Author Topic: Chicago attorney gets savaged in Gun Case (Read 4782 times)

Regolith · « **on:** April 05, 2011, 02:34:00 PM »

From Snowflakes In Hell: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/04/05/chicago-attorney-gets-savaged/

Basically, Alan Gura is seeking an injunction against the Chicago law that simultaneously requires live fire training to obtain a firearm license while banning the operation of public gun ranges inside the city of Chicago. After Gura's highly competent opening argument. the three judges in the case proceed to completely demolish the Chicago attorney's argument (Sebastian states that it's only two of them, but even the judge sympathetic to Chicago joins the other two a couple of times).

The audio of the oral arguments is here, and is extremely entertaining. Definitely worth a listen.

just Warren · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2011, 04:56:36 PM »

The City guy kept going throwing out regulatory arguments and the judges had to keep reminding him that it was a constitutional argument.

One of the arguments he used was that if you have gun owners gathering there may be arguments and fights that would lead to shootouts. The male judge than asks "Have you or any of the people who wrote this prohibition ever been to a gun range?" Hi-larious.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2011, 05:23:18 PM »

I don't think the "We find the Constitution icky, so prefer to ignore it exists" line of legal arguments the City of Chicago is getting him very far.

To a degree, the oral arguments are a pro-forma exercise of tradition, and legal theater. The Chicago attorney could still suck that badly, and if the judges are sufficiently anti-gun, and think they can twist the 2A and Heller, using whatever tools given them by the City of Chicago's legal brief, they'll still do so, no matter how badly he bombs.

OTOH, the oral arguments of Gura before the Supreme Court certainly foreshadowed his win there.

just Warren · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2011, 07:16:16 PM »

I love how the City claims they need not allow ranges as there are others nearby in other cities. And the reason they do not allow them is that there are supposed potential problems with having ranges. Which means that the City is absolutely okay with shoving these "problems" and the hypothetical associated costs onto other jurisdictions. Good job, Chi-Town.

41magsnub · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2011, 10:26:28 PM »

That was entertaining.

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2011, 10:25:42 AM »

I think Gura may have wanted to choke the female judge he was speaking with early on. Not only did she interrupt him profusely but her arguments were wrong.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2011, 11:38:55 AM »

Quote from: RaspberrySurprise on April 07, 2011, 10:25:42 AM

I think Gura may have wanted to choke the female judge he was speaking with early on. Not only did she interrupt him profusely but her arguments were wrong.

Gura's long past getting too annoyed by that sort of thing.

Pb · « **Reply #7 on:** April 07, 2011, 01:00:25 PM »

Gura did a wonderful job.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2011, 07:23:51 PM »

Very eye-opening to those of us who haven't followed the case. Chicago requires live-fire training to exercise the 2A right, but bans live-fire training. But what if every other locality adopts the same law?

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2011, 10:19:39 AM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on April 07, 2011, 07:23:51 PM

Very eye-opening to those of us who haven't followed the case. Chicago requires live-fire training to exercise the 2A right, but bans live-fire training. But what if every other locality adopts the same law?

We demote Illinois back to a territory?

TechMan · « **Reply #10 on:** April 08, 2011, 11:09:35 AM »

Quote from: RaspberrySurprise on April 08, 2011, 10:19:39 AM

We demote Illinois back to a territory?

Hey now, Illinois has some redeeming value............Some of our APS members live there. Tell you what why don't we just eject Chicago from the union?

makattak · « **Reply #11 on:** April 08, 2011, 11:15:59 AM »

Quote from: adively on April 08, 2011, 11:09:35 AM

Hey now, Illinois has some redeeming value............Some of our APS members live there. Tell you what why don't we just eject Chicago from the union?

Having grown up in Illinois (and since escaped), I used to suggest Illinois just give Chicago to Wisconsin since they were already screwed up and Chicago would just accelerate it.

After Walker and the Republicans in WI, I can't even say that anymore!

Indiana doesn't deserve the mess that is Chicago...

Hey, Michigan! You want some land on south side of Lake Michigan? You could have Upper Michigan, Lower Michigan, and Extra Corrupt Michigan!

(Hey, maybe Indiana would give up Gary to make the connection all the way around to Chicago!)

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #12 on:** April 08, 2011, 12:02:19 PM »

Quote from: makattak on April 08, 2011, 11:15:59 AM

Having grown up in Illinois (and since escaped), I used to suggest Illinois just give Chicago to Wisconsin since they were already screwed up and Chicago would just accelerate it.

After Walker and the Republicans in WI, I can't even say that anymore!

Indiana doesn't deserve the mess that is Chicago...

Hey, Michigan! You want some land on south side of Lake Michigan? You could have Upper Michigan, Lower Michigan, and Extra Corrupt Michigan!

(Hey, maybe Indiana would give up Gary to make the connection all the way around to Chicago!)

As far as I'm concerned Chicago can fall into the lake and never be heard of again. We don't need any more corruption in Michigan.

GigaBuist · « **Reply #13 on:** April 08, 2011, 12:27:45 PM »

Quote from: makattak on April 08, 2011, 11:15:59 AM

Hey, Michigan! You want some land on south side of Lake Michigan? You could have Upper Michigan, Lower Michigan, and Extra Corrupt Michigan!

Not unless Canada wants to claim Detroit.

Stand_watie · « **Reply #14 on:** April 08, 2011, 12:42:25 PM »

Give Canada Chicago, Detroit and Gary.

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #15 on:** April 08, 2011, 12:43:46 PM »

Quote from: Stand_watie on April 08, 2011, 12:42:25 PM

Give Canada Chicago, Detroit and Gary.

I can get behind this. Though would Chicago end up being like Berlin?

Scout26 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 08, 2011, 03:56:52 PM »

I'm all for building a wall around Chicago.....

TechMan · « **Reply #17 on:** April 08, 2011, 04:07:01 PM »

Quote from: scout26 on April 08, 2011, 03:56:52 PM

I'm all for building a wall around Chicago.....

I second that. Do I hear a motion pass?

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #18 on:** April 08, 2011, 04:21:42 PM »

Quote from: adively on April 08, 2011, 04:07:01 PM

I second that. Do I hear a motion pass?

AYE!

All opposed?

[crickets chirping]

Angel Eyes · « **Reply #19 on:** April 08, 2011, 04:33:37 PM »

Quote from: RaspberrySurprise on April 08, 2011, 12:43:46 PM

I can get behind this. Though would Chicago end up being like Berlin?

It would be the anti West Berlin: an island of oppression in a sea of relative liberty.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 08, 2011, 06:03:27 PM »

Just finished listening. Awesome.

You know... legalese is awfully dense reading. And lawyers tend to write legalese which gets turned into law.

These judges, though... all of them spoke English. And asked questions in English. And said, "dummy, why don't you get it that you're implementing a de facto ban of a Constitutional Right when trying to deal with regulatory concerns?"

I'm waiting to see what their decision ends up saying. And how they wrap it in legalese. Every now and then you get a case that isn't contorted into 3000 pages that should be a simple 2-page finding. I hope this is one of those.

geronimotwo · « **Reply #21 on:** April 08, 2011, 08:44:24 PM »

personally, i LOVE this city attorney!!!!!

when the one judge makes the comparison if journalists needing to get training to excersise their first amendment rights that it would be absurd to argue that they couldn't be trained in the city, he responds "it would be very difficult to imagine that the first amendment would have a licensing requirement"!!!!!!

i just LOVE this guy! if he would only apply the same logic to the 2nd!

gunsmith · « **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2011, 10:50:51 PM »

CA tried a similar regulation & the NRA members council said "OK, the public will have to use LE ranges because there are no public ranges in many cities"

LE union had a fit, and the state quietly dropped it.

Scout26 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 10, 2011, 12:15:41 PM »

Quote from: geronimotwo on April 08, 2011, 08:44:24 PM

personally, i LOVE this city attorney!!!!!

when the one judge makes the comparison if journalists needing to get training to excersise their first amendment rights that it would be absurd to argue that they couldn't be trained in the city, he responds "it would be very difficult to imagine that the first amendment would have a licensing requirement"!!!!!!

i just LOVE this guy! if he would only apply the same logic to the 2nd!

Yep, and when the entire "regulation/permit etc." get challenged in court this the sound bit that need to played over and over and over again.

News:

Author Topic: Chicago attorney gets savaged in Gun Case (Read 4782 times)