The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 8, 2012, 01:22 PM   #151
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
MP3 of today's oral arguments.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/IS0PEARF.mp3

Three lawyers, Gura, then Cooper for us, than Triebel for the state(spelling?).

Those that like looking at train wrecks will be particularly entertained.
Davey is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 02:26 PM   #152
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,792
Page Cannot be Found.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 03:23 PM   #153
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
Odd.

Try this

12-1269 is the case #

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx
Davey is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 04:44 PM   #154
hardknocks
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Posts: 5
yikes

unbelievable. words can not express how i feel about clowns in charge.
just WOW!
hardknocks is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 06:24 PM   #155
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
From today's calendar:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/calendar.pdf

Judges are POSNER (Reagan), FLAUM (Reagan), WILLIAMS (Clinton).


Oral Argument audio is available...

Website:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=12&num=1269

Direct link to the 7MB, 44 minute MP3:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...2-1269_001.mp3

Seen a few other reviews, but I'm just starting to listen...
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 06:25 PM   #156
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 220
The state's argument (no 2A outside the home) was not being bought by the panel, and Gura/Cooper were pretty much only getting questioned on sensitive place restrictions. That tells me IL's ban is toast-although the panel may say bars and the like can be restricted. But really this sounds like the original IL CCW bill will fit nicely after the hammer is dropped, with its several restrictions but full state pre-emption.
press1280 is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 06:28 PM   #157
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,322
Wow

Talk about tangents! Their lines of questioning are so off of the heart of the question so often, it's amazing.

Sounds like they aren't big fans of Heller though...
raimius is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 08:14 PM   #158
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
In the first part, Judge Posner dominates Gura's time by splitting hairs on the limits to the right. Most particularly, can one carry in liquor stores and bars.

I think that Alan should have taken the lead in the discussion (and cut Posner off at the knees) over bars and liquor stores by simply saying, "Yes, the State may place limits on carry in those areas." In other words, throw it under the bus and attack this in another venue some other day (Classic Example: VCDL and what they did in Virginia).

I realize the above will not make any friends here, but the right is going to be limited to some extent. By not capitulating to the concerns of the court, Gura did not get to move on to other areas, he may have wished to present.

This turns out to be a non-sequitur, as we see, when we get further into the arguments by the State.

Charles Cooper's presentation was sorta lackluster in my opinion. It neither helped or hurt. To his credit, Cooper did correctly state what the Act of Northhampton really said and how the crime of affray translates to brandishing weapons today. This was necessary, I feel, as the State's case hinges on this one aspect of English Common Law to prove that carry in the public was forbidden, or in the alternative, heavily restricted.

The meat of the orals was the States case and the way the Judges all but ridiculed the State and it's law. Heavy emphasis was given to bearing arms and how Heller expounded upon that word. Several examples were given (by the judges themselves) of how the State made its own citizens defenseless against the criminal element.

I'm cautiously optimistic that we will see the Illinois laws ruled unconstitutional.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 10:14 PM   #159
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Unlike the Hightower orals, I am very optimistic now, after listening for the 2nd time this evening. I see a unanimous decision, shortly.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 9, 2012, 04:42 AM   #160
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 220
Agreed Al. The bars question could probably be resolved w/o a 2A challenge. Bars are almost always private property(as well as churches), so a property owner could say they WANT carry on their property and the government has no interest in barring otherwise lawful conduct on private property. The only sticky areas are on government property-specifically those raised in Heller.
press1280 is offline  
Old June 9, 2012, 12:13 PM   #161
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
I was puzzled at the amount of time given to the carry-in-bars question. The whole premise of it, however, was that carry is protected outside the home.

Wouldn't the legislature have to create such a law? There would have been no need for it in a state that bans carry totally.

As there are several states in which licensed or unlicensed carry is legal in bars, it would seem to be a relatively straightforward inquiry as to the frequency of firearm misuse by licensed or un-prohibited individuals. But to make that inquiry, the legislature wouod have to be truly interested in the answer, and I doubt they are.

I always chuckle a bit when the discussion turns to the idea that open carry is best because then "you know what you are dealing with", as I think Judge Posner said. What criminal, bent on nefarious activity, is going to openly carry a weapon? It's laughable.

I know a few career LE officers who have taken a lot of guns from criminals, and not one of them has ever caught a criminal with a gun IN A HOLSTER, let alone visible.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 9, 2012, 12:54 PM   #162
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 220
I believe the panel's mind is already made up, and the ban will be struck down. I suppose they're looking for boundaries, although they really don't need to go there. Perhaps they're aware of the IL carry bill that almost got through last year(and I believe didn't allow carry in "bars")?
press1280 is offline  
Old June 9, 2012, 10:24 PM   #163
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,322
On initial impression, the judges seemed very hostile to a complete ban, but several comments seemed to lead me to think they might go for some sort of intermediate-scrutiny plan. IMO, that would be an improvement, but not a "Big Win" to 2nd Amendment case law. (BIG WIN for IL residents, of course)
raimius is offline  
Old June 10, 2012, 12:38 AM   #164
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,792
Any clue when we might see a decision?
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old June 10, 2012, 01:02 AM   #165
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
I'll go out on a limb here and say that it will probably be within 60 days. Could be less, but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if it was much less.

The speed at which this particular appeals has gone forward, suggests that the decision will be just as speedy.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 10, 2012, 10:30 AM   #166
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
The last day of the session is August 8th. We are expecting a ruling before then.
Davey is offline  
Old June 30, 2012, 11:19 AM   #167
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Judge orders a recalculation of fees in NRA case vs Chicago & Oak Park

I couldn't find a recent McDonald thread so I am throwing this in here.

I'm not sure which suit these legal fees pertain to since Alan Gura represented Otis McDonald. Maybe someone can clarify it for me.

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles...equired_to_pay

But I think the good thing is that the cities will actually have to pay now. It's a good reminder to the taxpayers at a time when the mayor of Chicago continues to pursue financially risky anti-gun legislation despite recent legal setbacks.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 12:01 PM   #168
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 205
I predict the court says, "the second ammendment extends outside the home."
Then Mayor Rhambo and Quinn say, "now this doesn't mean you can carry until we pass legislation blah blah blah."
Don't be surprised if those boneheads order police to continue to arrest those found to be carrying, even though they know charges will not be filed
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old July 18, 2012, 04:50 PM   #169
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
The fun part will be when the 2A people hold the legislation hostage until it is actually reasonable. Payback time...

As for Quinn and Co, It would be fun to see those two spend 6 months in Federal pen for contempt of court.
hermannr is offline  
Old July 30, 2012, 03:14 PM   #170
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
The waiting is the hardest part - since for the first time in two decades of fighting for gun rights in Illinois - I really do have my hopes up that we may actually get a shall issue ccw law. Whilst I know that should the complete prohibition on the bearing of arms be overturned by the court (which I am very hopeful will happen) that it will be appealed- I also hope that the preassure of such a decision will force the hands of enough of the anti's to allow passage of a statewide shall issue law. So many have worked so hard for so long to get to this point. I am dying waiting for the decision. A clear win would be such a victory. Sending back to the lower courts another intermitable frustrating delay. And a clear loss a devastating blow. I think I will either be estatic or depressed and angry come August 8th.
mack59 is offline  
Old August 21, 2012, 09:14 AM   #171
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 205
Three opinions released today. Not one of them was Moore/Shepard. One of them was argued in Nov 2010
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old December 6, 2012, 04:14 PM   #172
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Interesting article from Nortwestern U on possible carry in Illinois

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/...aspx?id=212738

One of the things I noticed was this from Collen Daley, commenting on a possible pro-gun ruling from CA7:

Quote:
We have received some feedback that it could come back in their [the plaintiff’s] favor,” said Colleen Daley, executive director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “But the ruling hasn’t come down yet, so we’ll deal with it when it does.


It's pretty vague, but something has energized the anti-gun politicians in Illinois so they must be taking this rumor seriously.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 12:21 PM   #173
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Decision in Moore BIG WIN !

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=12&num=1269

Sorry this looks like a drive-by I'm just so happy
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 12:27 PM   #174
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
I think this crushes the "In the home" BS that the antis have been claiming

The opinion is so chock full of good stuff...

Quote:
The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. Suppose one lived in what was then the wild west—the Ohio Valley for example (for until the Louisiana Purchase the Mississippi River was the western boundary of the United States),
where there were hostile Indians. One would need from time to time to leave one’s home to obtain supplies from the nearest trading post, and en route one would be as much (probably more) at risk if unarmed as one would be in one’s home unarmed.

Last edited by Luger_carbine; December 11, 2012 at 12:32 PM.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 12:27 PM   #175
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Me too; I think Illinoiscarry crashed from all the sudden traffic.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0NQFGJ.pdf

I have skimmed through the ruling and all I can say is freaking WOW.
Patriot86 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.19354 seconds with 10 queries