Ezell v. Chicago (SAF/Gura)

A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
In case everyone missed it, there are happenings in the SAF/Gura case, Ezell v. Chicago (Alan Gura's challenge to the Chicago gun range ban).

Gura attempted to get a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Chicago from implimenting any law or rule against banning gun ranges. The original motion is here and was filed on Aug. 22. Chicago's response is here.

The morning of Aug 23, the court heard arguments on the TRO. Part 1 is here. Part 2, in the afternoon is here. The decision was against Gura and was announced here, on August 24th.

While Gura did not get the TRO, the Judge "denied without prejudice for the reasons stated on the record in open court." The Judge also moved up the hearing scheduled on the Preliminary Injunction, despite the almost violent objections from Chicago.

I didn't comment upon this earlier (and yes, that means I've already read the above), because of certain factions, here at TFL, that would jump upon this as a vehicle to rant against the NRA. I caution everyone, not to go there, as that is not what this case is about.

Yesterday (Sep. 13th), Gura has filed a new TRO. Read it here.

Because of the Judges remarks in the previous denial, I rather expect this time to go in Gura's favor. I expect a decision by Friday, at the latest.
 
The decision refusing the TRO was a very interesting read. I liked the judge's comment that the City's supposed safety concern with firearms being transported to firing ranges in the city doesn't wash, because if people go from the city to ranges outside the city they still have to transport their firearms!

I wonder what the odds are that Gura can dissuade the judge from his current position that intermediate scrutiny applies in this case. Still, it's fairly apparent that the judge doesn't think the City's range ban is a reasonable time/place/manner restriction, since it doesn't spell out where or in what manner a shooting range can legally be located in the city.

Thanks for keeping us informed about this, Al!

DD
 
I'm given to understand that the Judge will hear the motion today, which means we should have a decision by tomorrow, at the latest.
 
Sorry CowTowner. The link had been shortened by bit.ly (still works for me, btw). I went back and fixed it with a long link. Should work now.
 
Calgun's member 'CROM' posted the following at post#53 at this link:

According to the docket on the 14th the defendants (Chicago) filed a motion "To Vacate Briefing Schedule." I think this ****** off Plaintiffs' counsel because this is the third time the defendants have tried to disrupt the case using this type of stalling tactics.

Alan rips them a new one with his arguments here in the "memorandum in opposition to motion" which was filed today.
 
This is just stranger than fiction ever could be! You folks really, really need to read the two documents that Maestro referenced. They're short and easy to read and understand.

If anyone said that TV Courtroom Drama is made up, they haven't been following this case.... So the TRO hearing has been delayed until tomorrow (16 Sep) at 4:00pm Chicago time.

I'm thinking that because of the antics of Chicago, a ruling will be made, immediately after the hearing, from the bench.
 
WOW! That was a no holds bared verbal whooping Mr. Gura issued. Not only to the defendants, but I could swear the court had a few punches thrown its way as well.
I am not a lawyer or legal scholar. I'm just curious as all get out about the ongoing fight.
 
I don't know why I am always surprised at the heavy-handed, thuggish, stupidity of the "the Chicago way"; but there is a nice example of it. Chicago should have just titled it's brief "We would like to deny the Plaintiff's civil rights under color of authority but they won't comply!"

It is like they secretly want Gura to not only win; but be able to sue them for insane damages afterwards.

On another humorous note, Justice Breyer argues that the Court is not politicized and makes its decisions solely on the Constitution in a recent WSJ article. Given the fact that not one Justice actually argued that Gura was wrong in his P&I interpretation and the subsequent 5-4 split in the results, I'd have to say I am skeptical of that argument.
 
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, September 16, 2010: MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for temporary restraining order[25] is denied. MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to vacate briefing schedule and preliminary injunction hearing set for October 1 [27] is denied. Status hearing set for 9/23/2010 at 09:00 AM.Advised in open court notice(tsa,)
Click to expand...

I also corrected the primary entry in the first post of the Current 2A cases thread. Ezell v. Chicago now points to the Recapped Docket.
 
At this point, I believe we will have to wait for the status hearing, next Thursday. The mobile range is due the 24th, so I have no idea how this will conflict the proceedings.
 
Seems to me the judge is backing herself into the "harm done" corner. Her own statements show her to not be afraid of engaging either side or bringing higher tension to the situation.

I am in the business of responding to ripe issues of controversy.
Click to expand...
 
The last four days have seen a flurry of activity in this case.

Chicago has deposed more people than they told the Judge they needed. In fact, Chicago wants to depose anyone and everyone that has even heard of this case and has motioned to extend the time for discovery. Oh, Chicago also wants to move the injunction hearing date back...

All of this (and more) is answered by Alan Gura in several reply briefs.

See the docket, here, then scroll down to the briefs starting with item #52. ... Well, you should really start with Chicago's briefs at #42.

However you look at it, try to just scroll down reading the court reporters notes on the various filings. You'll get the idea.

Chicago is in panic mode and is obfuscating at every turn. They know they don't have a leg to stand on, so they are delaying this to the best of their ability.

Unless the judge budges, the preliminary injunction hearing will be this Friday, at 1:00pm. There is even a consideration on board to convert the preliminary injunction straight to trial and permanent injunction.

I suggest everyone bookmark the docket and view it everyday between now and Friday afternoon. Should be interesting to see what else develops! :D

Edited to add humor:

This from the response in #52...
Nonetheless, the City invokes the work of noted UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler relating to standards of review. This reliance is badly misplaced. Regardless of whether the cited article truly reflects the City’s position, it predates Heller’s rejection of rational basis, and McDonald’s finding that the Second Amendment secures a fundamental right, as well as the Seventh Circuit’s opinions applying intermediate review. But notably, Prof. Winkler agrees that Chicago’s range ban is unconstitutional: “Reasonable gun control is one thing, this another. Chicago requires 1 hour on range for handgun permit but bars ranges.” www.twitter.com/adamwinkler, Aug. 16, 2010, 3:18 p.m. (citation omitted) (last visited Sept. 26, 2010).
Click to expand...

That has to be the briefest amicus brief on record! ;)
 
Thanks for the laugh. That is funny. On the plus side, it would be great to be opposite Alan Gura in a case. You'd certainly get an education at your client's expense :)
 
I almost missed a meeting while reading the reply brief. Holy cow!
I would love to have a live audio feed from the courthouse on Friday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top