« Joint staff report on Operation Gunwalker | Main
Ezell v. Chicago -- major win!
Pdf of today's opinion here. It cuffs the district court, tells it had better issue an injunction against the new Chicago ordinance (and dictates what the injunction should contain), treats standard of review in terms very, very favorable to anyone making a right to arms challenge, rebuffs the City's attempt to moot the case by changing the ordinance, rules broadly on standing to sue, and does a few other things along the way.
Comments
Not to mention that it declares the right to keep and bear arms includes a right train and target practice...
Posted by: Terraformer at July 6, 2011 11:20 AM
Wow! Can anyone comment on how this ruling may impact other current litigation?
Posted by: Jeff at July 6, 2011 11:24 AM
Don't kid yourselves, Leftists are relentless. They never quit because they are religious fanatics like John Brown or OBL. They will simply change the law again and go to court again. Unless the legal system really PUNISHES these folks, they will keep their game up AS LONG AS IT TAKES.
Posted by: tim at July 6, 2011 12:01 PM
Funny how the anti's like to throw around "well-regulated" as an excuse to require training, then make the argument the 2nd doesn't protect access to it.
It's almost sad to watch them scramble.
Of course, then I just play "Yakety Sax" in my head and it gets funny again.
Posted by: Matthew Carberry at July 6, 2011 12:02 PM
Extraordinary opinion, with great breadth for us. The concurring opinion attempts to limit that breadth and does so in a haphazard manner that is unconvincing.
Wow.
Posted by: SPQR at July 6, 2011 01:04 PM
Alan Gura is a rock star.
Posted by: MacD at July 6, 2011 01:05 PM
This is the modern version of Jim Crow-era voting restrictions. Local governments oppose federal law and the Supreme Court by erecting absurd barriers to exercising constitiutional rights, while piously claiming to be in full compliance.
Posted by: Beer Here at July 6, 2011 01:47 PM
Where in the opinion does it smack down the ordinance meant to try to moot the case? I have read that elsewhere, but I haven't been able to find it in the opinion. I'll grant, this is such a strong opinion, it makes Rahm's play look pretty dubious, but I didn't find a specific reference to that in the opinion itself.
Posted by: Sebastian at July 6, 2011 02:35 PM
That's Ol' Snakebite Hardy, breaking the news the mainstream media were afraid to break.
Posted by: Just Another Fan at July 6, 2011 02:47 PM
Yep, Chicago, DC, NYC, SF, will only stop when every last victim disarmer is sitting on death row for treason and countless civil rights violations resulting in death.
Posted by: JR at July 6, 2011 03:25 PM