Chicago Attorney Gets Savaged in Gun Case

Thanks to Dave Hardy for linking this audio of oral arguments in the Ezell v. Chicago preliminary injunction appeal. Ezell is the case that challenges Chicago’s ban on gun ranges, even though it requires live fire training as a condition to obtain a license to own a gun.

If you listen to nothing else this week, listen to this. It’s so sweet it will rot your teeth. The Chicago attorney gets absolutely savaged by at least two out of the three federal judges on the panel. I think he may have even been on the verge of tears at some points. Imagine if there were a couple of gun bloggers on the federal bench, pelting the Chicago attorney with questions. That’s pretty close to what it’s like.

I think Mr. Gura may very well get his injunction. Definitely a job well done.

13 thoughts on “Chicago Attorney Gets Savaged in Gun Case”

  1. The Chicago attorney did a great job defending the position he was given. That said, his ass got handed to him. Hard.

  2. If anyone else is having problems, you can go to No Lawyers–only guns and money and listen to it there.

  3. With a set of headphones, I am listening to this at work right now…its great! The first part with the old hag-federal-judge was interesting too because Gura defeated each of her liberal-left-wing-scare-the-public bullshit they she tried to trip him up with. Wishing she fall of her bench and you would hear: “I’ve fallen and can’t get up” routine…haha!

    But the older male judge and younger-sounding female judge are absolutely destroying the City attorney. Sounds like that not only the temporary injunction will be lifted but also the whole idea of Chicago banning gun rages too…Nice!

  4. Holy smokes, that first judge makes my blood boil! Gura is extremely patient. God bless him.

  5. The next time I see Mr. Gura, I need to give him a big wet sloppy kiss on the mouth. This was outstanding!

  6. Even the hag-judge told Chicago that its case would have serious problems when heard on the merits.

    If I were representing the city, I’d be advising in favor of a prompt repeal of the law in question.

  7. “Have you ever been to an indoor gun range?”
    “No, your honor.”
    “It doesn’t sound like the people who wrote those briefs have been to one, either.”

  8. I don’t understand why he was worried about bullets leaving indoor ranges? Why can’t they just be built to the same standards as the police ranges?

Comments are closed.