Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-28-2010, 2:43 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default Ezell v. Chicago (Gun Range) update

This past week has been very exciting in Chicago. In Alan Gura's challenge to the Chicago Gun Range ban he attempted to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order against the law. The hearing was this past Tuesday. Here is the first hearing on August 23rd (part 1, part 2) and the best part is the transcript of the decision on the TRO on August 24th.

Alan did not get the TRO but it was "denied without prejudice for the reasons stated on the record in open court." However, the Judge shortened the time for the hearing schedule on the Preliminary Injunction over vehement objection from the City. Basically, the Judge said that because the mobile range couldn't get into town fast enough therefor the TRO wasn't "ripe." It appears on the record that as soon as a mobile range can arrive, the Judge looks like she'll grant the TRO to allow the range to move into Chicago.

However, the NRA case in front of Judge Guzman makes a smaller range claim. The City badly wants to relate Ezell into the NRA case which would take this case from a very likely win to a loss.

As I've said before, as the RKBA becomes more established, these kinds of cases will move much quicker. Things are changing minute to minute on this case so stay tuned.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-28-2010, 3:18 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow, that transcript was a delight to read.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-28-2010, 3:38 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Gotta love that steamroller!
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-28-2010, 3:53 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Really enjoyed the TRO transcript. Sorry,I've been out of town for a week, what's wrong with the NRA case? A link is plenty.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-28-2010, 3:55 PM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,888
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
Gotta love that steamroller!
APB: where's the picture of the CGF, Gura, Gene steamroller picture?

.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-28-2010, 4:22 PM
yakmon's Avatar
yakmon yakmon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 926
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-28-2010, 5:02 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yakmon View Post
I officially request that we commission that there be a photo shoot or caricature of Gene, Alan and Wayne (NRA guy)
on a roller crushing something representing Anti-gun legislation.
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.

Last edited by Theseus; 08-28-2010 at 5:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-28-2010, 5:50 PM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Wow that was fast, awesome!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-28-2010, 5:59 PM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Talking

Wow - this is a sharp blow to the City from the Court:

(The Court, addressing the City's argument for the range ban)
Quote:
And I think that I would like to see in your filings
more addressing the unique nature of this fact basis as far as
the scrutiny to be applied, and I think that I would like to
see more of a reason for the City's prohibition on these
firing ranges. I literally went through all my notes and all
I found was there would be bullets flying en masse and people
would be transporting weapons. But that transportation of
weapons doesn't make any sense, because you'd have to
transport your weapon to get out of the City borders to go to
the other firing ranges.
So if you're requiring everyone to take their weapons
outside to the suburbs to fire them in order to get certified
to possess them, that doesn't wash. And so I think that you
have some thinking to do about how you're going to approach
this in the future, in the very, very near future.
That was delicious
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-28-2010, 6:15 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

She certainly didn't waste any time getting to the scrutiny issue and she was extremely forthcoming and transparent about her views. That will help Gura to hone his approach.

I wonder if the judge's inclination to apply intermediate scrutiny would be different if the issue was more intimate to the core right, i.e. lawful carry for self-defense as opposed to a permitting a firing range for practice?
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-28-2010, 11:29 PM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,182
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

So what is it going to take to get the mobile firing range into Chicago before September 15th?

Tim
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-28-2010, 11:33 PM
Dovii4ever's Avatar
Dovii4ever Dovii4ever is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milpitas,CA
Posts: 137
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Now thats a thing of beauty, just wish the faces of all the big anti gun nuts were under the steam roller
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-29-2010, 7:08 AM
Doug L's Avatar
Doug L Doug L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Love to see this happening to Chicago!

Mayor Daley doesn't like to lose.

He illegally tore up Meigs Field when the FAA wouldn't let him close it.

Naturally, he was never prosecuted for that.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-29-2010, 8:59 AM
RKV's Avatar
RKV RKV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I didn't read the transcript as great news

The transcript says "And I think to be on the safe side, the Court is inclined to apply an intermediate scrutiny, although I think the City probably could make an argument that the lower level of scrutiny is available to them still, although they haven't really done that or certainly haven't elucidated that." This runs directly counter to McDonald "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

I cannot imagine why anyone here is pleased with that. About the only good news that I can read out of the transcript is that the defendant attorneys are apparent buffoons. Specifically, I note their whining about inadequate time for discovery.

As is becoming a pattern, the courts are ignoring the "bear" part of right to keep and bear arms. In doing so, they are treating the 2nd Amendment as a privilege, not a right. The defendants in Kachalsky v. Cacace are exhibiting similar behavior as are those in Peruta v. County of San Diego and Bateman v. Perdue. The common elements are a) reading Heller and McDonald as narrowly as possible so as to completely ignore the word "bear" in the 2nd Amendment and b) denial of any legal responsibility for their (the government's) actions and c) unwillingness to moot the issue by granting the plaintiffs request (which would have the effect of making the suit go away and then they could still not issue permits to others). To summarize the three part tactic, ignore Heller and McDonald and hope that judges will nullify them, deny that the 2nd Amendment applies to states, counties and cities and delay, delay, delay.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-29-2010, 9:11 AM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,846
iTrader: 168 / 99%
Default

I giggled like a little girl reading that transcript. Nice to see calls going in our favor.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-29-2010, 9:32 AM
RKV's Avatar
RKV RKV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I don't know that you and I read the same document

"You've almost pled yourself into the relatedness issue with Judge Guzman, though, because by implicating all of those other subsections with your gun range case you are making a case for relatedness to the broader statutory attack in front of Judge Guzman."

I doubt if it's in our best interests to join Ezell and Benson. Gura sure believes otherwise based on his comments to the judge. It would certainly cause a delay in Ezell. Is the NRA butting in (again) with Benson - apparently so.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-29-2010, 9:42 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The transcript says "And I think to be on the safe side, the Court is inclined to apply an intermediate scrutiny, although I think the City probably could make an argument that the lower level of scrutiny is available to them still, although they haven't really done that or certainly haven't elucidated that." This runs directly counter to McDonald "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
Yes, but this case isn't about the right to have a gun for immediate use for self-defense. Training for a license is somewhat less immediate, though no less important to the right than actually owning a functional firearm. If intermediate scrutiny is the standard she uses, I hope she makes this clear. It's not like this judge is hard to read, or that any of this will be lost on Gura.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-29-2010, 9:47 AM
ed bernay ed bernay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKV View Post
The transcript says "And I think to be on the safe side, the Court is inclined to apply an intermediate scrutiny, although I think the City probably could make an argument that the lower level of scrutiny is available to them still, although they haven't really done that or certainly haven't elucidated that." This runs directly counter to McDonald "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

I cannot imagine why anyone here is pleased with that. About the only good news that I can read out of the transcript is that the defendant attorneys are apparent buffoons. Specifically, I note their whining about inadequate time for discovery.

As is becoming a pattern, the courts are ignoring the "bear" part of right to keep and bear arms. In doing so, they are treating the 2nd Amendment as a privilege, not a right. The defendants in Kachalsky v. Cacace are exhibiting similar behavior as are those in Peruta v. County of San Diego and Bateman v. Perdue. The common elements are a) reading Heller and McDonald as narrowly as possible so as to completely ignore the word "bear" in the 2nd Amendment and b) denial of any legal responsibility for their (the government's) actions and c) unwillingness to moot the issue by granting the plaintiffs request (which would have the effect of making the suit go away and then they could still not issue permits to others). To summarize the three part tactic, ignore Heller and McDonald and hope that judges will nullify them, deny that the 2nd Amendment applies to states, counties and cities and delay, delay, delay.
I agree 100%. The anti judges are going to play games and to minimize Heller and McDonald as much as possible. Until SCOTUS says "strict scrutiny", gunnies are going to be facing this BS at every turn especially in the anti sections of the country. IMHO, if Heller 2 gets to SCOTUS, that will be the case to get SCOTUS to say strict scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-29-2010, 9:57 AM
RKV's Avatar
RKV RKV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Did we read the same transcript?

"Training for a license is somewhat less immediate..."

Gura certainly argues otherwise in the transcript. He basically says the ban violates the core right of the 2nd Amendment - and conflates churches, bookstores and shooting ranges as protected places. Which conflation I absolutely agree with. You're falling into the same trap as the anti's and using the argument of the City of Chicago. Her's what their attorney said "Nothing prohibits these plaintiffs from exercising what is really at the core of the Second Amendment, which is the possession of arms for self defense in the home. They are free to apply to do that at any time." The 2nd Amendment protects much more than just having a gun in your house.

Gura had this to say describing his courtesy to the Chicago attorney's. "And I feel that what we have here is a case of no good deed going unpunished, because instead of taking the time that we've given them to meet the merits of the case, instead they have come out with some kind of an argument for why the case should never be addressed."

It's long past time to kick Chicago's @$$. No more Mr. Nice Guy with these thugs.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-29-2010, 10:26 AM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,846
iTrader: 168 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKV View Post
The transcript says "And I think to be on the safe side, the Court is inclined to apply an intermediate scrutiny, although I think the City probably could make an argument that the lower level of scrutiny is available to them still, although they haven't really done that or certainly haven't elucidated that." This runs directly counter to McDonald "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

I cannot imagine why anyone here is pleased with that. About the only good news that I can read out of the transcript is that the defendant attorneys are apparent buffoons. Specifically, I note their whining about inadequate time for discovery.

As is becoming a pattern, the courts are ignoring the "bear" part of right to keep and bear arms. In doing so, they are treating the 2nd Amendment as a privilege, not a right. The defendants in Kachalsky v. Cacace are exhibiting similar behavior as are those in Peruta v. County of San Diego and Bateman v. Perdue. The common elements are a) reading Heller and McDonald as narrowly as possible so as to completely ignore the word "bear" in the 2nd Amendment and b) denial of any legal responsibility for their (the government's) actions and c) unwillingness to moot the issue by granting the plaintiffs request (which would have the effect of making the suit go away and then they could still not issue permits to others). To summarize the three part tactic, ignore Heller and McDonald and hope that judges will nullify them, deny that the 2nd Amendment applies to states, counties and cities and delay, delay, delay.
This DOES concern me.

Quote:
And so in looking at the cases that were presented to
me both orally and in the papers, I note that the plaintiffs'
position that strict scrutiny should apply is not supported in
any particular case as of yet.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-29-2010, 10:56 AM
RKV's Avatar
RKV RKV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Strict scrutiny "is not supported in any case yet"

My RIA it isn't.

McDonald majority opinion says "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"Fundamental right" is a term of art which demands strict scrutiny. Ask Judge Urbina in his denial of Heller's 2nd lawsuit (re: DC's unconstitutional re-vamped gun laws AND before McDonald) "to recognize that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a ‘fundamental right,’ in the sense that restrictions on this right are subject to ‘strict scrutiny’ by the courts and require a ‘compelling state interest,’ it would have used these constitutional terms of art”)."

The judge in this case is completely ignoring McDonald.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-29-2010, 11:03 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The judge in this case is completely ignoring McDonald.
If this judge can be swayed, Gura is the one who can do it.

The judge's comment: "to be on the safe side" (she is inclined to use intermediate scrutiny) is interesting. On the safe side of what?
Also, it may be that this case won't need to utilize a level of scrutiny beyond intermediate, i.e. that the plaintiffs arguments may so secure that even intermediate scrutiny would be enough to decide in the plaintiffs favor.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 08-29-2010 at 11:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-29-2010, 1:33 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,410
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
If this judge can be swayed, Gura is the one who can do it.

The judge's comment: "to be on the safe side" (she is inclined to use intermediate scrutiny) is interesting. On the safe side of what?
Also, it may be that this case won't need to utilize a level of scrutiny beyond intermediate, i.e. that the plaintiffs arguments may so secure that even intermediate scrutiny would be enough to decide in the plaintiffs favor.
But this part gives me hope (Judge to Chicago attorney):

"And I think that I would like to see in your filings
more addressing the unique nature of this fact basis as far as
the scrutiny to be applied, and I think that I would like to
see more of a reason for the City's prohibition on these
firing ranges. I literally went through all my notes and all
I found was there would be bullets flying en masse and people
would be transporting weapons. But that transportation of
weapons doesn't make any sense, because you'd have to
transport your weapon to get out of the City borders to go to
the other firing ranges.
So if you're requiring everyone to take their weapons
outside to the suburbs to fire them in order to get certified
to possess them, that doesn't wash. And so I think that you
have some thinking to do about how you're going to approach
this in the future, in the very, very near future."

How's Chicago going to answer those issues? More blood in the streets talk with LCAV/Brady stats?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-29-2010, 2:26 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
If this judge can be swayed, Gura is the one who can do it.

The judge's comment: "to be on the safe side" (she is inclined to use intermediate scrutiny) is interesting. On the safe side of what?
Also, it may be that this case won't need to utilize a level of scrutiny beyond intermediate, i.e. that the plaintiffs arguments may so secure that even intermediate scrutiny would be enough to decide in the plaintiffs favor.
What the court means here is the possibility of this going up to the 7th Circuit, which isn't exactly friendly to us.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-29-2010, 2:48 PM
Left Coast Conservative's Avatar
Left Coast Conservative Left Coast Conservative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Dang, you beat me to it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewalker View Post
Wow - this is a sharp blow to the City from the Court:

(The Court, addressing the City's argument for the range ban)


That was delicious
Especially the last paragraph. Should that not be a wake up call to the City that their ordinance prohibiting gun ranges infringes on 2nd Amendments rights since range qualification is necessary?

What other restrictions might come under that precedent if set? Ammunition sales restrictions perhaps?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-29-2010, 3:11 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Actually re: scrutiny, Gura is arguing that the ability to go to a gun range to practice is part of the core right, so no decision about the level of scrutiny need even be reached.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-29-2010, 3:37 PM
Tom Gresham Tom Gresham is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The NRA is on tract to sabotage this case. It needs to immediately take the range issue OUT of its lawsuit.
__________________
Gun Talk Radio (www.guntalk.com)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-29-2010, 4:25 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,410
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How do you get the NRA off the case enough so Ezell and Benson don't get consolidated?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-29-2010, 4:50 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gresham View Post
The NRA is on tract to sabotage this case. It needs to immediately take the range issue OUT of its lawsuit.
Is that a serious comment? If so, how are they about to sabotage this case? Are you referring to Benson?
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-29-2010, 5:30 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Really enjoyed the TRO transcript. Sorry,I've been out of town for a week, what's wrong with the NRA case? A link is plenty.

So, what is wrong with the NRA case again?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-29-2010, 5:48 PM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,846
iTrader: 168 / 99%
Default

It seems to me that they are challenging two different aspects of the law, why would they get consolidated?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-13-2010, 5:29 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

New TRO filed in this case:
http://bit.ly/dvfBtb

Highlights:
Quote:
A gun range becomes unusually dangerous if one runs into the line of fire, but that is also true of vehicular traffic.

...

Counsel’s description of “arms being discharged en masse and with great frequency,” Tr., 8/23/10, p. 51, l. 25 - p.52, l.1, does not even amount to a conjectural harm at a
gun range, any more than “gasoline set ablaze en masse and with great frequency” could be used to describe internal combustion engines driven along a highway.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-13-2010, 5:32 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,955
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Lawyers with snark.

Love 'em.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-13-2010, 6:14 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,054
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
New TRO filed in this case:
http://bit.ly/dvfBtb

Highlights:
Thanks for the update.

It probably merits its own thread.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-13-2010, 6:15 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Alan's arguments are masterful.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-13-2010, 6:28 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,951
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I really enjoyed that read! Really seemed to wrap things up tight.

I like the idea that while there really wasn't much of an argument being made for strict scrutiny, the First Amendment was frequently invoked in parallel with the Second Amendment - with at least an implicit suggestion that similar (if not identical) standards apply.

I'd expected more to be made of the fact that not only is training at a gun range protected speech, it is speech which is required by the City of Chicago. And yes, it is pretty clear that the argument is made, I just thought it would be more prominent/stick out at me.

Anyway, I expect a win. After the injunction is granted I expect a rapid appeal which will be accepted. I guess I don't really know whether the 7th Circuit would take the case, but if they do, either the injunction will be granted at the Circuit level (a big win) or it will immediately go to SCOTUS where I think a win is a slam-dunk. And since there are significant timelines I think it will likely go relatively rapidly!

I'm liking this pretty well. . .
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-13-2010, 8:19 PM
Dr Rockso's Avatar
Dr Rockso Dr Rockso is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,700
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
Quote:
Counsel’s description of “arms being discharged en masse and with great frequency,” Tr., 8/23/10, p. 51, l. 25 - p.52, l.1, does not even amount to a conjectural harm at a
gun range, any more than “gasoline set ablaze en masse and with great frequency” could be used to describe internal combustion engines driven along a highway.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-13-2010, 8:20 PM
Davidoff's Avatar
Davidoff Davidoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles - South Bay
Posts: 763
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

I like this part:

Quote:
...As the range has three positions, Plaintiffs can save the Second Amendment rights of twenty-four Chicagoans each eight-hour day, assuming only one trainee per lane per hour.
__________________
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.
-- Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-13-2010, 8:29 PM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Each sentence in a Gura brief has a great force of words. I like this one

Quote:
The only secondary effects of a gun range, apart from noise that can be, as in the Blue Line range, mitigated, is the offense such establishments give to gun rights opponents.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-13-2010, 8:33 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotgun Man View Post
Thanks for the update.

It probably merits its own thread.
Maybe when there's a ruling. This thread is barely out of diapers and into big boy underwear.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.