Ezell v. Chicago (SAF/Gura)

Obviously, the council believes that the Chicagoans are of inferior intellect and/or morals than the rest of the country. The people in Chicago can't be trusted to behave like the millions of other citizens.

scpapa
 
Sorry I meant 53'

typo.

When I first got out of college I worked as a receiving clerk for an import export company. Mostly dealt with 20 & 40' containers.

I am curious about all the steel plating it's going to need and wondering if the steep plating would make it over weight for a normal 18 wheeler and how many axles they have on that thing.

I wouldn't put it past Chicago to make then go through a weigh station as a last resort to delaying the range opening.

I think we should get together and have GIGANTIC party when that range finally opens. I mean get a band - play "Happy Days Are Here Again", have a pot luck.

I can't wait.
 
Yesterday, the plaintiffs in Ezell filed their response to Chicago's objections to the Preliminary Injunction.

That 8 page brief is here.

It is plain to see that Alan Gura is running out of patience and is tiring of the constant games that the City is playing.

Plaintiffs do not have to prove, at this stage, that they will absolutely prevail in proving the challenged provisions effectuate a complete ban and/or unconstitutional infringement on gun ranges. Plaintiffs have to establish only a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, which include that the challenged provisions go too far in restricting Second Amendment rights. The other prongs—irreparable harm, the public interest, and the balance of harms—are not even addressed in the City’s objections.

Respectfully, the challenged provisions should be preliminarily enjoined as set forth in the proposed Order. If the City wishes to litigate its burden of proving that the laws are not unconstitutional, it is of course free to move for summary judgment.
Click to expand...

If Gura gets his PI, then this would most likely forestall an Ezell II, which seems to be where Chicago wants to go. The City has until 10-25-2011 to file a reply to this response.
 
I've already run out of patience. Probably won't renew my carry permit when it runs out, but will continue to pack concealed where I want to, when I want to except for sensitive places. If I get apprehended, see you all at bar. Any bar.

This entire Second Amendment process reminds me of a Chinese pubic toilet, a sloped slit in the ground where people squat in line one after the other. Water being too scarce to expend unnecessarily in China, the entire mess just creeps along downhill of it's own weight, in no particular hurry to get to a final destination.
 
Chicago has filed it's final reply on their Objection to the Preliminary Injunction.

File this one under; Here We Go Again!

Here's a recap of what has happened with Ezell since their return from the 7th Circuit:

  • July 29th, Chicago moves to dismiss as moot.
  • Aug. 29th, the Ezell crew respond to the MTD.
  • Sept. 12th, Chicago replies.
  • Sept. 28th, Judge Kendall denies the MTD and orders the parties to submit a stipulated proposal for the PI or in the alternative, separate proposals by Sept 30th. Additionally, Judge Kendall allows for an amended complaint from the Pltf's.
  • Sept. 30th, Chicago submits an objection to the Courts orders - a rehash of their MTD on mootness that has already been ruled upon. Meanwhile the Ezell crew submits their proposal via email.
  • Oct. 4th, Judge Kendall decides to give Chicago some room. She orders a response from Pltf's by the 18th and a reply from Chicago by the 25th.
  • Oct. 15th, Pltf's file their Amended Complaint, based upon the new laws passed in Chicago.
  • Oct. 18th, Plt's file their response to Chicago Objections.
  • Oct. 25th, Chicago files it's reply, once again raising the already ruled upon MTD.

What Chicago is claiming is that the suit needs to start all over from scratch, because they have removed a single code section that banned firing ranges, all the while ignoring that the rest of the amended code sections still results in a virtual ban... At least until they can re-argue everything, including a new period of discovery.

Chicago has come back to this court with unclean hands and I would hope that the Judge sees this. The 7th Circuit was very clear about what the Injunction should include. Simply removing the outright ban is not enough. If zoning and other licensing requirements virtually eliminate the possibility of a functioning firing range, the PI must be issued.

So now we wait to see if the Judge will obey the Circuit, or will she simply allow Chicago to undertake another stalling action, by restarting the lawsuit from the beginning.

If she does allow a restart, I strongly suspect that Gura will appeal and go straight back to the Circuit. Judge Kendall has to know this. Rock? Meet Hard Place!
 
Is Chicago just trying to run the defendants out of money by dragging their feet and trying to continue this?

I refuse to believe their is no one on the Chicago side of this who can not see the writing on the wall.
 
Last edited:
Conventional wisdom holds that Rahm is much smarter than this. After the rather strong rebuke from the Circuit, it was expected that Chicago would concede and walk away from this.

They haven't.

There are now 3 attempts at lawmaking (from June 6th to Sept. 18th), to seemingly comply with the ruling but still obstruct, as much as possible, the creation of public firing ranges.

Go back and read the Judges order, dismissing the MTD. Judge Kendall signals Chicago that not only are the laws that the MTD were based upon deficient, but that it appeared that the current (iteration of the) laws were also deficient.

Though the Court cannot conclude that the new ordinance is the same as the old without further litigation, as the Supreme Court did in Northeastern Florida, it is consistent with that case not to dismiss the instant litigation as moot and instead to let the parties litigate the issue of whether the new ordinance is a de facto ban on firing ranges or so burdensome as to infringe on Chicagoan’s Second Amendment rights. Moreover, as a practical matter, Ezell is either going to: (1) challenge the constitutionality of these restrictions by filing an amended complaint as part of this case; or (2) file a new case attacking the same restrictions. The Court sees no upside in making the parties start over with another judge who has less familiarity with the issues and facts of the case than this Court.
Click to expand...

Ezell complied and sent the proposed order for the injunction. Chicago has done nothing but complain, using the same arguments that were already ruled upon and dismissed.

Ezell decided to keep the case in her Court, and filed the amended complaint, addressing the new codes.

Instead of dropping the matter and going ahead and answering the new complaint, Chicago raises, once again, the very same issues that were already ruled upon. This time they add that the amended complaint is not understandable.

This tactic did not work for Justice Stevens in McDonald, I don't see how Chicago thinks it will work here. Not in the light of the 7th Circuit's mandate to Judge Kendall.

Chicago has until Nov. 15th to file a formal response to the amended complaint.

I'm not entirely sure how Judge Kendall is going to handle all of this. She may just issue the injunction first or wait to see how badly Chicago acts in its response.

In all of this, I think Rahm is being hamstrung by the City Council. I think we will see another round of tweaking the codes and then a motion to dismiss as moot, as the response to the amended complaint.

If this should happen, expect to see the Pltf's file an immediate response as to what's wrong with this iteration and a move for Summary Judgment and a Permanent Injunction, based upon bad faith of the City.

I'm not an attorney, nor do I have any schooling in the law. So these are mere suppositions.
 
I am sure Rham is being hamstrung by the council, Rham seems to me at least to be unwilling to waste taxpayer money for the sake of his ego; unlike Daley. Unlike his predecessor I think he has no stomach to file lawsuits simply for his ego and he really does not have much to lose by not fighting this. The council on the other hand gains massive support from the "guns are the problem with Chicago" types so they have EVERYTHING to lose by not fighting this.
 
One thing seems apparent: Chicago is playing this judge for a fool. It is her hands to reveal whether they are correct. Her next move better be a decisive one in accordance with the spirit of the order from the court of appeals.

Chicago does NOT want this going back up the chain, but they seem to be begging for it. They are acting as spoiled children, flaunting their insolence with imagined impunity.
 
Chicago does NOT want this going back up the chain, but they seem to be begging for it. They are acting as spoiled children, flaunting their insolence with imagined impunity.
Click to expand...

They seem to believe the court has little real power to enforce the orders it gives and that the justice system is some kind of hustle or con job that only they can come out on top of through infinite bad faith.
 
I simply can't believe this Judge! See the last entry (#130) of the Docket.

MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 10/26/2011. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 4/20/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/13/2012. Responses due by 8/10/2012. Replies due by 8/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM. to inform the Court if the parties would like to engage in settlement negotiations. Defendant's oral motion to answer the complaint by 11/16/2011 is granted. The Court denies the entry of a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
Click to expand...

Not only is this Judge denying the PI, she is going to let Chicago stall for another year!

ETA:
For the foregoing reasons, the City’s motion to dismiss the case as moot is denied. By September 30, 2011, the parties shall file an agreed proposed injunction order, or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree. Ezell must file her amended complaint by October 15, 2011. The parties shall appear for a status on October 26, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the schedule going forward.
Click to expand...

That was a direct order. Chicago would not and did not comply. Yet, they are not in contempt? Of course not. The Judge never meant a word of what she wrote, after all!

So, between now and the 16th of November, should Chicago once again, change their code, will that necessitate yet another amended complaint? And another 30 days for response? Ad infinitum?

At this point, I suggest that both Chicago and the district Judge are acting in bad faith.
 
Last edited:
An outrage beyond words. It will be very interesting to see Gura's next move. It could not be any more clear that there will be no relief forthcoming from this court. I believe the circuit court will have to remove this case from the judge's hands completely.
 
She and Vyshinskii would have gotten along famously!

Mr. Norris, thank you for your tireless work keeping us apprised of this and other key litigation. It's much appreciated.
 
Gura has two choices: appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction or prepare for trial. I can't see either party moving to much off their positions.
 
Today, Chicago filed its response to the amended complaint. Read it here.

Ya jist gotta love the responses!

Answer: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations [of who the plaintiffs are...]

...

7. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal entity organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois.

Answer: Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. [but we know who we are!]
Click to expand...

And so it goes, throughout the entire "answer" to the complaint. What's even more interesting is the affirmative defenses:

First Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Ripeness

Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the claims asserted in this case are ripe for adjudication.

Second Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Standing

Plaintiffs lack standing under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the Plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact and, in the alternative, the injuries alleged were not caused by the actions or conduct of Defendant.
Click to expand...

In round 1, none of the above was ever settled, as the MTD's and MPI's were the immediate concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top