Rham Emanuel moving to moot Ezell v. Chicago

[Sgt Raven]

Gotta go Corvette. It's as American as the Second Amendment.

I wouldn't trust anybody who drives a Benz. :P

-Brandon

Nah, like Tony Stark he needs an R8 Spyder. AG as Iron Man.

[hoffmang]

Does this mean that the possibility of a circuit split is now "inevitable" (with the 9th) against a current/future ruling that will help force important cases before Scotus?

Ezell points out that it conflicts with the current Nordyke panel decision in two specific places. There is a split.

Howard, that's pretty close. The Ezell panel set the standard as the same as the Heller court did. On questions of 2A infringement as regards Law Abiding Citizens, the standard is the historical inquiry (original meaning) of the right (and any infringement) to which something "almost strict" could be applied.

Note also, that regardless of any so-called 7th/9th split, Alan Gura explicitly pointed out the split between the 7th and the 4th (Masciandaro). Neither the 9th nor the 4th applied the historical inquiry as we saw in Ezell and Heller.

Again, with feeling. This Ezell opinion is final unless explicitly overturned by an en-banc CA-7 either in a later stage of the same case or in another case or by SCOTUS. All are now remote at this time. The case itself remains and will continue to be litigated. Chicago claims it's moot. I expect SAF to file for leave to amend the complaint and continue litigating. SAF will be considered the winner up to and including the first appeal. It's as if the case is restarting from scratch, but with a historical record.

-Gene

[markw]

Forget the car, I think he is looking at the beach front property!

How ghetto, parking the car on the lawn.

[Maestro Pistolero]

It's as if the case is restarting from scratch, but with a historical record.

And that record comes with a set of handcuffs. They are bound to interpret the Heller case in a completely different manner with new guidance as to scrutiny. The phrase 'if not quite strict scrutiny' gives very little wiggle room to the court in deciding what restrictions will survive. And that's only for ranges, travel to and from, zoning restrictions, presumably ammo purchasing and possession. The case isn't even about carry for lawful self defense and we're already at least at the line where strict scrutiny kicks in.

So anything anywhere near the core right is afforded very steeply ramped (if not quite strict) scrutiny. So what scrutiny does that leave for the core right of self defense in case of confrontation? Right.

Lots of love in Ezell.

[hoffmang]

So anything anywhere near the core right is afforded very steeply ramped (if not quite strict) scrutiny. So what scrutiny does that leave for the core right of self defense in case of confrontation? Right.

Correct. And that means that all of Chicago's new restrictions are subject to "not quite strict" scrutiny. Best of luck to them!

-Gene

[tonelar]

I keep seeing the term "moot" used here and there. As if a moot point or ruling is somehow no longer valid.

But doesn't "moot" mean subject to debate, or arguable?

EDIT

Never mind, I just found this second definition: Of little or no practical value or meaning.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Wow....glad someone revived this thread.....I hadnt seen it before. I was out of town and out of touch the week it was posted.

So let me ask a dumb question......other then not getting a ruling from the court regarding bear/carry outside the home, which the grant of injuction from the appeals court, at least acknowledged exists to some degree in stating that the right/abilty to train outside the home is impliciate in the 2A.....how is this a bad thing?

I mean....ultimately isn't this what we want? Dont we want various gov't entities to get with the program and change their stupid laws when it's clear they are in the wrong and will lose? I think that's the message the appeals court was sending them, especially with the comment about the "legislative thumbing of the nose at the courts". They basically told Chicago to fold because they were going to lose if they pushed it.

So yes....I see the set back in the lost of invested time in this case hoping for a ruling. But doesn't the appeals courts ruling on the injuction and Chicago's rapid repeal of their ordinance send just as strong a message to other gov't entities about the direction things are heading? That perhaps alot of trouble could be saved by correcting matters when a preltigiation letter is issued? And that the old "The 2A is meaningless, we can do what we want based on phantom concerns of public safety" doesn't play anymore and you're gonna hafta to come to the table with more then that from now on.

A change in attitude is a real good thing. That it was a major player in the gun grabbing game that folded so quickly is a strong message also. Fewer & fewer cities are going to be willing to face off against Gura (AG as Iron Man. Funny!) in the future.

And as has been pointed out, the change in the 7th. is is also locked in regardless of whether this particular case is mooted.


The Raisuli

[Maestro Pistolero]

I am betting the lower court will have more deference for the commands from the court of appeals than they will have for any motion to dismiss from Rahm. Imagine the wrath they would face if the injunction weren't issued, or if the guidance from the 7th was ignored.

[Untamed1972]

I am betting the lower court will have more deference for the commands from the court of appeals than they will have for any motion to dismiss from Rahm. Imagine the wrath they would face if the injunction weren't issued, or if the guidance from the 7th was ignored.

I still think the comment about the "legislative thumbing of the nose at the courts" was absolutely classic!

They basically told Chicago "Your reign of terror is OVER! WE run your town from now on, so pucker up, get used to it, and start learning to play nice!"

Rham and his thugs basically got publicly b*tch-slapped in front of the entire country and it's recorded forever in history and court documents.

Why is it that once public carry is decided though to I suspect to see alot of civil rights violation law suits against Chicago PD?

[Maestro Pistolero]

Why is it that once public carry is decided though to I suspect to see alot of civil rights violation law suits against Chicago PD?

I look forward to that inevitable day as just one more opportunity to solidify the right. Even the Chicago PD doesn't want to find itself on the nasty side of the federal government. I agree they'll try to test the patience of the court, but for a very short time.

[Untamed1972]

I look forward to that inevitable day as just one more opportunity to solidify the right. Even the Chicago PD doesn't want to find itself on the nasty side of the federal government. I agree they'll try to test the patience of the court, but for a very short time.

I was thinking more along the lines of individual officers who wont change quickly enough with the times and be caught harrassing legal carriers.....because you know the old thuggish ways of the corrupt LEO culture in that town will die very hard.

[Maestro Pistolero]

I was thinking more along the lines of individual officers who wont change quickly enough with the times and be caught harrassing legal carriers.....because you know the old thuggish ways of the corrupt LEO culture in that town will die very hard.

No doubt. But even thug culture has a hierarchy. After a few very costly mistakes, and some embarrassing youtube entertainment, they'll begin to get the picture.

[Untamed1972]

No doubt. But even thug culture as a hierarchy. After a few costly mistakes, they'll get the picture.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if say oh......a law-abiding, clean background, african american WITH a ccw gets harrassed, arrested, assualted or whatever, simply for legally carrying a gun.......Are Jackson and Sharpton gonna come to their rescue?

[wash]

Probably not.

They were not around when Otis McDonald wanted to own a handgun in Chicago.

I'm pretty convinced that Jackson wants to keep the African American community a crime ridden and horrible community because if it ever gets cleaned up there won't be anything for his "rainbow push" to push against.

I don't know much about Sharpton but I would guess he would suffer similarly if the African American community had any real progress.

[Maestro Pistolero]

I have a theory that many black leaders like Jackson and Sharpton secretly hold the false belief that African Americans can't really be trusted with too much liberty.