stated a valid First Amendment claim after he was suspended from his employment for teaching concealed handgun safety courses). The Court accordingly grants the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment on this point. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Similarly, the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. 1 . A number of the Plaintiffs' claims were mooted by the City's amendments to its regulations, including the June 25, 2014 passage of the Authorizing Amendment of Municipal Code Titles 2, 4, 8, 13, 15, and 17 Concerning Sale and Transfer of Firearms. See Dkt. 278; see also Illinois Ass’n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago, 961 F.Supp.2d 928, 947 (N.D.Ill.2014) (<HOLDING>). The Plaintiffs’ claims regarding MCC §§ 4 —
holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect holding citys banning of gun sales and transfers unconstitutional holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines holding question of citys exercise of due care in enforcement of ordinance was question of fact and inappropriate for summary judgment holding mere deviation unconstitutional