trying to understand the game they are playing.)

hoffmang
09-12-2011, 8:34 PM
(Remember how I said that circuit court judges and above are political appointees? Well, so are district court judges! So it looks to me like advancement of judges at all levels in the federal court system is strictly a political question).

But you may be leaving out that political advancement cuts more than one direction.

-Gene

Rossi357
09-12-2011, 8:49 PM
I fear the same thing is going to happen in Calif. if we get "shall issue". The politicians will regulate carry in every way possible by making it nearly impossible to pass a firearms qualification, prohibiting for very minor criminal convictions, and everywhere possible will be a sensitive area.

kcbrown
09-12-2011, 9:27 PM
But you may be leaving out that political advancement cuts more than one direction.


Not really. The political pendulum swings back and forth. Given enough time, it will swing back to match the political leanings of the judge in question.

And those judges which toe the party line most closely, i.e. those with which the currently sitting administration agrees with most strongly, are going to be the ones that advance.

That means the best approach a given judge can take is to issue rulings that most strongly match the ideology of the party he leans towards the most, and to do so consistently, regardless of jurisprudence.

For a judge that does not do so will be overlooked by both sides.

OleCuss
09-12-2011, 11:00 PM
kcbrown:

It's actually more complex than that. There are all kinds of things that come into play - everything from senators putting "holds" on appointees to potential filibusters, ABA ratings, and the ignominy of becoming known as "Judge Dumb(you supply the obscenity)".

Getting nominated for the next level is a delicate balance. It helps to have demonstrated brilliance and a certain devotion to certain ideologies/theories. But if one is overly slavishly adherent to one mode of thought they run into problems as well.

And then you run into the ones who don't have a realistic hope of going up a level. Then the question may be what they are going to do after they leave the bench? Demonstrated stupidity may or may not suit their future plans.

And I'm actually leaving a lot out.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that the District Court judge will probably not grant the moot. The argument against mooting is just so strong as to militate against granting Chicago's request. Not betting my house on it, however.

hoffmang
09-12-2011, 11:51 PM
Not really.

Just wow on not reflecting on my point.

Some things can't be explained in public and you had struck me as someone who could think. Now I'm worried I've misjudged by over estimating...

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
09-12-2011, 11:51 PM
I feel a little naive even saying it, but it's extremely disturbing, even sickening that the judiciary is so vulnerable to political influence. For a judge to wittingly substitute his or her will for the straightest possible reading of the law is reprehensible. There is far too little honor in the lower courts.

Also it appears truly competent legal minds are rare as hen's teeth. It's incompetence and ignorance as often as it's willful miscarriage that lowers the bar, especially in the district courts.

kcbrown
09-13-2011, 12:13 AM
Just wow on not reflecting on my point.


Oh...that's what you meant by "more than one direction". Fair point, that.

hoffmang
09-13-2011, 12:16 AM
Oh...that's what you meant by "more than one direction". Fair point, that.

I have a phrase I like to use at my company. CLM. Career Limiting Move.

You know understand what I was saying so I tip my hat.

-Gene

kcbrown
09-13-2011, 12:19 AM
I have a phrase I like to use at my company. CLM. Career Limiting Move.

You know understand what I was saying so I tip my hat.


Well, all I gotta say is that I look forward to seeing a lot of that as a result of all this court action we've been bringing. If there's anything that would encourage it, it would be a highly polarizing subject like RKBA... :43:

MatrixCPA
09-13-2011, 12:57 AM
I have a phrase I like to use at my company. CLM. Career Limiting Move.

You can't believe how wonderful it was to find out what my initials stood for. In the CPA biz, you use your initials for everything. At least all my workpapers elicited chuckles from all involved. :facepalm:

OleCuss
09-13-2011, 4:49 AM
Glad to see there is a little more common ground as to what major stupidity/misbehavior might bring.

kcbrown
09-13-2011, 6:15 AM
Glad to see there is a little more common ground as to what major stupidity/misbehavior might bring.

If the judge grants the moot then it'll be interesting to see what that does for her...

OleCuss
09-13-2011, 6:28 AM
If the judge grants the moot then it'll be interesting to see what that does for her...

Oh, I agree! I don't know exactly what would happen (I don't study courts or their procedures), but I would expect it to be very entertaining. . .

My imagination of what a hierarchical system would do to a judge who effectively defied a remand by mooting the case? - and especially a remand that reads like Ezell's? I suspect we'd all want video.

bulgron
09-13-2011, 7:54 AM
I fear the same thing is going to happen in Calif. if we get "shall issue". The politicians will regulate carry in every way possible by making it nearly impossible to pass a firearms qualification, prohibiting for very minor criminal convictions, and everywhere possible will be a sensitive area.

Well, yes and no. Remember that there are a lot of "special" people in this state who have no trouble getting CCWs right now. Think celebrities, billionaires, judges, and other politically well-connected people. If the politicians officially change the rules too much, then that's going to anger the special people.

However, the state is so out of control relative to guns, I'm not sure that the anger of the special people will be enough to stop our lovely representatives in Sacramento. Sheriffs are also proving themselves capable of weaseling around settlements given enough time.

I really think that even given a strong win on a carry case at SCOTUS, we'll still have years of follow-up litigation, and then decades of scrutinizing the actions of Sheriffs in certain California counties, before the anti-gun culture in California is finally broken.

But note that there are some people around here who disagree with me. They're far more optimistic than I could ever hope to be. Time will tell.

Pop the popcorn.

Kid Stanislaus
09-13-2011, 8:05 AM
To elicit histerical laughter just one sentence into an opposition while remaining professional and persuasive is no easy task. Gura was good from the start, but I truly believe he's getting better with each document.

Like I've said before, the man has replaced Robert Frost as my favorite poet!;)

Kid Stanislaus
09-13-2011, 8:09 AM
Here's to Mr. Gura & his magic butt-kicking typewriter. The Raisuli

He's got a word processor just like the rest of us!:p

Kid Stanislaus
09-13-2011, 8:10 AM
typewriter????
I haven't even seen a typewriter in years.... ;)

Mulay is just a TAD behind the times!;)

Patrick-2
09-13-2011, 9:13 AM
I type every post on CalGuns with my 1982 Selectric Typewriter.

I really think that even given a strong win on a carry case at SCOTUS, we'll still have years of follow-up litigation, and then decades of scrutinizing the actions of Sheriffs in certain California counties, before the anti-gun culture in California is finally broken.

I won't argue that there will always be something to do. Look to the news for plenty of stories this year on city councils banning speech they don't like to realize no fight is truly ever complete. You cannot ban stupid.

In my mind, we have "won" when the application of the Second Amendment is as normal as the application of the First. With enough jurisprudence, the fights will end sooner and at lower levels. Judges will have a rule book, and will follow it even if they hold their noses at the same time. Federal, State and Municipal governments will tread with care once the issue proves a loser in the courts.

That doesn't mean the fighting ends. Only that it changes. It never ends.

Untamed1972
09-13-2011, 9:36 AM
I fear the same thing is going to happen in Calif. if we get "shall issue". The politicians will regulate carry in every way possible by making it nearly impossible to pass a firearms qualification, prohibiting for very minor criminal convictions, and everywhere possible will be a sensitive area.

The only problem with that is that would then have to apply to all current LTC holders, and with all the good ole' boy back room deals that have gone on for so long, making the requirements that strict could likely DQ many currently, politically well connected, LTC holders.

Plus the hold.....it's a civil right.....so as long as you're not prohibited from keeping.....you shouldn't be prohibited from bearing things comes into play as well.

OleCuss
09-13-2011, 9:59 AM
Mostly to second what Patrick-2 is saying. . .

It is important to remember that the court system is rigidly hierarchical and has particular modes of behavior which are expected and required.

This means that once the core of the 2A has been largely established in jurisprudence that the lower courts will be bound to enforce compliance. This means that lower courts will find that their obligation will change from a very restricted view of the RKBA to a much more expansive one.

Assuming that either Williams or another carry case is granted certiorari and the written opinion largely endorses the Ezell view of the 2A - you could almost overnight see an immense change in the manner in which RKBA cases are decided as of June 2012.

In terms of erecting a building, right now (after Heller and McDonald) we have the foundation laid. In June of 2012 we might have the framing put in by SCOTUS.

So assuming that something like Williams is given a favorable opinion in June of 2012 you could be at the stage where we spend a year or two plumbing and finishing the building. After that there will be a never-ending decoration phase - "let's move this vase over there" or, "let's paint the building green instead of blue", or "let's put in a new stove".

In some sense we'll never be done. But the foundation has been laid and the frame is developing (pretty nicely if you ask me).

The potential problem is political. Stare decisis may not survive too well in the long-term. Clarence Thomas is quite influential and has about as much respect for stare decisis as I have (which is not much) - and lower courts tend to take a somewhat dynamic view of stare decisis anyway. So if we give Obama another four years and he gets to appoint another couple of the Supremes you could see lower courts suggesting that SCOTUS should revisit the RKBA and effectively overturn Heller and McDonald.

This is where the NRA becomes even more essential. Right now the SAF/CGF/CRPA team is the most important RKBA force in the USA. But come the summer of 2012 the NRA is going to have to be a monstrous single-issue political force able to cause any politician to tremble with a mere baleful glance.

wash
09-13-2011, 10:03 AM
Just wow on not reflecting on my point.

Some things can't be explained in public and you had struck me as someone who could think. Now I'm worried I've misjudged by over estimating...

-Gene
KC is ok.

I have a theory: everyone thinks they are pretty much normal and that other people think like them.

You've got to have a little bit of a devious streak to spot the deceit of others (unless it's really obvious).

KC just doesn't have that devious streak.

He might be a good guy to invite to a card game.

Patrick-2
09-13-2011, 11:51 AM
I'd have a drink with anyone here. Speaking of which...PM me if you are going to GRPC in Chicago and want to meet up...

The potential problem is political. Stare decisis may not survive too well in the long-term. Clarence Thomas is quite influential and has about as much respect for stare decisis as I have (which is not much) - and lower courts tend to take a somewhat dynamic view of stare decisis anyway. So if we give Obama another four years and he gets to appoint another couple of the Supremes you could see lower courts suggesting that SCOTUS should revisit the RKBA and effectively overturn Heller and McDonald.

Stare Decisis represents many things to many people, and it has been used to transform our legal foundations in uncomfortable ways.

But...

In the context of this discussion it is the civil-rights equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction: Ban my right, and I will ban yours.

You don't have to look far to see some natural lines of demarcation. The fight over the Second Amendment is being fought to establish recognition of something that the other side knows cannot be rescinded. Once elevated, it cannot be devalued using normal political pressures. Progressive justices who wish to overturn would be tempered by the fact there are a great many more 'civil rights' won by their side over the years, and most of them do not have constitutional enumeration. Once you reclassify an enumerated fundamental right via judicial fiat, you open the floodgates for the next court.

Abortion? It's a derived right. Keep looking, many more exist. Upcoming fights over gay-marriage equality...? Over. *


Once we win, they other side knows they are stuck. As Judge Rovner in Chicago suggested to Chicago, it's time they start accepting facts.


*EDIT: Let's also recognize that a great many pro-2A-rights people are also fairly libertarian on these issues, as well. That makes it easier for our side, because there are a great many of us who fall into many camps at the same time. I may support marriage-equality, but that does not mean I will support gun control. Whatever "natural base" normally exists for a social issue is dispersed when it comes to guns. This is not a pure R/D issue.

OleCuss
09-13-2011, 12:01 PM
Good points and they are appreciated.

But a single entity trying to win their point will not necessarily look at the effects of their success on the overall constellation of rights and/or privileges which they have accrued through the courts and legislation over time.

I'd agree that the judicial system will tend to restrain a lot of attempts.

I both love and fear Clarence Thomas. I think he is simply brilliant and I like his judicial attitude. But his lack of respect for stare decisis is a bit scary even though I share that lack of respect.

Thing is that Thomas may prove to be the most influential Supreme in a generation or two and he may shift the approach to stare decisis in ways that will not necessarily be to my/our benefit all the time.

Oh, well. I'm still learning and I still predict victory.

kcbrown
09-13-2011, 3:59 PM
KC is ok.

I have a theory: everyone thinks they are pretty much normal and that other people think like them.

You've got to have a little bit of a devious streak to spot the deceit of others (unless it's really obvious).

KC just doesn't have that devious streak.


Pretty much. I've developed a defense mechanism to counteract that fact, too: Trust Nobody. :D

It's why I'm almost always skeptical when someone makes claims that I find to be "optimistic", even when they are in a position of "authority" or are an "expert", and why my brand of optimism is "when I make a prediction, things usually turn out even worse than I predicted, so I must be an optimist!".

But Oaklander managed to really drive home the error of doing that with you guys (and, especially, the CGF and SAF guys), so I've done my best to tone down (if not outright abandon) that approach here, particularly with respect to the statements of "the Right People".


I do know that people think differently than I do, but my choice comes down to either doing my best to analyze the situation and make predictions based on that, or give up attempting to make predictions altogether. The latter approach is, quite clearly, useless. At least the former is something that can be learned from (if your prediction is wrong, then something is different than you perceived it, and you have to go back and figure out what that difference is).



He might be a good guy to invite to a card game.

Note to self: do not accept any card game invitations from this crowd.

:rofl2:

OleCuss
09-13-2011, 4:52 PM
An amazing amount of wisdom is evident in the above post. I wish I could hammer that level of self-doubt and fact-based error correction into a whole bunch of people - it'd be a better world.

hoffmang
09-13-2011, 9:00 PM
Note to self: do not accept any card game invitations from this crowd.

:rofl2:

7 card stud this Sunday? :43:

-Gene

kcbrown
09-13-2011, 11:44 PM
7 card stud this Sunday? :43:



*Flees in terror*

:rofl2:

goober
09-14-2011, 12:35 AM
I'd have a drink with anyone here. Speaking of which...PM me if you are going to GRPC in Chicago and want to meet up...





wish i could take you up on that, i've always enjoyed your posts and would jump at the opportunity to raise a glass with you.
speaking of, who IS going to GRPC? (not to threadjack, or anything....) :chris:

wildhawker
09-14-2011, 6:14 AM
Don, Gene and I are at GRPC. Profs. Winkler and Volokh are going also.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-14-2011, 12:46 PM
Send in the Teamsters? :eek:


In all seriousness, I don't expect the District Court judge to go out her way to see our point of view. The 7th directed the court to do something, and it is still the job of the District Court to do that task even if the law itself has changed. Changes in code do not moot civil rights claims. Chicago knows that, but pretends otherwise. The District Court will need to parse Ezell's appellate ruling and apply it to the new rules and any future rules. The decision is durable...it survives into the future. That ruling affects behavior, not just code.

The appellate ruling made it damn clear what the outcome needs to be and foresaw this event, and others like it. Now we get to see how long it takes the lower court to fumble this up.


Which up the question of what to do if (more likely, when) the Dist. Court grants the Motion to Dismiss as Moot. I presume that a dismissal can be appealed, but does it make sense to do so?


The Raisuli

Gray Peterson
09-14-2011, 1:00 PM
Which up the question of what to do if (more likely, when) the Dist. Court grants the Motion to Dismiss as Moot. I presume that a dismissal can be appealed, but does it make sense to do so?


The Raisuli

Yes, because if we appeal the dismissal we get the same panel which heard Ezell before.

dvcrsn
09-14-2011, 2:28 PM
"scientific wild-***-guess"

nope SUPER wild **-* gue:43:ss

ChuangTzu
09-14-2011, 5:37 PM
speaking of, who IS going to GRPC? (not to threadjack, or anything....) :chris:

I'll be there.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-15-2011, 6:12 AM
Yes, because if we appeal the dismissal we get the same panel which heard Ezell before.


Ah. That's a real good point. Thank you.


The Raisuli

chris12
09-28-2011, 4:50 PM
Ezell win: Chicago's new range ordinance doesn't moot the case http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.122.0.pdf "The new ordinance undoubtedly burdens…"

MatrixCPA
09-28-2011, 4:54 PM
While not unexpected, this really brightened my day.

Connor P Price
09-28-2011, 4:55 PM
Awesome.

Librarian
09-28-2011, 5:02 PM
... Moreover, as a practical matter, Ezell is either going to: (1) challenge the constitutionality of these restrictions by filing an amended complaint as part of this case; or (2) file a new case attacking the same restrictions. The Court sees no upside in making the parties start over with another judge who has less familiarity with the issues and facts of the case than this Court.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the City’s motion to dismiss the case as moot is denied.Nice.

And the judge has a John-Hancock-worthy signature.

OleCuss
09-28-2011, 5:06 PM
Satisfying. I doubt it was surprising to any of us.

kcbrown
09-28-2011, 5:38 PM
Satisfying. I doubt it was surprising to any of us.

A little surprising to me, but what do I know? :facepalm:

It wasn't clear to me how far this particular judge was willing to take her anti-gun stance. Now we know: she'll fall in line if the upper courts tell her to.

Of course, we can probably expect her to force us to send other Chicago cases up the ladder (you know we're going to see more of them), but that's okay as long as it's not about something that the upper courts have already made plain.

OleCuss
09-28-2011, 5:46 PM
Actually, there is going to be more drama about this particular case.

I think the judge was nailing it as to what is likely to happen. Expect more maneuvering by both the City and by Ezell. This judge may be working this case for quite some time.

As I see the trajectory, Ezell will file an amended complaint and either the City caves or the judge kills the new ordinance. Then the City will study the ruling and draft another burdensome ordinance and Ezell goes back to court over that one and at that time I don't know where this judge goes. It is actually possible that it will go back up to the Circuit level at some point but after the previous Circuit ruling in the case I really don't think the City wants to risk that. . .

Anyway, I expect more entertainment.

HowardW56
09-28-2011, 5:51 PM
Actually, there is going to be more drama about this particular case.

I think the judge was nailing it as to what is likely to happen. Expect more maneuvering by both the City and by Ezell. This judge may be working this case for quite some time.

As I see the trajectory, Ezell will file an amended complaint and either the City caves or the judge kills the new ordinance. Then the City will study the ruling and draft another burdensome ordinance and Ezell goes back to court over that one and at that time I don't know where this judge goes. It is actually possible that it will go back up to the Circuit level at some point but after the previous Circuit ruling in the case I really don't think the City wants to risk that. . .

Anyway, I expect more entertainment.

I bet this is pretty accurate...

kcbrown
09-28-2011, 6:28 PM
Actually, there is going to be more drama about this particular case.

I think the judge was nailing it as to what is likely to happen. Expect more maneuvering by both the City and by Ezell. This judge may be working this case for quite some time.

As I see the trajectory, Ezell will file an amended complaint and either the City caves or the judge kills the new ordinance. Then the City will study the ruling and draft another burdensome ordinance and Ezell goes back to court over that one and at that time I don't know where this judge goes. It is actually possible that it will go back up to the Circuit level at some point but after the previous Circuit ruling in the case I really don't think the City wants to risk that. . .

Anyway, I expect more entertainment.

Yep. And the real question is: how long will the court allow such nonsense to continue?

Is there any historical experience with such behavior? I imagine there is, and I'm curious what the courts do about a rogue municipality like that...

edsel6502
09-28-2011, 8:08 PM
I have a phrase I like to use at my company. CLM. Career Limiting Move.

You know understand what I was saying so I tip my hat.

-Gene

Gene,

CLM Tokens can be offset by Anti CLM Tokens.

I believe in hoarding a stash of Anti CLM Tokens for the inevitability of actually spot welding a CLM Token to my butt.

RKV
09-28-2011, 8:29 PM
"Is there any historical experience with such behavior? I imagine there is, and I'm curious what the courts do about a rogue municipality like that..."

Perhaps the court supervision of Kansas City, Mo. in Missouri v. Jenkins. 20+ years of legal wrangling where the only winners are the attorneys. See also Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

safewaysecurity
09-28-2011, 8:29 PM
Actually, there is going to be more drama about this particular case.

I think the judge was nailing it as to what is likely to happen. Expect more maneuvering by both the City and by Ezell. This judge may be working this case for quite some time.

As I see the trajectory, Ezell will file an amended complaint and either the City caves or the judge kills the new ordinance. Then the City will study the ruling and draft another burdensome ordinance and Ezell goes back to court over that one and at that time I don't know where this judge goes. It is actually possible that it will go back up to the Circuit level at some point but after the previous Circuit ruling in the case I really don't think the City wants to risk that. . .

Anyway, I expect more entertainment.

Exactly. I expect Chicago to try and set the standard by basically tweaking the regulations ever so slightly each time they are struck down by the court so it is only slightly less burdensome and will go up to the court each time and say " Is it good enough for you now? "

wildhawker
09-28-2011, 8:39 PM
See also Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

Heh.

-Brandon

kcbrown
09-28-2011, 9:06 PM
Exactly. I expect Chicago to try and set the standard by basically tweaking the regulations ever so slightly each time they are struck down by the court so it is only slightly less burdensome and will go up to the court each time and say " Is it good enough for you now? "

Actually, I expect each iteration to be at least as burdensome as the previous until they can no longer get away with it, and then it'll start to get less burdensome over time.

kcbrown
09-28-2011, 9:11 PM
"Is there any historical experience with such behavior? I imagine there is, and I'm curious what the courts do about a rogue municipality like that..."

Perhaps the court supervision of Kansas City, Mo. in Missouri v. Jenkins. 20+ years of legal wrangling where the only winners are the attorneys. See also Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

So we can expect it to be over 20 years before we see publicly-accessible ranges in Chicago? :eek:

While that wouldn't surprise me, I would hope that Gura's got something up his sleeve that would prevent it...

hoffmang
09-28-2011, 9:38 PM
I love the goal post moving.

All the BGOS's here say "oh, this judge is going to ignore the higher court!"

Then she does not.

Then the goal posts move to "well, Chicago will continue to iterate into further oblivion."

No.

Battered Gun Owner's Syndrome is the opposite side of the coin from Hopolophobia.

We won today. Again. Add in the now negotiated and set rates for Chicago's failures, add into the mix the epic fees battle Chicago is facing with NRA, and mix with the fact that Chicago is going to get tired of buying new additions to Alan Gura's house and you'll start getting a feel for the real outcomes here.

Chicago was given a hint in today's ruling. It aligns with a whole lot of hints its getting and Emanuel is less strident than Daley....

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
09-28-2011, 9:46 PM
For the sake of conversation, what if Chicago is as relcalcitrant as some say? What unpleasant consequences besides spending public money can they eventually expect? Put another way, when does it get so unpleasant they finally relent?

OleCuss
09-28-2011, 9:55 PM
OK, the short-term may not look exceedingly promising but I'd not get too discouraged.

Yes, I believe that the City will keep working on delaying tactics and re-written ordinances which will have to be repeatedly challenged. The scenario could easily be envisioned as taking decades.

But Gura and a number of others actually do have other cases which may ultimately prove to be of interest and could alter the behavior of a number of parties.

Let's assume, for example, that SCOTUS effectively adopts Ezell and uses very strong language to make it clear that the right really cannot be infringed. It is conceivable that dilatory tactics on the part of the City of Chicago could result in penalties on the city which leave Gura owning every luxury car dealership in Chicago.

Even without additional direction from higher courts I could imagine the judge getting tired of the repetitive and non-productive behavior of the city and basically dictate the acceptable minimum zoning and other standards which must be granted to Ezell in order to pass muster - and penalize the City if they should try to violate the dictated terms.

Remember how the courts appointed a special master to make the State of California alter its behavior regarding medical care within the prison system? It is conceivable that something similar could happen. That doesn't necessarily end the stupidity, but it seems to me to be a possibility. And that isn't really all that special a case - IIRC it's been done to school systems and other situations.

I'm sorta talking outside my area of expertise - no legal training at all so if I'm really far off base I'm counting on the more knowledgeable to slap down my speculation.

Edit: I don't know precisely what Gene is referring to, but I read Judge Kendall's denial of the petition to moot the case as being paraphrased best as, "What? Just how stupid do think I really am? Just try me and see. . .".

wash
09-28-2011, 10:03 PM
I can see the judge making one more poor decision and then on appeal of the decision (rather than appeal of Preliminary Injunction denial), the circuit court will invalidate the zoning restrictions on gun ranges and strongly advise them to not try anything other zoning restrictions related to legitimate noise and safety concerns.

Chicago will not be able to keep up the shell game much longer.

Hopefully they will learn their lesson only after they have given us a whole bunch of precedents that we can use.

kcbrown
09-28-2011, 10:19 PM
I love the goal post moving.

All the BGOS's here say "oh, this judge is going to ignore the higher court!"

Then she does not.

Then the goal posts move to "well, Chicago will continue to iterate into further oblivion."

No.

Battered Gun Owner's Syndrome is the opposite side of the coin from Hopolophobia.

We won today. Again. Add in the now negotiated and set rates for Chicago's failures, add into the mix the epic fees battle Chicago is facing with NRA, and mix with the fact that Chicago is going to get tired of buying new additions to Alan Gura's house and you'll start getting a feel for the real outcomes here.

Chicago was given a hint in today's ruling. It aligns with a whole lot of hints its getting and Emanuel is less strident than Daley....

-Gene

And to be consistent with what I've said before about being a realist, I have no choice but to agree with the above. The evidence is piling up in favor of the above view, so reality forces me to align my stance with the above.

So it's possible this will drag out, but given the events that have occurred thus far relative to predictions that you and others have made, it's becoming pretty clear that your predictive model for this is pretty accurate.


It'll be interesting to see how long it actually takes Chicago to act on the hints its been given, but in light of the above, I cannot expect it to take terribly long. Figure they have a year or something, at most...

hoffmang
09-28-2011, 10:31 PM
For the sake of conversation, what if Chicago I as relcalcitrant as some say? What unpleasant consequences besides spending public money can they eventually expect? Put another way, when does it get so unpleasant they finally relent?

The easiest thing for her to do is to start just granting whatever relief Mr. Gura asks for. It could work this way. Chicago comes up with the third revision. The third revision is still problematic. She becomes annoyed. She issues a broader injunction that makes it so that Chicago may make no zoning rules for gun ranges or stores period.

The risk Chicago runs is a set of much broader injunctions that far more limit their ability to even legislate around gun ranges and stores at all.

-Gene

wash
09-28-2011, 10:31 PM
I predict a public gun range in Chicago by fall of next year.

hoffmang
09-28-2011, 10:32 PM
I predict a gun range in Chicago by fall of next year.

That will happen in the next 6 months through an even more available path.

That path will undermine a lot of Chicago's supposed arguments here.

-Gene

kcbrown
09-28-2011, 10:40 PM
That will happen in the next 6 months through an even more available path.

That path will undermine a lot of Chicago's supposed arguments here.

-Gene

I love it when you talk dirty. :43:

dantodd
09-28-2011, 10:43 PM
The easiest thing for her to do is to start just granting whatever relief Mr. Gura asks for. It could work this way. Chicago comes up with the third revision. The third revision is still problematic. She becomes annoyed. She issues a broader injunction that makes it so that Chicago may make no zoning rules for gun ranges or stores period.

The risk Chicago runs is a set of much broader injunctions that far more limit their ability to even legislate around gun ranges and stores at all.

-Gene

Ideally the injunction, and ultimate ruling, would say that gun ranges are subject to the least restrictive land use regulations applied to similar businesses with like space, noise and traffic attributes.

wildhawker
09-28-2011, 11:21 PM
I love it when you talk dirty. :43:

Especially when he's wearing something slim and silk...

Like a tie!

-Brandon

Connor P Price
09-29-2011, 1:03 AM
That will happen in the next 6 months through an even more available path.

That path will undermine a lot of Chicago's supposed arguments here.

-Gene

I propose an unofficial Calguns trip to Chicago for some shooting! I'll get some fancy invites drafted up for the Brady's.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-29-2011, 6:29 AM
While not unexpected, this really brightened my day.


I didn't expect it.


Exactly. I expect Chicago to try and set the standard by basically tweaking the regulations ever so slightly each time they are struck down by the court so it is only slightly less burdensome and will go up to the court each time and say " Is it good enough for you now? "


THIS is what I expect.

But....


I love the goal post moving.

All the BGOS's here say "oh, this judge is going to ignore the higher court!"

Then she does not.

Then the goal posts move to "well, Chicago will continue to iterate into further oblivion."

No.

Battered Gun Owner's Syndrome is the opposite side of the coin from Hopolophobia.

We won today. Again. Add in the now negotiated and set rates for Chicago's failures, add into the mix the epic fees battle Chicago is facing with NRA, and mix with the fact that Chicago is going to get tired of buying new additions to Alan Gura's house and you'll start getting a feel for the real outcomes here.

Chicago was given a hint in today's ruling. It aligns with a whole lot of hints its getting and Emanuel is less strident than Daley....

-Gene


Well, I own a gun in the PRK. Of course I have BGOS. So, while I defer to your knowledge here, I just gotta wonder if Chicago will actually take the hint.


The Raisuli

OleCuss
09-29-2011, 6:41 AM
Chicago isn't going to "take the hint" all that rapidly or well.

But the judge effectively owns Chicago in this case and she is in WW7CD (What Would 7th Circuit Do) mode. She probably also figures she has better things to do than hear Chicago whine. This is not a good position for Chicago.

Look, in her ruling you have to remember that she laid out two courses of action for Ezell. The first option was an amended complain, the second being bringing a new case - and in that context she declined to moot the case.

To me this is almost inviting Ezell to amend the complaint and send it to her for a favorable ruling. To paraphrase the ruling in a rather simplistic way, "Ezell is going to file an amended complaint and I'm going to rule in her favor - so why would I moot a case when Ezell won and is going to win?".

But Ezell has to file the amended complaint and there will be back and forth responses and such - and Ezell gets another ruling in her favor.

But this is where my crystal ball gets cloudy. I think there are too many other factors going on to make the likely judicial approach at that point all that predictable - but I don't see a winning hand for Chicago. They may or may not be able to pursue further dilatory tactics at that time - and I like Gene's hint that Chicago may get blind-sided from another direction. . .

RKV
09-29-2011, 6:59 AM
"Move goal posts?" Nice attempt at goal post moving yourself. If your goal is another court ruling I guess you can call what happened a victory. I don't so define.

Simple question - any open public gun ranges in ChiTown yet? ...[birds chirping]
That would be my goal, and that certainly appears to be one of the stated goals of the litigation on its face.

Do not project negative motivations (BGOS) on those who make reasonable predictions of strategy by our opponents (i.e. further delays and bargaining). As I have oft noted before, "I wish otherwise were the case." Of course, it is human nature to criticize the messenger who brings bad tidings, and this behavior has been proven to occur frequently around here. Based on Chicago's prior performance, and actions in other dealings expecting good faith based compliance is not realistic. We are dealing with the most corrupt pols in the US. What we are attempting to do doesn't put money in their pockets. Delay and denial makes them look good to a majority of their constituents. So let those two facts inform you on their motivation and willingness to comply. Timelines will follow accordingly.

I at least appreciate falsifiable predictions. 6 months, eh? Let's revisit this in March 2012 and see what the state of nature is then.

Another poster above mentioned a "special master." That I think might be a useful suggestion to the court.

Psy Crow
09-29-2011, 8:06 AM
That will happen in the next 6 months through an even more available path.

That path will undermine a lot of Chicago's supposed arguments here.

-Gene

Gene, if you wrote books (maybe you do) I guarantee they'd be real page-turners.

:yes:

Glock22Fan
09-29-2011, 9:01 AM
snip
It is conceivable that dilatory tactics on the part of the City of Chicago could result in penalties on the city which leave Gura owning every luxury car dealership in Chicago.

snip


Reminds me of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" where Paul McCartney kept on dashing off little ditties and bought himself new English counties with the proceeds.

hill billy
09-29-2011, 9:08 AM
"Move goal posts?" Nice attempt at goal post moving yourself. If your goal is another court ruling I guess you can call what happened a victory. I don't so define.

Simple question - any open public gun ranges in ChiTown yet? ...[birds chirping]
That would be my goal, and that certainly appears to be one of the stated goals of the litigation on its face.

Do not project negative motivations (BGOS) on those who make reasonable predictions of strategy by our opponents (i.e. further delays and bargaining). As I have oft noted before, "I wish otherwise were the case." Of course, it is human nature to criticize the messenger who brings bad tidings, and this behavior has been proven to occur frequently around here. Based on Chicago's prior performance, and actions in other dealings expecting good faith based compliance is not realistic. We are dealing with the most corrupt pols in the US. What we are attempting to do doesn't put money in their pockets. Delay and denial makes them look good to a majority of their constituents. So let those two facts inform you on their motivation and willingness to comply. Timelines will follow accordingly.

I at least appreciate falsifiable predictions. 6 months, eh? Let's revisit this in March 2012 and see what the state of nature is then.

Another poster above mentioned a "special master." That I think might be a useful suggestion to the court.
And if in March 2012 if you are wrong will you come here and publicly eat crow?

choprzrul
09-29-2011, 9:28 AM
How long do the courts have to wrangle with levels of 2A scrutiny rights before the gun owner himself is granted protected class status? I think (but will probably be pointed out where I am wrong) that having gun owners fall into a protected class will do more for protecting our 2A rights than establishing strict scrutiny would. What good is a civil right if violation of that right is not guarded?

.

wash
09-29-2011, 9:34 AM
To me this is almost inviting Ezell to amend the complaint and send it to her for a favorable ruling. To paraphrase the ruling in a rather simplistic way, "Ezell is going to file an amended complaint and I'm going to rule in her favor - so why would I moot a case when Ezell won and is going to win?".

The judge did not suddenly become our friend.

The only question is how much does she want to get reversed? She can ignore the seventh circuits instructions if she wants, but that decision will be reversed on appeal.

I think she and Chicago are going to try and walk the line between the most restrictive zoning that will survive legal challenges and pissing off the seventh circuit to the point that they will rule any zoning restrictions as unconstitutional.

Hopefully they will get tripped up.

I think I might have an idea of how Chicago might get a public range sooner but I'm not counting on that when I say next fall. I always think about how long something should take and then give myself a buffer because I don't like to be wrong due to a minor unexpected delay.

Maestro Pistolero
09-29-2011, 9:49 AM
Do not project negative motivations (BGOS) on those who make reasonable predictions of strategy by our opponents (i.e. further delays and bargaining).I wonder if the bolded is the phrase you were looking for. I wouldn't view BGOS as a negative motivation (indicates some kind of malice) as much as a skewed perception due to emotional fatigue. But, IANAS (shrink).

Back to the case. She issued the injunction because she was ordered to by a court with higher authority. Inviting Chicago to continue to litigate for it's restrictions is a much an invitation (from their perspective) to more shenanigans as it is anything else.

OleCuss
09-29-2011, 11:44 AM
The judge did not suddenly become our friend.
.
.
.

No disagreement at all. Complying with a court order to stop violating someone's rights does not mean that you are now trying to advance those rights. Friendship is not the issue - compliance is.

RKV
09-29-2011, 12:04 PM
And if in March 2012 if YOU are wrong will YOU come here and publicly eat crow? That's a sucker bet without any commitment on your part to do the same? I think not.

Just a brief historical reminder...
7 years after Brown v. Board of Education George Wallace was standing the schoolhouse door at UA. These things can take some time. I do wish it were moving faster. Just not predicting it based on motives and prior behavior.

wash
09-29-2011, 12:50 PM
Dude, you might have Stockholm Syndrome.

Patrick-2
09-29-2011, 4:26 PM
Chicago isn't going to "take the hint" all that rapidly or well.

But the judge effectively owns Chicago in this case and she is in WW7CD (What Would 7th Circuit Do) mode. She probably also figures she has better things to do than hear Chicago whine. This is not a good position for Chicago.

Look, in her ruling you have to remember that she laid out two courses of action for Ezell. The first option was an amended complain, the second being bringing a new case - and in that context she declined to moot the case.

To me this is almost inviting Ezell to amend the complaint and send it to her for a favorable ruling. To paraphrase the ruling in a rather simplistic way, "Ezell is going to file an amended complaint and I'm going to rule in her favor - so why would I moot a case when Ezell won and is going to win?".

But Ezell has to file the amended complaint and there will be back and forth responses and such - and Ezell gets another ruling in her favor.

But this is where my crystal ball gets cloudy. I think there are too many other factors going on to make the likely judicial approach at that point all that predictable - but I don't see a winning hand for Chicago. They may or may not be able to pursue further dilatory tactics at that time - and I like Gene's hint that Chicago may get blind-sided from another direction. . .

You may have missed one. She also asked for proposed injunction orders from parties, assuming they could not agree on one.

The Seventh told her to issue an injunction that meets general criteria aimed at getting Chicago citizens into gun ranges right away - not to argue the merits of the case yet again. She is not able to ignore that order. She needs to issue an injunction. Something. Now.

I am not privy to the background of what kind of scheduling is going on here, but if I understand the details from outside the box, the judge will be issuing some kind of injunction soon and opening discussion on whether some of the new requirements also merit injunctive relief. If her injunction does not meet the orders of the Seventh ("allow ranges right now"), then I think Mr. Gura can appeal that injunction right back up the line right away. No need for another trial.

Someone correct my understanding here.


The judge got smacked hard last time. No doubt she is aware that screwing up the injunction would merit more.

markm
09-29-2011, 4:55 PM
"Move goal posts?" Nice attempt at goal post moving yourself. If your goal is another court ruling I guess you can call what happened a victory. I don't so define.

Simple question - any open public gun ranges in ChiTown yet? ...[birds chirping]
That would be my goal, and that certainly appears to be one of the stated goals of the litigation on its face.

Do not project negative motivations (BGOS) on those who make reasonable predictions of strategy by our opponents (i.e. further delays and bargaining). As I have oft noted before, "I wish otherwise were the case." Of course, it is human nature to criticize the messenger who brings bad tidings, and this behavior has been proven to occur frequently around here. Based on Chicago's prior performance, and actions in other dealings expecting good faith based compliance is not realistic. We are dealing with the most corrupt pols in the US. What we are attempting to do doesn't put money in their pockets. Delay and denial makes them look good to a majority of their constituents. So let those two facts inform you on their motivation and willingness to comply. Timelines will follow accordingly.

I at least appreciate falsifiable predictions. 6 months, eh? Let's revisit this in March 2012 and see what the state of nature is then.

Another poster above mentioned a "special master." That I think might be a useful suggestion to the court.

Hello RKV,

Your viewpoint is in line with historical facts. Leftists don't believe that law or court rulings should deter them from their religous quest.

If people are shooting guns in a Chicago based range in 6 months, I will be astonished. Could happen, but not likely.

Nothing of consequence will happen to Chicago's political leaders for messing with an enumerated right or court rulings. Neo-Marxists always get a pass.

Someday Chicago will have a shooting range; who knows when.

markm

wildhawker
09-29-2011, 4:58 PM
I love following up on these types of posts...

-Brandon

Hello RKV,

Your viewpoint is in line with historical facts. Leftists don't believe that law or court rulings should deter them from their religous quest.

If people are shooting guns in a Chicago based range in 6 months, I will be astonished. Could happen, but not likely.

Nothing of consequence will happen to Chicago's political leaders for messing with an enumerated right or court rulings. Neo-Marxists always get a pass.

Someday Chicago will have a shooting range; who knows when.

markm

OleCuss
09-29-2011, 5:50 PM
You may have missed one. She also asked for proposed injunction orders from parties, assuming they could not agree on one.

The Seventh told her to issue an injunction that meets general criteria aimed at getting Chicago citizens into gun ranges right away - not to argue the merits of the case yet again. She is not able to ignore that order. She needs to issue an injunction. Something. Now.

I am not privy to the background of what kind of scheduling is going on here, but if I understand the details from outside the box, the judge will be issuing some kind of injunction soon and opening discussion on whether some of the new requirements also merit injunctive relief. If her injunction does not meet the orders of the Seventh ("allow ranges right now"), then I think Mr. Gura can appeal that injunction right back up the line right away. No need for another trial.

Someone correct my understanding here.


The judge got smacked hard last time. No doubt she is aware that screwing up the injunction would merit more.

Thank you for pointing that out. I may have read it but I didn't remember it. And yes, that does sound like Chicago just might get crushed faster than I expected.

Made my evening just a little better.

hoffmang
09-29-2011, 11:21 PM
And if in March 2012 if you are wrong will you come here and publicly eat crow?

And if in March 2012 if YOU are wrong will YOU come here and publicly eat crow? That's a sucker bet without any commitment on your part to do the same? I think not.

Just a brief historical reminder...
7 years after Brown v. Board of Education George Wallace was standing the schoolhouse door at UA. These things can take some time. I do wish it were moving faster. Just not predicting it based on motives and prior behavior.

I'm going to enjoy watching black feathers come out of your mouth.

Historical counter point. Less than 13 months after one could purchase and possess an operable handgun in DC, one could purchase and possess an operable handgun in Chicago. 7 years isn't very valid when such timely progress has already been shown to be far more realistic. I reassert that you have BGOS.

So RKV, what do you think the contents of the injunction are going to say? You did note that the judge is going to issue a permanent injunction of some sort, right?

-Gene

Gray Peterson
09-29-2011, 11:39 PM
And if in March 2012 if YOU are wrong will YOU come here and publicly eat crow? That's a sucker bet without any commitment on your part to do the same? I think not.

Just a brief historical reminder...
7 years after Brown v. Board of Education George Wallace was standing the schoolhouse door at UA. These things can take some time. I do wish it were moving faster. Just not predicting it based on motives and prior behavior.

RKV, how little do you understand what you speak of. Read your history of why it took 7 years for Wallace to stand at the front of the door. Sourced from Wiki:

Brown v. Board of Education meant that the University of Alabama had to be desegregated. In the years following, hundreds of African-Americans applied for admission, but all were denied. The University worked with police to find any disqualifying qualities, or when this failed, intimidated the applicants. But in 1963, three African-Americans with perfect qualifications—Vivian Malone Jones, Dave McGlathery and James Hood—applied, refusing to be intimidated. In early June a federal judge ordered that they be admitted, and forbade Governor Wallace from interfering

This isn't anywhere near the same thing.

RKV
09-30-2011, 5:32 AM
My simple point is that things can and likely will take longer than some optimists here envision. Specifically in the case of Ezell, I point to the motivations and incentives of the City of Chicago and conclude that the penalties for delay are low and that litigation is a slow process in general - what logically follows, follows. If that is beyond your comprehension I cannot inform you otherwise.

As to my knowledge of the history involved in other civil rights movements in the US (and I certainly consider 2nd Amendment rights to be civil rights) I do believe that my analogy is reasonably correct. You disagree. Having been alive the entire period in question (Brown to Wallace in the door of the UA) I can and do rely on my memory of the events as the were reported when they occurred.

Please do not read into what I have said more than what is there. Over-generalization seems to be a feature of this board - along with cheer-leading and blame the messenger behaviors. Nothing wrong with a bit of cheer-leading imho, but enough is enough.

Would I like our endeavors to go faster? Of course. Even at my "expense." That said, overoptimism can lead to frustration and doubt when expectations do not align with results. Patience and persistence are required.

OleCuss
09-30-2011, 6:07 AM
No big problem with a little pessimism over time-frames. Pleasant surprises are, well, pleasant!

And on the pessimistic side, I'm still not sure Heller has been able to buy the pistol of his choice. It's been several years.

But Judge Kendall's permanent injunction could be very interesting. And Rahm Emanuel may decide to cut his losses and not fight a losing battle - not sure how the politics of that plays out.

Not sure how it will all play out, but I think that there is room for both pessimism and optimism on timing issues.

Crom
09-30-2011, 9:18 AM
There will be a point in the future when the Second Amendment right is a normal part of the constitution, even in Chi town. The only question is how long will it take. I agree that patience and persistence are necessary ingredients for success here.

wash
09-30-2011, 9:42 AM
It is already a normal part of the constitution. What we are waiting on is when gun ownership is seen as a normal every day choice, like regular coffee, decaf or orange juice in the morning.

Patrick-2
09-30-2011, 10:46 AM
Local politics are also at play.

Rahm is anti-gun but pro-Rahm above all else. He is more pragmatic than Daley and less likely to chase windmills. Daley's ego could not afford to lose even the little battles; Rahm is a General and doesn't need to win every little thing to feel powerful.

More directly, Chicago is facing a severe budget crunch and sums much smaller than the $400k paid to Gura thus far are generating headlines. Most polls suggest a decent segment of the Chicago population is for guns 'in the home' for self protection (carry sentiment has less determined research but was good in the last poll), and another large group is somewhat agnostic on the whole issue - they could care less. A large plurality or even a small majority of citizens are not rabidly anti-gun. That suggests a cool million dollars fighting a battle they don't want or care about to be a bad investment. And the new Mayor doesn't really need to keep losing fights he did not start.

The city council is where things get stuck. They are entrenched on the issue. BUT...Mayor Rahm keeps floating the idea of cutting the number of sitting aldermen in half. This got a shot in the arm last week from the city IG, who is not a big fan of Rahm's but is seriously interested in cutting costs. Cutting the council in half saves a little over $2 Million in direct costs and maybe up to $6 Million if efficiencies are realized. Consider that Chicago has already spent more than $1 Million on the McDonald case and that it going to climb. Add Ezell I and (maybe) Ezell II.

Chicago is looking at cutting their city council in half to save less money than they already spent fighting battles that their citizens don't want to fight and that Chicago cannot win. They literally spent their way out of jobs.

Add it up and the council will do what the Mayor wants - if only so individual aldermen they can protect their seat in the coming reduction (or threat of reduction).

So it comes down to Rahm and how much he wants to fight this. I think he probably believes more guns will cause more crime, but at some point the arguments get too hard to defend and the math too hard to justify. They won't fold completely, but they won't necessarily fight as hard as they have in the past. More importantly, we might see a more compliant council in the near future. But only if the mayor wants it.

We have some real smart IL people on this forum who are plugged into the machine in ways I am not. They can correct anything I got wrong here.

hoffmang
09-30-2011, 10:39 PM
As to my knowledge of the history involved in other civil rights movements in the US (and I certainly consider 2nd Amendment rights to be civil rights) I do believe that my analogy is reasonably correct. You disagree. Having been alive the entire period in question (Brown to Wallace in the door of the UA) I can and do rely on my memory of the events as the were reported when they occurred.

There is a very, very significant difference between the fight for equal rights for African Americans and the fight to restore the 2A. In 1958, "separate but equal" probably polled 66% for and "no miscegenation" probably polled 80% for. Today, "guns in the home for self defense" polls nearly 80% and "licensed carry with background check and training" polls 66%.

There certainly weren't 40 states where black men could marry white women in the era of post Brown v. Board.

Politics matters to civil rights fights.

-Gene

Patrick-2
10-01-2011, 11:48 AM
Most of the civil rights fights back in the 50's and 60's were first impression cases in more ways than one - the whole track of civil rights strategic litigation did not exist. So not only were people fighting for their rights, but they had to deal with a court system not accustomed to those types of cases.

A lot has changed and the path has been cleared and opened for others to follow. For instance, federal law now exists to force municipalities to pay when they lose. Court costs and legal fees are expensive - if the federal law did not force their payment then few civil rights cases would move forward.

Likewise, many practices regarding these cases and their outcomes - from the treatment of complaints to the determination of harm - all sprang forth from those initial fights.

Let me describe it this way: in the 50's they had to build the road, the vehicle and then start moving towards the destination. Today, we have that road they built, the vehicle built by the Founders and that is from where we start the drive.

Maybe a poor analogy, but it is clear that enforcement of the civil rights rulings in the 50s and 60s did not exist. Today we have enforcement measures enacted largely due to the failures witnessed a half century ago. We are using them, and they speed things greatly. You should not assume that today's victory will be hobbled by yesterday's failures. Sometimes the law learns. We ride on the road built by others.

RKV
10-01-2011, 3:17 PM
Patrick, I do hope we get them right in the wallet. That said, a quick look at the budget of the City of Chicago indicates their revenues top $3 billion. 6 million for aldermen is 2 tenths of 1 percent. More likely Rahm was introducing himself as the new boss after Dailey left, and wanted to remind the aldermen who had their balls in a box.

hoffmang
10-01-2011, 4:06 PM
Patrick, I do hope we get them right in the wallet. That said, a quick look at the budget of the City of Chicago indicates their revenues top $3 billion. 6 million for aldermen is 2 tenths of 1 percent. More likely Rahm was introducing himself as the new boss after Dailey left, and wanted to remind the aldermen who had their balls in a box.

I think this headline adds some context. "$587 million budget deficit awaits Rahm Emanuel (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5222836-418/budget-deficit-awaiting-emanuel-upwards-of-587-million.html)."

So 1% kind of matters.

-Gene

RKV
10-01-2011, 4:19 PM
Gene, I guess you're under the impression that the political class won't take care of themselves first. I'm not there, and that goes double in ChiTown. And you know what, we haven't heard a damn thing since March (at least according to my google-fu) about cutting the number of aldermen. In fact, with a touch more google-fu, you can find Rahm denying he wants to cut the number of aldermen. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/25/emanuel-suggests-cutting-city-council-in-half/

You're a bright guy Gene, if they perceived things were THAT bad they'd have folded already. And they haven't. Now maybe they're out of touch with reality or they know they're going bankrupt in which case there is no reason not to run the bill up. Wouldn't count on the later two possibilities. Expect layoffs of police and firefighters while the diversity coordinators get raises.

quick draw mcgraw
10-01-2011, 5:00 PM
Gura: I moot your mootness and dismiss your motion to dismiss as moot! :chris:

kcbrown
10-01-2011, 5:03 PM
I think this headline adds some context. "$587 million budget deficit awaits Rahm Emanuel (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5222836-418/budget-deficit-awaiting-emanuel-upwards-of-587-million.html)."

So 1% kind of matters.

-Gene

I'm confused.

Financial "incentives" such as this haven't deterred Oakland or San Francisco, at least as of yet. Isn't Chicago even worse? I don't understand why Chicago would somehow become an exception.

1% of the budget deficit, which is the number we're talking about here, is in the noise. It's like deciding to stop spending $200 a year on your cable TV because you have $20k in credit card debt on a $100k a year income -- it's not gonna happen, because the amount saved isn't enough to make a significant difference.

Maestro Pistolero
10-01-2011, 5:13 PM
Only one party appears to be complying with the court's order, and irreparable harm looms.

So with this objection to the denial of motion to moot by defendants (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.123.0.pdf), is there any chance the judge will just accept the proposed injunction that WAS provided by the plaintiffs, (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.124.0.pdf) and issue it as-is? (I can't WAIT to read it, by the way)

htjyang
10-01-2011, 5:17 PM
RKV,

It's not just the cost of this suit, but also future suits if Chicago does not comply with the Constitution. It's about the NRA's army of lawyers, all of them hungry for Chicago's money. Gura has a small firm and can only charge for a few people. NRA can hire at least a company's worth of lawyers and their collective legal fees will be much higher. Furthermore, I wonder whether it is possible to file a class action civil law suit alleging deprivation of civil rights.... Finally, it's about how ruthless the federal courts can get when faced with a recalcitrant locality (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=430051).

Admittedly, none of this will happen soon. But, assuming that there continues to be a 2nd Amendment-friendly Supreme Court 10 years from now, all of that may happen.

RKV
10-01-2011, 5:40 PM
It would be pretty amazing history to read some day that Chicago went bankrupt because it violated the 2nd Amendment and got busted for it. That said, I'd love to be around to see it. With a couple of exceptions (which managed to raise the hackles of Grey and some others) this has not been the case. Which is why I mention KC Missouri as an example quite a bit further up this thread (the court has tied them up in knots for 26 years). I truly doubt that the aldermen of Chicago are worried about the NRA's lawyers. Yet. Let's do what we can to change their minds. Heh. Or has been oft said on this board, "When you have to sue every MF in the room..."

hoffmang
10-01-2011, 9:27 PM
RKV,

Budgets do actually matter sooner or later. Maybe not for Rahm now, but they do for the Alderman. Deficits drive up borrowing costs further crowding out the amount of largess that the corrupt crew in Chitown can use to buy off their constituents. Sooner or later cuts have to happen. How far, politically, do you think the Alderman gets when the guy in his political support base comes waiving all the press releases for $.4M in McDonald to Gura, $2?M request by NRA, $EzellM, are shoved under his nose and he's asked to explain why the mean gun people got paid but Mr. Zoning Graft Taker here got laid off. Note that Ezell will not be cheap at all...

It's not bankruptcy, but budgets are politics. I thought you'd understand that.

However, I'm sure Ms. George's doesn't mind the increase in her budget line. Like bureaucrats everywhere, more dollars wasted through her department is good for her and her people.

The simpler question is, does wasting the money and losing the cases get the politicians anything politically? Maybe in the past but that continues to wain - even in Chicago, DC, and San Francisco. NY hasn't been bloodied yet. By my count DC has caved 3 times now. We're just about to that tipping point with Chicago.

-Gene

OleCuss
10-01-2011, 11:04 PM
Gene:

There really are politicians who are effectively oblivious to budgetary/fiscal reality. I'd contend that both "W" and Obama pretty much fit into that category.

Obama may be the best known Chicago politician. Interesting to see how his approach to previous failed stimuli is to go on the stump for more and similar stimuli.

Admittedly Obama is a somewhat special case for a Chicago politician because he is doing it at a national level, but I'd note that insanely high deficits do not seem to greatly concern him. This level of denial of basic reality if it extends to the average alderman might suggest that fiscal restraints have little hold on their behavior (except, maybe, insofar as exercised by Rahm).

You can also argue that Obama's difficulties in the polls would suggest that ignored reality comes up to you and slams you upside the head. But again, Obama is playing at the national level which is not as heavily controlled as is Chicago. I'm not sure the same intervention by reality happens inside Chicago city limits. I'd be happy to be informed that reality really is dramatically relevant to Chicago politics, but at the moment I'm not convinced.

We already know that in at least a limited fashion reality's hold is tenuous. Chicago altered its ordinances to supposedly comply with Ezell but the new ordinances were clearly not compliant, and then the city requested that Ezell be mooted? Admittedly I think that it may have been an attempt to re-cast the case but it is at least reasonable to argue that Chicago just wasted more time and money on an utterly asinine attempt to moot Ezell - not a sign that reality greatly impinges on Chicago's thought processes/deeds.

And for those who are wondering about the threat to the jobs of the aldermen? Rahm first advancing it and then it disappearing would suggest Rahm hasn't got the chops to execute the plan he proposed and he got shot down by the alderman. That means Rahm's power was actually diminished and his control has slipped at least a little.

I contend that Chicago will have to be hit upside the head by a sledge hammer to get some sense knocked into it. Not sure when the sledge will hit - but I consider it possible that it will take less time than does the average "two weeks".

hoffmang
10-02-2011, 12:02 AM
There really are politicians who are effectively oblivious to budgetary/fiscal reality. I'd contend that both "W" and Obama pretty much fit into that category.

Let me clarify this for you. "There really are politicians who are oblivious."

You said too much. Education will occur in November 2012 on the primary case in question.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
10-02-2011, 9:45 AM
Am I the only one getting a chuckle out the defendant's response to the court's order to propose an injunction?
First, it seems really strange to me that the judge would want Chicago to have a hand in crafting the injunction at all. Sort of like sending an errant child out to cut a switch for his own lashing. Invariably, I always came back with the most pathetic, meager, twig I could locate. In this case, the errant child (Chicago) objects (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.123.0.pdf) to the order to cut the switch!

Al Norris
10-02-2011, 11:15 AM
There is no need to read between the lines.

In the order denying the MTD for Mootness, Judge Kendall was pretty clear that there was something still wrong with the Chicago ordinances. In the City's briefs (after the original motion was made), they made much about how they were amending that (newly made ordinance) to make it even more palatable to the Court. Remember also, in the plaintiffs opposition briefs, they detailed not only what was wrong with the proposed amendments, but the proposed amendments to the amendments.

That's why she invited the plaintiffs to file a new brief - detailing what is wrong and why. She wants it all on the record.

The City knows exactly what the plaintiffs want in the injunction. As per the order, they absolutely have to know, because Gura would have submitted it to them for an agreed proposal. Chicago rejected it and Gura emailed the proposal to the Judge on the due date as a separate proposal.

Therefore, the Chicago "objection" was no real objection. If they firmly believed what they wrote (and had the grounds to stand upon), then they would have simply went back to the 7th Circuit (and the same panel that ruled against them, BTW) to voice what was wrong with Judge Kendall's order. That they didn't is quite telling.

This is the point at which we get to see if Judge Kendall has been properly chastised by the 7th, or if she thinks she can still salvage the City's arguments and allow them to further stall the case (and that's all this "objection" really is).

notme92069
10-17-2011, 2:28 PM
Is something due on this case? I placed a note on my calendar as a reminder. I was just wondering

jar
10-17-2011, 3:31 PM
Yes, the amended complaint was filed on Saturday: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.126.0.pdf

Mulay El Raisuli
10-18-2011, 6:09 AM
Yes, the amended complaint was filed on Saturday: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.126.0.pdf


It all looks good.

But, a gun range on the 17th floor of a building? Too cool! "Cooker in the sky" anyone?


The Raisuli

krucam
10-19-2011, 5:30 AM
Plaintiffs filed their Response to Defendant (Chicago) OBJECTION to entry of a Preliminary Injunction yesterday 10/18.

This is tied to the PI, not the Amended Complaint recently filed which has the potential of firing up another Merits stage if the PI isn't ruled upon favorably.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.128.0.pdf

krucam
10-25-2011, 3:05 PM
Blatant copy/paste from MDShooters

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

On time, at that...their reply in support of their OBJECTIONS to the PI.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.129.0.pdf

Keep in mind we've been going back & forth for a month over their OBJECTION to the PI. Recall that on 9/28 the Judge in denying Chicago's MTD over the case being Moot, ordered: By September 30, 2011, the parties shall file an agreed proposed injunction order, or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree.

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

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

These exact arguments have already failed in their MTD. With the MTD denied, they bring up the same losing points in fulfilling the Judge's order to address the PI.
...the injunctive relief previously referenced by the Court is no longer appropriate and should not be entered by the Court.

Doesn't that sound like rearguing the now moot "moot" argument? Is this yet another example of their "thumbing their noses" to the Court?

They've blown it.

Maestro Pistolero
10-25-2011, 4:17 PM
They argue that the Plaintiffs are "blowing past procedural" norms, which in a way is arguing against the PI without bringing up "moot", but still fails in the face of the Judge's 9/28 orders. . . . and the order of the court of appeals.

They've blown it.I would agree. I can't think of any reason now why the judge should not just rubber stamp the only proposal that was submitted according to the order of the court(s).

wildhawker
10-25-2011, 4:22 PM
. . . and the order of the court of appeals.

I would agree. I can't think of any reason now why the judge should not just rubber stamp the only proposal that was submitted according to the order of the court(s).

I can think of at least one reason, but it relies on a presumption that the court 'desires' another, more strongly-worded order by the circuit court.

-Brandon

RKV
10-25-2011, 7:24 PM
Well Gene, Chicago is behaving as I predicted. They want another review of their revised regulations based on their merits. I told you so. They don't give a rat about the cost of litigation in spite of their financial problems, do they? They are playing for time. It pains me to say this, but I predict the district judge will accept their objection and this will end up back at the appellate court. Hopefully, based on their prior ruling the panel will finally kick some @$$. In a fair and reasonable world the district judge would take the only response compliant to her order and implement Gura's PI. Chicago doesn't work like that. Their lawyers and politicians get paid win or lose. We're not coming up with money or votes, so they are indifferent to us. In fact, this kind of litigation is good business for their staff attorneys and/or supporting [and well connected] outside counsel. And no US Attorney is going to indict them under 18 USC 241-242 as much as they richly deserve it.

And Gene, thank you for all your hard work, and your optimism. This is one area that I believe you have got wrong. I wish it was the other way around. That's just not the Chicago way.

hoffmang
10-25-2011, 9:07 PM
Well Gene, Chicago is behaving as I predicted. They want another review of their revised regulations based on their merits. I told you so. They don't give a rat about the cost of litigation in spite of their financial problems, do they? They are playing for time. It pains me to say this, but I predict the district judge will accept their objection and this will end up back at the appellate court.

1. I doubt the lower court will ignore the court right above her.

2. I'm actually pleasantly surprised. I expected Rham to run away. Standing and fighting here, on these grounds is very good for us.

Making stupid arguments against us doesn't really hurt us. It basically moves these cases from a 3 way argument to a simple conversation between our side and the court.

RKV, you do realize that this entire case is a HUGE loss for Chicago and the anti-gun side, right? And as such, it's likely to only get worse for them and not better.

-Gene

Al Norris
10-25-2011, 9:18 PM
Copied, in part, from what I posted at TFL:

What Chicago is claiming is that the suit needs to start all over from scratch, because they have removed a single code section that banned firing ranges, all the while ignoring that the rest of the amended code sections still results in a virtual ban... At least until they can re-argue everything, including a new period of discovery.

Chicago has come back to this court with unclean hands and I would hope that the Judge sees this. The 7th Circuit was very clear about what the Injunction should include. Simply removing the outright ban is not enough. If zoning and other licensing requirements virtually eliminate the possibility of a functioning firing range, the PI must be issued.

So now we wait to see if the Judge will obey the Circuit, or will she simply allow Chicago to undertake another stalling action, by restarting the lawsuit from the beginning.

If she does allow a restart, I strongly suspect that Gura will appeal and go straight back to the Circuit. Judge Kendall has to know this. Rock? Meet Hard Place!

OleCuss
10-25-2011, 9:50 PM
I just don't see the big deal.

Chicago wins at the district level.

Chicago loses big at the circuit level.

Circuit shoves it back to the district level and tells the district what to do.

District says, "Hey, now we've got to do what the circuit said".

Chicago says, "Hey, we made some cosmetic changes in the ordinances so now you have to moot the case."

District says, "Do you think I'm an idiot!!! Get real, we have to do what the circuit said."

Chicago says, "Yes, we think you are an idiot and we expect you to moot the case in another way."

District is likely to say, "I'm not an idiot - and you're a bunch of dolts. I'm going to do it the Gura way, you bunch of insulting nitwits."

And OK, I'm no lawyer and I may be very wrong - but that's sorta the way I see it. I mean seriously, does anyone really think that the district judge is that stupid? Do they think that the court has absolutely no professional pride and wants to be known as "The Stupid One" (OK, the real title would involve an obscenity related to scatology).

RKV
10-26-2011, 6:17 AM
Gene, Yes Chicago is being stupid. That said, they are not suffering the consequences of said stupidity, and likely won't for some extended period of time. Meanwhile other district courts continue to ignore Heller and McDonald - and that has me worried. Won't bore you with all the details let's just call it "Slaughter House" and leave it at that. As above, I hope the judge gets this one right and we don't go back to discovery, etc. Not counting on it based on capabilities and past behavior of the parties. Epic smackdown to follow from the appeals panel? I hope so.

jar
10-26-2011, 7:10 PM
From PACER:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, )

Preliminary injunction denied. Did they not read the 7th circuit opinion?

curtisfong
10-26-2011, 7:16 PM
So now we wait to see if the Judge will obey the Circuit, or will she simply allow Chicago to undertake another stalling action, by restarting the lawsuit from the beginning.


I guess she chose stall. What a joke.

chief003
10-26-2011, 7:33 PM
From PACER:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, )

Preliminary injunction denied. Did they not read the 7th circuit opinion?


I know that the 'government' wins alot, but wow! I thought the prior circuit ruling and direction would have moved the district to action on PI, not retrial?!

On a lighter note..
The only thing that comes to my mind is...Hi ho, hi ho, off to the circuit we go!

OleCuss
10-26-2011, 7:37 PM
Wow! Did I get that one wrong! I think that from now on I will consider the district judge to be a dumb(expletive deleted before a moderator deletes me).

I feel a nearly immediate petition to the Circuit coming on. After all, by definition irreparable harm is being done to the plaintiffs - and that is not consistent with another round of discovery and filings.

Purple K
10-26-2011, 7:38 PM
August 2012! These stall tactics by the various Courts across the Country are flagrantly biased against the Second Amendment!

RKV
10-26-2011, 7:40 PM
Well Gene, more discovery. As I predicted. And no, this is NOT a huge loss for them. Yet. I do hope it may be in the future. So what does Gura have to do to get back to the appeals court with this result and get a writ of mandamus (?), injunction or similar? IANALNDIPOOTV, and its been 30+ years since I had administration of criminal justice at university, so I'd appreciate some strategy and tactics options.

eaglemike
10-26-2011, 7:57 PM
From PACER:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, )

Preliminary injunction denied. Did they not read the 7th circuit opinion?
Just un-(expletive deleted) - believable!!!
How can this judge be addressed as honorable? Close to a full year delay. I pray that someday our system will be restored to the one I heard about and admired when I was young.

safewaysecurity
10-26-2011, 8:03 PM
From PACER:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, )

Preliminary injunction denied. Did they not read the 7th circuit opinion?

I want to see a SMACK DOWN by the higher ups again. Not only are they thumbing their nose but they straight up pulling their pants down and mooning them.

HowardW56
10-26-2011, 8:09 PM
From PACER:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, )

Preliminary injunction denied. Did they not read the 7th circuit opinion?

The cities answer will be interesting... But setting the status hearing 6 months out?

Disappointing................

2009_gunner
10-26-2011, 9:00 PM
I hope SCOTUS is paying to attention to how much lower courts will ignore direct instructions.

Maestro Pistolero
10-26-2011, 9:13 PM
This is truly astounding. Even after this delay (while irreparable harm is ticking away) there is absolutely nothing to prevent this whole cycle from starting over again by even more shenanigans on the part of Chicago. So it is entirely possible that with this judge, a satisfactory ruling could be indefinitely delayed. It will be fascinating to see Guras next move.

Fyathyrio
10-26-2011, 9:17 PM
In the meanwhile, as the courts play slap and tickle, the few folks in Chicago that managed to get their range training and get the Chicago permit will have to renew within a year and won't be able to do so...meaning the weapon must leave their possession somehow and they are once again defenseless.

choprzrul
10-26-2011, 10:58 PM
Can someone summarize the options going forward?

a. do nothing, just wait for the process?

b. ask the judge (in essence) wtf?

c. petition the circuit for a slap down?

d. ?

What's the likelihood of each and chance of success?

What would it take to recall this judge? Can the circuit remove judges like this? What is the realm of possible actions? What can be done to make other judges VERY uncomfortable with ruling against Heller/McDonald/Ezell? I mean, how does one bring pressure to bear on a judge???

There has been a complete suspension of credibility.

.

dantodd
10-26-2011, 11:36 PM
Can someone summarize the options going forward?

a. do nothing, just wait for the process?

b. ask the judge (in essence) wtf?

c. petition the circuit for a slap down?

d. ?

What's the likelihood of each and chance of success?

What would it take to recall this judge? Can the circuit remove judges like this? What is the realm of possible actions? What can be done to make other judges VERY uncomfortable with ruling against Heller/McDonald/Ezell? I mean, how does one bring pressure to bear on a judge???

There has been a complete suspension of credibility.

.

C. 99%

kcbrown
10-27-2011, 12:14 AM
And to be consistent with what I've said before about being a realist, I have no choice but to agree with the above. The evidence is piling up in favor of the above view, so reality forces me to align my stance with the above.

So it's possible this will drag out, but given the events that have occurred thus far relative to predictions that you and others have made, it's becoming pretty clear that your predictive model for this is pretty accurate.


Heh. Then again... :D

While my predictive model sucks, at least it errs on the side of caution. This latest from the district court comes as no surprise whatsoever to me.


See, guys, this is what we can expect when going for PIs. Which is to say, I'm not at all convinced that it'll actually make any real difference in terms of how much time it actually takes. This case will, I think, be the litmus test for that.

Some people have faith in the lower courts. Are those of you who do now starting to question that faith? You should. The lower courts will do more or less whatever they want. Nothing less than completely explicit instruction from above will compel them to do what needs to be done, and I expect that even that won't work in some cases.


The people involved are going to have to go to jail, or receive credible threats of same, before they start taking this stuff seriously. Just you watch: we'll get to see some judicial rebellion on 2A issues, something that to my limited knowledge has never before happened in the history of this country on any significant scale (would love to see evidence that I'm wrong about that). It'll make the court action during the civil rights movement look positively harmonious in comparison.

RKV
10-27-2011, 4:51 AM
KC, If I was looking for a definition of "judicial rebellion" I'd find it in the dictionary (at least the lower court version) with the examples of Richards, Peterson, Kachalsky, Peruta, Lane and Ezell (et al). Heller and McDonald aren't all that hard to figure out. Of course, neither is the 2nd Amendment. But somehow the judges at the federal district court level don't seem to give a [expletive] about supreme court rulings (ditto appellate court rulings in Ezell). 18 USC 241-242 does come to mind, but even if you do find a prosecutor with the huevos to do what needs done, then you're still stuck with the court system's professional courtesy (aka cronyism and corruption).

Kharn
10-27-2011, 9:14 AM
I thought the Circuit ordered the District to enter a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs, but the motion was denied? I wonder how long it will take SAF and Gura to whip up an appeal to the Circuit.

Maestro Pistolero
10-27-2011, 10:42 AM
I thought the Circuit ordered the District to enter a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs, but the motion was denied? I wonder how long it will take SAF and Gura to whip up an appeal to the Circuit.

What is the procedure to take this up the ladder while in the middle of the district court case? Usually it requires a loss, no? Is there an emergency exit under circumstances like this?

dantodd
10-27-2011, 10:51 AM
What is the procedure to take this up the ladder while in the middle of the district court case? Usually it requires a loss, no? Is there an emergency exit under circumstances like this?

You appeal the denial of your PI.

OleCuss
10-27-2011, 11:00 AM
Are the odds of the Circuit hearing this soon and granting relief pretty good?

Kharn
10-27-2011, 11:31 AM
My understanding is that the appeal would be heard by same three judge panel that heard the case originially, so the same ones that told the District judge to issue the injunction. I don't know how long that would take, but I bet it would be very fast due to the irreparable harm standard they prescribed the first time.

hoffmang
10-27-2011, 9:16 PM
Litigating this again after being secured in being right the first time is not so bad. Why go up without a record when you can go up with the circuit on your side?

I look forward to Chicago's actual evidence that ranges within a few feet of various entities is actually negative. Heh.

-Gene

HowardW56
10-27-2011, 9:20 PM
Litigating this again after being secured in being right the first time is not so bad. Why go up without a record when you can go up with the circuit on your side?

I look forward to Chicago's actual evidence that ranges within a few feet of various entities is actually negative. Heh.

-Gene

The Judge gave Chicago enough time for them to attempt to create their facts...

;)

dantodd
10-27-2011, 9:21 PM
Litigating this again after being secured in being right the first time is not so bad. Why go up without a record when you can go up with the circuit on your side?

I look forward to Chicago's actual evidence that ranges within a few feet of various entities is actually negative. Heh.

-Gene

The PI could have been granted and the trial would still happen. Are you saying that the plaintiffs will drop the PI request and just wait it out until the middle of next year? Doesn't that mean we won't get to SCOTUS until 2013 if we lose in Circuit?

kcbrown
10-27-2011, 9:36 PM
Litigating this again after being secured in being right the first time is not so bad. Why go up without a record when you can go up with the circuit on your side?

I look forward to Chicago's actual evidence that ranges within a few feet of various entities is actually negative. Heh.


With the district court behaving as it is, there won't be any need for Chicago to do any such thing. They'll come up with something lame, and the district court will "deliberate" on it for another couple of years. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.


No, if anything is going to happen in this case, it will be as a result of the 7th Circuit taking direct control of the case, i.e. taking it out of the hands of the district court entirely. Short of that, nothing good will happen (well, unless the 7th Circuit threatens Kendall with jail or something).

Funtimes
10-28-2011, 1:17 AM
The cities answer will be interesting... But setting the status hearing 6 months out?

Disappointing................

How about setting a motion for PI 5 1/2 months out....

Al Norris
10-28-2011, 6:49 AM
Litigating this again after being secured in being right the first time is not so bad. Why go up without a record when you can go up with the circuit on your side?

By denying the City's MTD for Mootness, Judge Kendall has explicitly said that there are still issues with the current revision of laws. Judge Kendall then explicitly ordered proposals, from both sides, on how the Injunction, as mandated by the 7th Circuit, was to be applied.

Judge Kendall explicitly invited the Pltf's to file an amended complaint in order to adjudicate whether or not the current laws are still in error and are still a virtual ban on gun ranges.

This (current) adjudication was premised upon two things: 1) an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing this new set of laws, and 2) staying in her court, as she was familiar with the record and could therefore expedite matters. That much is clear and is in the record.

What the City has done is to object to not only her order, but also the Mandate of the 7th Circuit. The objection was wholly premised upon the same grounds as was the now dismissed MTD.

Judge Kendall has, on her own authority and contradicting her previous orders, decided to allow adjudication, without the injunction, to go forward... At the same rate of speed as if this was a wholly new case.

We are now back at square one.

Since past behavior is indicative of future behavior; lather, rinse and repeat.

Overall, this shows that both the City and the Court have come back to this litigation with unclean hands. And that was expressly dealt with in the opinion of the 7th Circuit.

So I am left with two questions: 1) what record needs to be built at this juncture? and 2) How many times must the record be built?

Psy Crow
11-02-2011, 7:19 PM
The Judge gave Chicago enough time for them to attempt to create their facts...

;)

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/860/slide_860_15065_large.jpg

Rossi357
11-02-2011, 8:45 PM
How about having the same regulations that apply to the existing gun ranges apply to the public ones.

krucam
11-11-2011, 3:05 PM
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/860/slide_860_15065_large.jpg

Yup....thumb those noses at the Court....

Filed yesterday:
2011-11-10 131 0 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:For the below reasons, the Court will not enter Ezells proposed injunction order. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/10/2011) 2011-11-11 17:06:2
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.131.0.pdf

In October, Judge Kendall denied Chicago's MTD over the case being 'Moot' due to the new laws put in place hours before the CA7 Ezell Ruling in July.

At the same time, Judge Kendall also rejected issuing a PI in spite of what the CA7 had ordered.

Yesterday's Minute Order explains everything. Even though she denied Defendant's MTD for being Moot, she has it fixed in her mind the case is indeed Moot and we're going to re-argue this into next Fall. :oji:

Isn't it Hammer Time?

OleCuss
11-11-2011, 3:49 PM
Either the law is dumber than I thought - or the judge is.

The idea that you have to re-litigate every time the City makes a little tweak to its ordinances just beggars the imagination.

I hope the hammer comes down quick and hard. But I may be dreaming.

But I'm kinda curious. . . Since the court was ordered to issue the injunction to ensure the core right was protected, isn't the judge required to issue the PI as long as the case is not mooted? And in light of the missing PI, wouldn't the City have the duty to demonstrate that the city was in practical compliance rather than the burden being thrown back on the plaintiff to litigate the whole thing once again?

IANAL and I am confused by what looks to a relative naif as massive stupidity or misconduct or something equally reprehensible in a court.

wildhawker
11-11-2011, 3:59 PM
She wants the outcome explicitly the cause of the CA7 panel. Ok, fine, but she may not like what that really means.

-Brandon

P.S. Stare decicis matters... only when it's convenient to the outcome.

press1280
11-11-2011, 4:27 PM
Either the law is dumber than I thought - or the judge is.

The idea that you have to re-litigate every time the City makes a little tweak to its ordinances just beggars the imagination.

I hope the hammer comes down quick and hard. But I may be dreaming.

But I'm kinda curious. . . Since the court was ordered to issue the injunction to ensure the core right was protected, isn't the judge required to issue the PI as long as the case is not mooted? And in light of the missing PI, wouldn't the City have the duty to demonstrate that the city was in practical compliance rather than the burden being thrown back on the plaintiff to litigate the whole thing once again?

IANAL and I am confused by what looks to a relative naif as massive stupidity or misconduct or something equally reprehensible in a court.

I'm not sure either. It's either at the worst these judges are hardcore/dishonest antis or at the very least still stuck on a 2A/militia only right and they just can't understand how to implement it on an equal basis with the other enumerated/incorporated rights.

kcbrown
11-11-2011, 4:45 PM
My question is: can Gura petition the 7th for relief at this point? Kendall has made it quite clear that she's not going to heed the 7th's directives.

It is very interesting to see such judicial rebellion in action. Told you this would happen.

dantodd
11-11-2011, 4:53 PM
My question is: can Gura petition the 7th for relief at this point? Kendall has made it quite clear that she's not going to heed the 7th's directives.

It is very interesting to see such judicial rebellion in action. Told you this would happen.

Yes, I believe that is essentially what happened last time. Read post 215 by Gene, it appears Gura et. al. are willing to litigate to resolution before going up the chain again. I defer to the expertise of those leading the battle.

OleCuss
11-11-2011, 5:13 PM
I'm not sure Gene was making a pronouncement as to what Gura and company are going to do. I think he may have just been pointing out that there may be some good things about litigating before going up again.

The problem that I see with this is that I don't see the end to the litigation if the judge is allowed to play this game. I think I'm now on kcbrown's team with regard to this judge. . .

You litigate. It is clear that the City is going to lose, so before meaningful injunctive relief is granted, the City simply re-jiggers the ordinances once again to get the same general effect of violating our RKBA - but they get to re-litigate the issue once again. Endless litigation with no relief in sight seems like a waste of time, money, energy, etc.

But I'm sure those who know far more than do I will make the right decision. I found wildhawker's response very interesting although I'm not sure I fully understood it (but I think I mostly got it).

Anyway, until I hear officially/definitively that the best thing to do is to re-litigate the issue due to Chicago's sidestepping, I'm going to remain of the opinion that Gura and company should go right up to the circuit to get the hammer dropped on this (expletive deleted before uttered) judge.

safewaysecurity
11-11-2011, 5:20 PM
So... when is D.Cs ban on receiving the gun training necessary to purchase a handgun going to be challenged? Their law sounds even worse than Chicago's.

Funtimes
11-11-2011, 5:28 PM
I'm pretty sure Brandon was just saying that the judge doesn't want the "blood on the streets" to be on her hands, so it will have to go to the CA7 panel. However, that might make things much more complicated for her in the future.

kcbrown
11-11-2011, 5:48 PM
I'm pretty sure Brandon was just saying that the judge doesn't want the "blood on the streets" to be on her hands, so it will have to go to the CA7 panel. However, that might make things much more complicated for her in the future.

I hope it does make things much more complicated and painful for her in the future.

If judges aren't shown that there are severe penalties for judicial rebellion, they will simply continue to do as they will irrespective of the jurisprudence set for them by the courts above them, and the judicial system will be badly broken, for it will remove much of the power that appealing a case currently has. What would be the point of appealing a case if the lower court isn't going to heed the directives of the court(s) above it?

It may even have more far reaching effects than that. If the lower courts can get away with ignoring the upper courts, then couldn't other government entities do the same? We might wind up with municipalities and states ignoring the directives of the Supreme Court in that case.

That is a road we do not want to go down. The Republic is in bad enough shape as it is.

Funtimes
11-11-2011, 5:53 PM
I hope it does make things much more complicated and painful for her in the future.

If judges aren't shown that there are severe penalties for judicial rebellion, they will simply continue to do as they will irrespective of the jurisprudence set for them by the courts above them, and the judicial system will be badly broken, for it will remove much of the power that appealing a case currently has. What would be the point of appealing a case if the lower court isn't going to heed the directives of the court(s) above it?

It may even have more far reaching effects than that. If the lower courts can get away with ignoring the upper courts, then couldn't other government entities do the same? We might wind up with municipalities and states ignoring the directives of the Supreme Court in that case.

That is a road we do not want to go down. The Republic is in bad enough shape as it is.

I'm going to wager they won't care. Some of the court procedures and practices here in Hawaii are just sickening. And, without a doubt, no one cares and they get away with it.

kcbrown
11-11-2011, 5:54 PM
I'm going to wager they won't care.

Sorry, I won't take you up on that bet. :D

I suspect the same, at least with respect to 2nd Amendment cases.

hoffmang
11-11-2011, 8:49 PM
Chicago is going to be forced by discovery and motion practice that "[requires] the municipality to present “evidence that the restrictions actually have public benefits great enough to justify any curtailment of speech.” Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 581 F.3d 460, 462 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986))" and show these restrictions have public benefits strong enough to curtail the 2A.

I expect Chicago to find that... difficult.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-11-2011, 9:48 PM
Chicago is going to be forced by discovery and motion practice that "[requires] the municipality to present “evidence that the restrictions actually have public benefits great enough to justify any curtailment of speech.” Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 581 F.3d 460, 462 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986))" and show these restrictions have public benefits strong enough to curtail the 2A.

I expect Chicago to find that... difficult.


They're going to be forced to do that or else ... what?


"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!"

hoffmang
11-11-2011, 11:41 PM
They're going to be forced to do that or else ... what?


"Stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!"

Or else the rule of law is over, it's an anarchy and you should start shooting.

BTW - You first.

In the real world... or else the 7th Circuit court of appeals will be bound by the law of THIS CASE and Chicago will lose, and pay fees to Gura and team again. You do realize they're already on the hook to the point the case was remanded, right?

Even if the next panel (if it's not the same panel) doesn't follow stare decisis inside their own court of appeals, well that leads to en-banc, and en-banc leads to very high likelihoods of SCOTUS review. SCOTUS review in such a case were such structural abnormalities should ever happen is... Very good for us.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-12-2011, 12:01 AM
Or else the rule of law is over, it's an anarchy and you should start shooting.

BTW - You first.


I'm sure I'll go outside and see that nobody else is on their doorstep... :D



In the real world... or else the 7th Circuit court of appeals will be bound by the law of THIS CASE and Chicago will lose, and pay fees to Gura and team again. You do realize they're already on the hook to the point the case was remanded, right?

Even if the next panel (if it's not the same panel) doesn't follow stare decisis inside their own court of appeals, well that leads to en-banc, and en-banc leads to very high likelihoods of SCOTUS review. SCOTUS review in such a case were such structural abnormalities should ever happen is... Very good for us.


Ah, it wasn't clear that you were talking about something beyond this particular round of litigation.

As I understand it, the next time this case hits the 7th, the same panel will wind up with it. I have no reason at all to believe they'll suddenly change their stance. The question is whether or not they'll have enough of a spine to directly give orders to Chicago, as quite clearly judge Kendall is going to just ignore them.

hoffmang
11-12-2011, 12:36 AM
The question is whether or not they'll have enough of a spine to directly give orders to Chicago, as quite clearly judge Kendall is going to just ignore them.

I believe you need to read Judge Kendall's order a bit more closely.

A feedback loop that basically ends up testing all the crazy anti gun ideas around FFLs and ranges from a zoning perspective where the most powerful force has already been appointed for as long as they continue "good behavior" and yet they understands what a fundamental right to keep and bear arms is... Well, I can't think of a better brier patch to be placed in.

Just saying.

In some ways out biggest risk in Ezell is that a Republican wins the Presidential election and takes one of the panel on up...

-Gene

kcbrown
11-12-2011, 12:38 AM
Or else the rule of law is over, it's an anarchy and you should start shooting.

BTW - You first.


I'm sure I'll go outside and see that nobody else is on their doorstep... :D

By the way, lack of rule of law is not the same as anarchy. Lack of rule of law is actually the norm throughout history, not the exception. Tyrannical governments are renowned for their lack of rule of law.



In the real world... or else the 7th Circuit court of appeals will be bound by the law of THIS CASE and Chicago will lose, and pay fees to Gura and team again. You do realize they're already on the hook to the point the case was remanded, right?

Even if the next panel (if it's not the same panel) doesn't follow stare decisis inside their own court of appeals, well that leads to en-banc, and en-banc leads to very high likelihoods of SCOTUS review. SCOTUS review in such a case were such structural abnormalities should ever happen is... Very good for us.


Ah, it wasn't clear that you were talking about something beyond this particular round or two of litigation. It wasn't clear that you were including a trip to the Supreme Court in this. Even so, I won't put it past this particular district court judge to ignore a SCOTUS directive.

As I understand it, the next time this case hits the 7th, the same panel will wind up with it. I have no reason at all to believe they'll suddenly change their stance. The question is whether or not they'll have enough of a spine to directly give orders to Chicago instead of relying on the district court to do it, as quite clearly judge Kendall is going to just ignore them.


ETA: sorry for the duplicate. I didn't notice that my previous attempt at submitting this actually went through (it hung in the browser on my end).

kcbrown
11-12-2011, 12:49 AM
I believe you need to read Judge Kendall's order a bit more closely.

A feedback loop that basically ends up testing all the crazy anti gun ideas around FFLs and ranges from a zoning perspective where the most powerful force has already been appointed for as long as they continue "good behavior" and yet they understands what a fundamental right to keep and bear arms is... Well, I can't think of a better brier patch to be placed in.


Oh, I fully agree!

However, at some point, something is actually going to have to be enforced against Chicago. The game has to end at some point, because at some point people in Chicago are actually going to need to be able to buy guns and practice their skills at a range.



In some ways out biggest risk in Ezell is that a Republican wins the Presidential election and takes one of the panel on up...


That would be such a horrible thing, wouldn't it? :43:

hoffmang
11-12-2011, 12:59 AM
Oh, I fully agree!

However, at some point, something is actually going to have to be enforced against Chicago. The game has to end at some point, because at some point people in Chicago are actually going to need to be able to buy guns and practice their skills at a range.

So why doesn't your girlfriend/wife have intimate relations with everyone she meets that she finds attractive because all you can say is "stop or you shall say stop again?"

You are a realist, aren't you? And yes, I'm being unfair.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-12-2011, 1:03 AM
So why doesn't your girlfriend/wife have intimate relations with everyone she meets that she finds attractive because all you can say is "stop or you shall say stop again?" You are a realist, aren't you?


For all I know, she does! :D

Or maybe it's because I'm just so amazingly awesome that she can't find anyone better no matter how hard she looks. :rofl2:


Seriously, though, I presume it's because I can actually do more than merely say "stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!". Or, at least, she thinks I can do more than that. Or, perhaps, she has no desire to. :shrug:

hoffmang
11-12-2011, 1:08 AM
Seriously, though, I presume it's because I can actually do more than merely say "stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!". Or, at least, she thinks I can do more than that. Or, perhaps, she has no desire to. :shrug:

But yet you can't conceive that there are similar other forces at work in Federal Courts.

I mean, it's only a job they've lusted after for 20 years...

-Gene

kcbrown
11-12-2011, 1:18 AM
But yet you can't conceive that there are similar other forces at work in Federal Courts.

I mean, it's only a job they've lusted after for 20 years...


And who, exactly, is going to fire them? The people evaluating them have nothing whatsoever to do with the judicial system itself -- they're politicians. And they very rarely exercise their ability to remove a judge from their position, no matter how the judge actually behaves at the bench.

Can you somehow envision the Obama Administration penalizing Kendall for taking such a staunch anti-gun stance in the way she does things? Or can you, as I would, envision the Obama Administration rewarding her for doing so?


(admittedly, this gets perilously close to the political, which is a sphere I don't understand, so at some point I'm going to have to concede defeat. But this is so fun... :D )

Funtimes
11-12-2011, 1:51 AM
Man I don't know Gene... if the Kachalsky case doesn't get a beat down.... I will lose a drop of faith. The evidence presented in that case was just regurgitated bull crap from the LCAV / Brady, with no real evaluation of evidence.

What's to say they wouldn't just spew the same stuff out here? (That is... if there is a different panel).

Gray Peterson
11-12-2011, 1:59 AM
In the real world... or else the 7th Circuit court of appeals will be bound by the law of THIS CASE and Chicago will lose, and pay fees to Gura and team again. You do realize they're already on the hook to the point the case was remanded, right?


Considering how many demands for discovery and depositions and interrogatories and such that Chicago racked up solely to wear down Gura & Sigale's team, the plaintiffs, and so on, the amount for that is going to be extremely high....

Gray Peterson
11-12-2011, 2:01 AM
Man I don't know Gene... if the Kachalsky case doesn't get a beat down.... I will lose a drop of faith. The evidence presented in that case was just regurgitated bull crap from the LCAV / Brady, with no real evaluation of evidence.

What's to say they wouldn't just spew the same stuff out here? (That is... if there is a different panel).

I don't think Dianne Sykes and Stephen Kanne are going to be happy with Gura being ruled against again.

Kharn
11-12-2011, 3:38 AM
Considering how many demands for discovery and depositions and interrogatories and such that Chicago racked up solely to wear down Gura & Sigale's team, the plaintiffs, and so on, the amount for that is going to be extremely high....How many discoveries and dispositions were in Heller? I can't remember any significant number and Gura was asking for $3.5mil. I could only imagine Chicago's reaction when they're told to pay $10+ mil. :43:

Mulay El Raisuli
11-12-2011, 4:24 AM
Or else the rule of law is over, it's an anarchy and you should start shooting.

BTW - You first.

In the real world... or else the 7th Circuit court of appeals will be bound by the law of THIS CASE and Chicago will lose, and pay fees to Gura and team again. You do realize they're already on the hook to the point the case was remanded, right?

Even if the next panel (if it's not the same panel) doesn't follow stare decisis inside their own court of appeals, well that leads to en-banc, and en-banc leads to very high likelihoods of SCOTUS review. SCOTUS review in such a case were such structural abnormalities should ever happen is... Very good for us.

-Gene


All of this is true.

All of this is good.

But when does all of this happen?


The Raisuli