Ezell v. Chicago (Gun Range) update

[hoffmang]

I also thought that the plaintiff witnesses were poorly prepared.

The transcripts will be enlightening once released.

I expect a prompt appeal.

-Gene

[Fjold]

Totally expected result. The City of Chicago has to lose millions of dollars before they can be forced into obeying the law.

[OleCuss]

Interesting read.

It sounds like the witnesses were a bit weak - especially on the City's side but that the judge bought everything the City's witnesses said whether or not it even made sense.

But then she got into the "Likelihood of Success on the Merits". I thought all logic went out the window at that point.

I was especially bemused by "Suggesting that firing a weapon at a firing range is tantamount to possessing a weapon within one’s residence for self-defense would be establishing law that has not yet been expanded to that breadth." But if you don't fire the weapon at a firing range you don't get to possess the weapon in one's residence for self-defense. That is the Chicago law.

But my assessment of the Chicago political machine and its connections to the courts makes me believe that Ezell will also lose at the 7th Circuit - and it'll be on to SCOTUS. It could be pretty interesting!

[N6ATF]

No shame, no consequences for ruling in contempt of SCOTUS scrutiny standards. A big middle finger to civil rights, laughing all the way to the bank.

[Theseus]

So, a city can prohibit firing ranges within their city IF, neighboring cities have firing ranges?

That is almost the same as saying they can ban voting or churches as long as the people can vote or go to churches in other cities. . . How does this even pass a rational basis scrutiny?

[kcbrown]

C'mon, some of you guys were actually surprised?

I've said before that judges will rule whichever way they want to rule, independent of what higher courts might do. But no, I've been admonished that they're too "professional" for that...

[dantodd]

As long as this is ripe will it get fast tracked, so that people will not lose their permits for lack of a place to qualify?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

There was no good evidence of irreparable injury or inadequate remedy at law; if an appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction is actually filed, the decision could be affirmed on that alone. It's not even a close call.

The judge didn't apply rational basis or any other level of scrutiny; declining to adopt intermediate scrutiny does not mean that rational basis is the only choice on the table. The judge deferred a decision on the merits; I wouldn't be surprised to see a "different approach" e.g. a "does not meaningfully impede the core of the right" approach a la Nordyke.

I thought the City's brief was very effective in highlighting that the organization plaintiffs could not identify anyone who wasn't able to travel to a range; the City got a lot of mileage out of that.

[hoffmang]

There was no good evidence of irreparable injury or inadequate remedy at law; if an appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction is actually filed, the decision could be affirmed on that alone. It's not even a close call.

Deprivation of a fundamental right is irreparable harm.

Do you think all of Illinois can require range training but ban ranges since you can drive to Indiana?

-Gene

[dantodd]

Do you think all of Illinois can require range training but ban ranges since you can drive to Indiana?

I suspect the judge would say no they can't and please come back to my court when Illinois passes such a law.


So, back to my previous question, will this get more speedy consideration due to the circumstances residents are in vis-a-vis permit expirations?

[yakmon]

Deprivation of a fundamental right is irreparable harm.

Do you think all of Illinois can require range training but ban ranges since you can drive to Indiana?

-Gene

but they can drive to indiana! i mean everyone in chicago owns a car! driving is a fundimental right! /sarcasm

maybe they figured if you have the money to buy a gun, you already own a car.

[dantodd]

maybe they figured if you have the money to buy a gun, you already own a car.

Why not? They seem to be trying to make it more expensive to get and keep a legal handgun than a car in Chicago.

[Maestro Pistolero]

What happened to this judge in the weeks that passed since the first motion for preliminary injunction? It's like it's not even the same judge. She was cautioning the defendants that in the "very very near future" that injury could occur, etc.

I smell a rat.

[N6ATF]

I'm surprised they didn't just say "Oh, you are paraplegic? Take a taxi on a 200 mile, 3 hour round trip. We don't give a rat's if you're on social security and food stamps and can barely afford your medications... pay for it or die, proletariat scum."

What happened to this judge in the weeks that passed since the first motion for preliminary injunction. It's like it's not even the same judge. She was cautioning the defendants that in the "very very near future" that injury could occur, etc.

I smell a rat.

Yep. Delay, deter, deny.

[kcbrown]

I suspect the judge would say no they can't and please come back to my court when Illinois passes such a law.

Of course, the judge will do that only in some non-binding way, such that if Illinois actually does pass a law and the resulting lawsuit manages to find its way to her court, she'll somehow manage to rule that the plaintiffs' core rights aren't being violated.

I somehow suspect such judges take, with respect to fundamental rights they don't like, the viewpoint that if it is at all possible for you to exercise or arrange to exercise the right in question, then your rights have not been infringed.