The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 30, 2013, 02:52 PM   #626
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
I would have to ready a big ole bowl of popcorn in preparation for watching a prosecution of a law that has been stricken by the CCA. On what basis could it proceed at all?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 30, 2013, 03:27 PM   #627
Herr Walther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
That because now it is law, you must have a permit issued by the State.

It is now a misdemeanor first offence if caught carrying concealed with a FOID card if you are otherwise eligible to hold a permit.

Now, since they have no permits available yet, let alone any applications for permits, I don't know what they would do. Local LEO's will not arrest in this county.

Just another reason to deny carry as I see it.

Our DA hasn't budged on his position even though it is now law. I carry a faxed copy of his decision about CCW in this county bearing his signature for any LEO that has not heard about this. I would find it difficult to believe that any LEO in this county hasn't been informed of the DA's decision.

I have interacted with several local LEO's I know personally and I have not been questioned about my right to carry while carrying in their presents.

As an aside, they knew this was going to eventually become law one way or another in this state and they should have already had applications printed, available on-line, and distributed to various outlets or PD's where one could be filled out and held until the law passed. Training could have been accomplished ahead of time already knowing what was required in the proposed statute.

No, they sat on their collective asses and did nothing except add another 6-9 months to the process of allowing you to carry a weapon in this God-forsaken state.

Well, 14 counties said screw you we're allowing carry as outlined in the Constitution. Not only the US Constitution, but also the Illinois State Constitution.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
-------------------------------------
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
-------------------------------------
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."

Last edited by Herr Walther; July 30, 2013 at 03:33 PM.
Herr Walther is offline  
Old July 30, 2013, 08:10 PM   #628
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Plaintiffs appealed to CA7. They were assigned a new case number - 13-2661.

The appeal and a shot at Judge Stiehl:

Quote:
passage of the FCCA has not alleviated the irreparable harm inflicted by Illinois’s ban on carrying guns in public. Instead, the FCCA authorizes Illinois to continue inflicting that irreparable harm for up to 270 additional days by giving the Illinois State Police 180 days to make applications for carry licenses available to the public and another 90 days to process those applications once they are submitted. In the meantime, the laws against carrying firearms in public remain on the books and continue to be enforced, and Ms. Shepard and the members of the Illinois State Rifle Association continue to have no means by which they may lawfully exercise their fundamental right to carry firearms in public for their own protection.

Thus, on July 10, Plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court requesting that the court adhere to this Court’s mandate by entering a declaration of unconstitutionality and an injunction against enforcement of the carry ban. But instead of following this Court’s instructions, the court below granted the Defendants’ request to dismiss the case as moot. Plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court and seek entry of an injunction pending appeal.
Emphasis mine
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 10:46 PM   #629
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
This appeal may come before the same panel.

Here is the filing at the 7th:
Attached Files
File Type: pdf ShepardEmergencyInjunctionPendingAppeal.pdf (184.1 KB, 9 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 06:57 AM   #630
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 631
What counties are vowing to not enforce the law on carrying concealed? I hope it includes Winnebago but I doubt it.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell
vito is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 07:11 AM   #631
Jen-from-IL
Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2013
Posts: 92
Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vito View Post
What counties are vowing to not enforce the law on carrying concealed? I hope it includes Winnebago but I doubt it.
Most of the counties are in either central or southern Illinois. Me personally, I would still avoid tempting fate, as the ISP will still arrest you without a CCW permit.
Jen-from-IL is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 08:31 AM   #632
Herr Walther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
Stark, Peoria, Macon, Randolph, Madison, Marshall, Woodford, Tazewell, Piatt, Shelby, Clinton, White, Edwards, and Logan.

Stay off the Interstate, or obey the traffic laws and don't be waving a gun when the ISP passes you on a country or state road and you should be fine.

If you live in one of these counties, check the DA's Office website or the county government website and try and find a letter issued by the DA's office, copy it, and carry it with you.

Even if you are arrested the DA will no bill it and you will be released without hassle as long as you were otherwise legal to be carrying. FOID, not brandishing, etc.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
-------------------------------------
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
-------------------------------------
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."
Herr Walther is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 01:31 PM   #633
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Walther
Even if you are arrested the DA will no bill it and you will be released without hassle as long as you were otherwise legal to be carrying. FOID, not brandishing, etc.
That's all well and good if you're just found carrying before the actual licenses are available, but what happens if you carry and actually have to use the weapon to defend yourself? In that event, CAN a prosecutor no bill? And what about civil lawsuit by the goblin you shoot (or his estate)? What's your defense going to be?

"The county web site told me it's okay to ignore the law"?

I don't think that'll go far in court.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 02:29 PM   #634
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Quote:
That's all well and good if you're just found carrying before the actual licenses are available, but what happens if you carry and actually have to use the weapon to defend yourself? In that event, CAN a prosecutor no bill? And what about civil lawsuit by the goblin you shoot (or his estate)? What's your defense going to be?

"The county web site told me it's okay to ignore the law"?

I don't think that'll go far in court.
I think you make a good point, but the alternative is not one that most of us would like to consider.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 02:46 PM   #635
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
Rather be tried by 12, etc. etc. . .
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 03:02 PM   #636
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,450
The motion for emergency injunction is a good move. It's hard to see how it would be denied since the district court considers the whole issue moot.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is online now  
Old August 1, 2013, 04:55 PM   #637
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,737
Quote:
Rather be tried by 12, etc. etc. . .
Read up on CRIPA and PREA; you may need to know them intimately if that's your legal plan.
Good luck with the second attempt - I think it will make it and be an even better decision!
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 10:35 PM   #638
Herr Walther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
"That's all well and good if you're just found carrying before the actual licenses are available, but what happens if you carry and actually have to use the weapon to defend yourself? In that event, CAN a prosecutor no bill? And what about civil lawsuit by the goblin you shoot (or his estate)? What's your defense going to be?

"The county web site told me it's okay to ignore the law"?

I don't think that'll go far in court."


I guess that depends on whether or not it was a justifiable shoot. You're not going to be charged with carrying in any case. If you screwed up the shoot you might be charged with 2nd degree.

I don't know about the civil suit. Why would it be any different from any other good shoot? Or bad shoot?

The signed letter I have from the DA doesn't say anything about the aftermath of a good or bad shoot.

Why not call him and ask him? Randolph County, IL. Prosecutors Office. Jeremy Walker, 618.826.5000, ext. 193.

Or you can e-mail him at statesattorneyrandolph AT gmail DOT com.

Let us know what he says regarding your doubts and questions.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
-------------------------------------
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
-------------------------------------
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."
Herr Walther is offline  
Old August 2, 2013, 09:46 AM   #639
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote:
That's all well and good if you're just found carrying before the actual licenses are available, but what happens if you carry and actually have to use the weapon to defend yourself? In that event, CAN a prosecutor no bill? And what about civil lawsuit by the goblin you shoot (or his estate)? What's your defense going to be?
Illinois justifiable homicide law prevents civil lawsuits in a justified shooting.

If you were using the gun to prevent grave bodily harm, self defense is an affirmative defense.

Even in Chicago people who weren't FOID holders and even had illegal guns who had used a firearm to defend themselves haven't been charged with UUW/AUUW. The cases I know of were home invasions though... so that's a little bit more cut and dried than a confrontation under other circumstances.

Anyway, on the highway they have the case law that says a center console or glove compartment constitutes a case, you would just have to unload the firearm before putting it in there.

The sheriff of at least one of those Illinois counties listed send a memo to the ISP warning the State Troopers to not come into the county to try to make AUUW/UUW arrests.

Last edited by Luger_carbine; August 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 2, 2013, 07:57 PM   #640
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
If you go back to the 2A Cases thread, and go to entry #45, you will see some new docket information. RECAP now allows for the docket and filings for Circuit Courts.

Yesterday, the motions panel denied the Motion for Emergency Injunction but granted the Motion to Expediate the case. Also in the grant, the panel agreed to treat the motion (doc #4.1) as the Opening Brief. The State's response is due on August 9th (next Friday) and the reply is due on the 14th (the following Wednesday).

CA7 Docket for 13-2661, Sheppard
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 11:23 AM   #641
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
As much as I'd like Posner to smite the recalcitrant Illinois Attorney General, and allow plaintiffs to carry immediately, I don't think it's going to happen.

The court has called for a conference under Rule 33, scheduled for Friday, August 16th.

I think the court is asking both parties to hash it out... it will be interesting!
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Shepard Rule.33.Conference.Order.pdf (134.0 KB, 3 views)
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 12:32 PM   #642
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 446
It would be interesting, but we'll never hear what goes on:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA7
To encourage full and frank discussion, all communications during this conference, and all further communications, oral and written, during the course of Rule 33 proceedings, are strictly confidential. The content of Rule 33 communications is not to be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants and their counsel. Nothing said by the participants, including the conference attorney, will be placed in the record or disclosed by this office to the Court.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 06:18 PM   #643
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
I really don't know why CA7 thinks they'll just work it out. IL doesn't want anyone carrying until the first permits are issued next year, while the NRA wants FOID carry. Not sure what other options there are, short of the legislature whipping up a temporary measure allowing carry on out of state permits, but that's unlikely.
press1280 is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 09:04 PM   #644
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I think the NRA is trying to keep the pressure on so Illinois doesn't slow-walk the process into eternity. I think there is a real possibility that the ISP would do that. With the threat that some form of carry might come any day - without 16 hours of training probably bothers the antis. That would motivate the ISP's anti-gun boss Governor Quinn to get the training requirements and permitting process in place.

But I think that calling a settlement meeting is not helping. It gives Illinois more time to stall and stall.

IMO as soon as the antis believe that FOID carry is not a possibility, the process will start moving molasses slow.

The plaintiff Mary Shepard was attacked in a church. A state senator Dan Kotowski is introducing a bill to ban carry in churches. Wouldn't that effort be enough to show the judges that this case is not moot?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 9, 2013, 06:24 PM   #645
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
From the docket, doc #16.1, filed 08-07-2013: Argument set for Thursday, October 3, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721. Each side limited to 20 minutes. [16] [6506384] [13-2661] (AB)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 9, 2013, 07:58 PM   #646
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
And right on time, the State has filed its response: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....-2661.20.0.pdf
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 10, 2013, 05:29 AM   #647
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
IL is basically trying to throw everything out there. Plaintiffs need to file a new lawsuit, and even if we lose let's do a discovery phase, yada, yada, yada, yet never really acknowlege the ban is still in effect until the permits end up in people's hands.
press1280 is offline  
Old August 10, 2013, 07:08 AM   #648
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Its a desperation plea. One that may work.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 11, 2013, 06:15 AM   #649
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,979
If nothing else, this rope-a-dope strategy is having the very obvious effect of running out the clock. At no cost to itself, Illinois has already essentially obtained at a 60 day block of time in which no carry permits will be available to Illinois citizens.
csmsss is offline  
Old August 11, 2013, 12:41 PM   #650
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,737
of course - they intend to never issue any "permits" except to the Governor' and mayor's "bodyguards", similar to the city of Oakland last time I was in it, IIRC. IL state and Chicago city government panic at the state of an armed population...and maybe they should wonder WHY that makes them so nervous...
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman 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 10:43 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 0.20424 seconds with 10 queries