|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 14, 2011, 10:22 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
I just read the motion for preliminary injunction. It's a well written motion with compelling facts and persuasive legal arguments.
|
July 14, 2011, 11:52 PM | #27 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Which motion? Moore or Shepard?
They are both excellent. |
July 27, 2011, 08:08 PM | #28 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
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. |
|
August 4, 2011, 04:18 PM | #29 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
On Tuesday, Aug. 2nd, the Brady's officially filed their amicus brief. As usual, they simply pounded the table with, "in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home."
Well, yesterday, Aug. 3rd, wasting no time at all, attorney David Jensen responded. He completely eviscerates the Brady document. It's a thoroughly fun read - even for those of you that don't "get" legaleeze. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....52015.29.0.pdf Also, today the court will hear oral arguments as to the requested preliminary injunction. We might know something a little later. |
August 4, 2011, 10:04 PM | #30 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The hearing appears to have went well today. Post #146 from:
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...c=26176&st=120 Quote:
|
|
August 4, 2011, 11:09 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
I love the state's comment about no manufactures being in Illinois. Shows the judge how completely out of touch this state is. Rock on.
|
August 5, 2011, 12:09 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Update by Don Gwinn regarding today's hearing...
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...c=26176&st=160 Quote:
|
|
August 5, 2011, 02:40 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Part 2 of Don Gwinn's update of Thursday's hearing...
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...c=26176&st=164 Quote:
|
|
August 5, 2011, 12:00 PM | #34 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Dangit... I just spent all my money on a Glock 17L and now it looks like I should have been saving for a Rohrbaugh R9...
|
August 6, 2011, 10:36 PM | #35 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here's bit of a timeline to consider.
In Moore, the MPI was made on July 7th. On 7/25, the defendants moved for an uncontested 2 day extension to file their response to the amended complaint and the MPI. On 7/27, the defendants filed their response to the complaint as a MTD. They also filed their opposition to the plaintiffs MPI. The Court on 7/27, via a text entry, ordered an oral hearing for the MPI on 8/04. Thirty days from the motion for the MPI, and the hearing was scheduled and held. In Shepard, the MPI was made on 7/08. At the same time, plaintiffs made a motion for an oral hearing on the MPI. On 7/22, all responses and objections have been filed by the Defendants. As it now stands, the Court has yet to rule on the motion for a Hearing on the plaintiffs MPI. Friday the 5th, was 30 days since the MPI was made. While it's certain the court will set a hearing date, I'm not holding my breath, as to when. Why the delay? From appearances, One Judge is taking the 7th Circuits "irreparable harm" standard (as announced in Exell) serious, while the other... Not so much. |
August 7, 2011, 03:22 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
|
|
August 7, 2011, 04:42 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I love how the demand for remedy is just to rule the law unconstitutional, effectively (if successful) yanking the rug out from underneath the state law. Presto chango: constitutional carry. I can't wait to see the dust cloud behind the government lawyers as the mad scramble to create a licensing scheme ensues.
|
August 7, 2011, 08:08 PM | #38 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
The ISP are already running 80 days behind just in issuing FOID cards.
I can't imagine how the state is going to deal with issuing CCW permits. I don't want to see a system like there is in California where it's up the Sherrif's dept - we already have corrupt Sherrif's here in Illinois - that would only make it worse, in addition to any fees the CCW might cost - you'd also have to make campaign contributions "Support your Local Sherrif". |
August 7, 2011, 09:11 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
|
|
August 7, 2011, 09:23 PM | #40 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I'm just wondering how the administration of it will be handled.
If it's done by the ISP - they are already understaffed. If it's done by local LEA, - either county or municiple - I would hate to be in Cook County, or places like Chicago or Oak Park, etc... |
August 8, 2011, 03:43 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
With HB148 it'd be a combination of the ISP and your county's sheriff. As long as you pass the background checks you get one. There would be no discretionary power by any one.
Read the whole bill at www.ilga.gov. Just type in HB148 in the box at the left. |
August 8, 2011, 04:16 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
August 8, 2011, 05:55 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
Mentioned earlier in this thread, Daley asking for bodyguards, he has 8 Police Officers!
|
August 8, 2011, 09:18 AM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Even if these suits were settled tomorrow and people in Illinois were deemed to have the right to carry. It doesn't over-ride ALL existing firearms regulations. So hypothetically speaking - people who did not have Illinois FOIDs who had firearms on their persons could be arrested (I think).
The FOID system in it's entirety would have to be ruled unconstitutional and I don't think that is what is at issue here. I could be wrong... Also, HB148 does not throw out the FOID system as far as I can see. |
August 8, 2011, 11:37 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
HB148 has nothing to do with FOID really.
|
August 8, 2011, 01:40 PM | #46 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
It would be funny if the two laws had no connection or linkage.
You could have people who get approved to carry under HB148 - but because they don't have a FOID they can't buy a gun or ammunition ! |
August 15, 2011, 10:23 PM | #47 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
While we are awaiting a response to Moore's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction from the court, today, Moore filed its Opposition to #24 Motion to Dismiss.
There is much to say about David Jensen's writing. I'm really starting to like his "let slip the dogs of war" style. From the first paragraph: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
August 16, 2011, 05:00 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
The response to the motion to dismiss was a good read. Seems pretty solid. Points out all of the state's errors in their arguments.
We're all waiting very patiently over here for the judge's ruling. Any day now... |
August 16, 2011, 10:39 AM | #49 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Over at the Shepard case (NRA), they filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on Aug 8th, and their Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss on the 15th.
Not the same quality we have grown used to with the Gura and Jensen briefs, but good reads nonetheless. What gives me more hope, is the the behemoth that is the NRA, is slowly learning how this "game" of civil litigation works. It is easy to contrast the Shepard (new style) filings with that of Benson (old style). Even Stephan Halbrooks recent filings have taken on a new character. That is nothing but pure goodness, as Halbrook is a terrific litigator! |
August 16, 2011, 11:33 AM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|