Ezell v. Chicago (SAF/Gura)

Stupid question - this "Special Master", let me guess that this is an outside individual who is appointed by the court to oversee application of a specific law/remedy and only that with some unspecified level of authority over the agency/Dept/political subdivision this Special Master is appointed over for an unspecified amount of time? I really don't know, curious. Would this Special Master have to be appointed from Chicago, thus rendering him/her subject to the Chicago Machine, or come from anywhere in the country? I know the possibility of one being appointed is low, as you stated, but if it does happen I would like some basic info if at all possible.
Thank you!
 
OK. On the 28th, Judge Kendall required that by Friday Sept. 30th (today), for the parties to submit an agreed upon order for a preliminary injunction or separate proposed orders if they could not agree.

So guess what happened?

09/30/2011 123 OBJECTIONS, Defendant's Objection to the Entry of a Preliminary Injunction (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
Click to expand...

In true Chicago style, if you ask them what time it is, they will ask to build a watch, but only if you supply the plans.

The Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligation:

09/30/2011 124 Notice of Submission of E-mailed Proposed Injunction Order by Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
Click to expand...

Judge Kendall? Give Chicago some more rope, please?!
 
Interesting.They OBJECT? Bwahahahaha! Well, since the plaintiffs have provided a proposed injunction as ordered, and the defendants have not, let's just use the one that was filed according to the court's order. I'll take the injunction that's behind door number one.

I can't wait to read it. Wouldn't that be the shizzle if she just issued the Ezell version as is? Time's a wasting Chicago, we have irreparable harm here.
 
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 to the order to cut the switch!
 
Is it common for citys to change law or delete laws to try to avoid a lawsuit or the consequences to future legislation based on the lawsuit? I really dont know but to me this kind of thing one would thing would have to be illegal and yet I have no clue if it really is or isnt...

It seems contrary to the general good to even be able to do such a thing once the case has begun...

The other end of it is if the court was to throw the case out what is to stop the city from enacting the very same exact ordinance again two weeks later or some slightly modified version and then having to do through all the same steps again. It seems like a city could leverage this tool forever to deny constitutional rights...
 
Last edited:
maestro pistolero said:
It seems really strange to me that the judge would want Chicago to have a hand in crafting the injunction at all.
Click to expand...

By giving the City that option, the court can see if they are serious about mitigating the harm... Can you guess what that objection told the court?

BGutzman said:
It seems like a city could leverage this tool forever to deny constitutional rights...
Click to expand...

You really need to look at the phrasing of the order. 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 (and the proposed amendment of the amendments to the amendments?).

That's why she invited the plaintiffs to file a new brief - detailing what is wrong and why.

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 (any bets that it wasn't pre-written and he didn't hand it over to Chicago the day of the order?). 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 would have been a slam-dunk appeal. 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).
 
Thank you AL I appreciate you spelling this a little further out for me. I guess its time to get out the popcorn and see which way it goes...

Thanks again! :)
 
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).
Click to expand...
Agreed. Chicago has effectively backed her into a corner now. Which master is she going to obey? I think she'll obey the 7th's order to issue an injunction. Chicago declines the invitation to have input in that injunction.

She has extended every opportunity to Chicago to get on board and their answer is 'we object'. This is going nowhere good for Chicago. Your move, judge. No-one would blame her if she just gave Ezell everything requested and a bag of chips.

Time to open a few ranges. Any punitive action by the city against new range operators is going to be viewed with a jaundice eye by the circuit court of appeals. Range operators in Chicago will be operating under federal protection from the court.
 
I spoke with the owner of Article II Gunworld in Lombard a while back. Lombard is not an anti-gun village, but I will tell you , it is quite an ordeal to open a range. It is a long, drawn out process. It is expensive and time consuming, and this is in a city that doesn't really have any objections to ranges.

I think it would take at least two years to build out a range in Chicago, get it inspected and approved, and that's without the inspectors being especially difficult or uncooperative.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Didn't Chicago go after gun makers with a nuisance lawsuit?

I could see that happening too - maybe not by the city but by Father Phleger types.
 
And to add to Maestro's statement, this mobile range was contracted a year ago and was part and parcel of the original injunction.

Oh, as far as I can tell, it (the mobile range) is still under contract with the SAF.
 
Interesting factoid, in the year after SCOTUS struck down the Chicago gun ban, Chicago saw the biggest one year drop in murder it has ever seen since it enacted the gun ban in 1982. Correlation does not equal causation of course; but interesting all the same.
 
I would like the mobile range to look like the Oscar Meyer Weiner Mobile.

Only bigger - like 54 feet long.

But I still want the outside to look like Oscar Meyer Weiner Mobile.
 
Semi-trailers don't normally come in a 54 foot length.
We can come close though with a 53 footer. AFAIK, 57 footers are illegal in IL.

Yeah, I used to drive them old trucks.:cool:
 
The Amended Complaint for Ezell is in.

If you thought that the (very) wordy ordinances that Chicago had passed were hard to follow (and make sense of), then have no fear!

In an easy to read, double spaced 14 page complaint, Alan Gura shows how the old gun range ban is still a ban. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Here's the sum of the complaint and relief sought:

An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Chicago Municipal Code §§ 4-151-010 and 4-151-030, requiring all range managers, employees, and “applicants” have a Chicago Firearms Permit (“CFP”) and an Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card (“FOID”); 4-151-030(f); 4-151-090; 4-151-100(d); 4-151-120; 4-151-170; 8-20-110 as applied to firearms temporarily borrowed or rented by shooting range patrons, 13-96-1200(b)(2) and 13-96-1200(b)(7), or any other law, as against the ordinary operation and use of gun ranges open to the public and the loan or rental of functional firearms within gun ranges open to the public;
Click to expand...

The way the law is currently written, we have a classic Chicken & Egg question. You have to have an FOID before you can get the CHP. So the only people who can use the range are those that already have an FOID and a CHP

That also means that any non-resident of Chicago (visitor - instate or out of state) may never use the range, thus depriving the business of ... well ... business.

Oh, and you can't bring your own ammo to the range. You must purchase your ammo at the range and consume it all. You cannot leave the range with any range purchased ammo.

To back up these ordinance, failure to comply is a criminal offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top