View Single Post
Old January 14, 2013, 09:44 PM   #122
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Meanwhile, there's some significant movement in this case (thanks to krucam for this):

Quote:
2012-11-30 202 0 NOTICE of Motion by Andrew W Worseck for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 201 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/5/2012 at 09:45 AM. (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

2012-12-04 203 0 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Changefendant's motion to cite 201 additional authority is granted. Plaintiffs may, if they choose, file a concise response to the two additional cases. No reply is needed. Status hearing of 12/05/12 is reset to 02/07/13 at 9:00 a.m., as the summary judgment motions are still under consideration. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

2012-12-10 204 0 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Michael Hall, Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler to order on motion for miscellaneous relief, set/reset hearings,, 203 (Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 12/10/2012)

2012-12-18 205 0 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On or before 01/04/13, the parties may each file a supplemental memorandum addressing Moore v. Madigan, USCA Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012). The parties may file cross-responses on or before 01/15/13. (Assume, just for purposes of analysis, that rehearing en banc will not be granted.) Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

2013-01-04 206 0 MEMORANDUM text entry, 205 by Michael Hall, Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler Supplemental Memorandum Addressing Moore v. Madigan, USCA Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Moore v. Madigan Slip Op.)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

2013-01-04 207 0 MEMORANDUM by Richard M Daley, The City of Chicago (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
What does the above mean? Back on Dec. 11th, The defendants motioned the court to present additional (Supplemental) authority. The court agreed with two stipulations. First, that both sides submit supplemental briefs addressing Moore v. Madigan. The second being that they were to treat the briefs as if the en banc hearing would not be granted.

A hat tip to NRA Attorney, Charles Cooper. His brief is excellent and tracks Moore completely.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.206.0.pdf (14 pdf pages)

Chicago's brief tries to get the court to recognize that Chicago is just plain different than anywhere else in the country, let alone the State. Chicago is basically saying, "Ignore the man behind the curtain" (Judge Posner).
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....5065.207.0.pdf (10 pdf pages)

So what is going to happen next?

I suspect the Judge Chang will wait and see if the en banc request is granted. If it is, Benson will likely be stayed. If not, the decision for the MSJ will be rather easy, as Moore controls.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04889 seconds with 7 queries