View Single Post
Old July 27, 2011, 08:08 PM   #28
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,296
In Moore v. Madigan (IL carry - SAF/Gura), a hearing on the MPI will be held on Thurs. Aug. 4th.

Today, the defendants filed their 1) response to the complaint, in the form of a MTD (#25, below) and 2) their opposition to the plaintiffs MPI (#26, below).

Quote:
07/27/2011 TEXT ORDER: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction set for August 4, 2011, at 10 AM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/27/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 24 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. Responses due by 8/15/2011 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 25 MEMORANDUM in Support re 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 26 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , and alternatively MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (Attachments: # 1 Coffman Affidavit, # 2 Hosteny Affidavit)(Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 27 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants by Amicus Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Responses due by 8/15/2011 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Harris, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
In #25, the MTD, the defendants attempt to restate the question of carry as one of only concealed carry and not carry in general. Assuming arguendo, that some form of public carry is within the scope of the 2A, IL laws still satisfy means-end rationality and are therefore constitutional. Public Carry does not implicate the "core" right to possess and carry within the home.

IL demonstrates, once again, the absolute misreading of Heller and McDonald. Going a bit further, the Brief flat out says that the court in Ezell was wrong (and this court should ignore it).

In #26, the Opposition to the plaintiffs MPI, the defendants regurgitate more of the above. Thus making Stephan Halbrook's point in his reply to the US response in Masciandaro.

So then I went and looked at Shepard v. Illinois (the NRA "companion" case). Imagine my surprise to find the same arguments, right down to an MTD in response to the complaint and an opposition to the plaintiffs MPI!

And, of course, the Brady Bunch is filing the same amicus that they filed in Moore.

Why change what has become a "winning" strategy! If a cert grant in either Williams or Maciandaro is given, this will all change rather dramatically.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05133 seconds with 7 queries