|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 2, 2012, 11:00 PM | #126 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Like when Arnold Horshack skipped school and brought in a note the next day explaining that he was sick - and the note was sighed "Horshack's Mom"
. |
April 3, 2012, 01:05 AM | #127 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Here's a rough draft:
Notice of Supplemental Authority: This is to inform the court that three of those other cases agree with us. Signed, one of their attorneys |
April 3, 2012, 08:53 AM | #128 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
First draft
Notice of Supplemental Authority:
This is to inform the court that some of those other cases agree with us. Signed, one of their attorneys |
April 3, 2012, 10:35 AM | #129 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
?????? hmmmm, that looks vaguely familiar.
|
April 3, 2012, 11:07 AM | #130 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Notice of Supplemental Authority:
This is to inform the court that some of those other cases agree with us. Signed, one of their attorneys |
April 3, 2012, 11:10 AM | #131 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Don't you think that even a paralegal would catch some of this stuff?
I wonder what kind of support staff they have. And I wonder if they are doing 2A cases and civil rights cases or if they are involved with other stuff like real estate disputes or product liability or some such unrelated activities. Maybe they weren't tuned in at all to Woolard. And theorticaly, couldn't Gura have taken this case or just added them as plaintiffs to Moore ? It's like I said, IMO - the NRA would be helping themselves and all gun owners by just taking the money that they spent on this and giving it to SAF instead. Can't we all just get along? |
April 13, 2012, 10:16 PM | #132 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
BIG NEWS at the 7th!
Tom van Dermyde, the NRA Lobbyest in IL has posted the following over at Illinois Carry: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=29698
Quote:
Quote:
So, what we will be seeing is separate arguments on the merits, but that the orals will be combined. One decision for the two cases. Unusual, but not unheard of. The real crux is if the two teams of attorneys can work together on this. NRA v. Gura not something we need to see, right now. |
||
April 14, 2012, 09:18 PM | #133 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
April 14, 2012, 11:47 PM | #134 |
Member
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: ILLINOIS
Posts: 65
|
Come on CCW for Illinois!!!
|
April 15, 2012, 03:15 PM | #135 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There appears to be a problem uploading the brief. So I have placed it in my FTP site.
Edit... fixed. Last edited by tyme; April 15, 2012 at 06:32 PM. |
May 2, 2012, 11:30 PM | #136 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As we know, the State of Illinois has tried to get the Moore and Shepard cases, consolidated (the NRA, in Shepard, just wanted the orals to be combined, which was granted). The State even asked for an extension in time (60 days) to file, based upon having to answer two nearly identical cases... Last Thursday, the Circuit Court answered the State:
Quote:
|
|
May 3, 2012, 10:33 AM | #137 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
May 3, 2012, 11:46 AM | #138 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I suspect that the only indication we can take, is that the CA7 wants to dispose of this case. My own personal view is that it is an indication that the CA7 does not favor the State's arguments (remembering that I've been wrong before ).
|
May 3, 2012, 12:16 PM | #139 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Al, are you using the word "dispose" to mean reach a decision and get it up to SCOTUS?
As in, we want this case out of our court?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
May 3, 2012, 12:44 PM | #140 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The cases are a thorn, whichever way the circuit panel goes.
The judges at this level are well aware of the other cases at the other circuits. We have not seen this type of (speedy) action at the other circuits, so I'm guessing here that the 7th simply wants to be the first (or among the first) circuit to opine on the issue. |
May 11, 2012, 08:17 AM | #141 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The appellees have elected to file a consolidated joint response brief in both Moore and Shepard. That brief is attached.
This is pretty much the standard "In the Home" only argument. Since they make no mention of Woolard, Weaver or Bateman, they are gambling that the Court doesn't know of these cases. The reply briefs will be due on May 23rd. Expect both the SAF and NRA to mention the cases above, and that the "In the Home" argument is losing. Quote:
The last entry was letting the Court know that Alan Gura will be making the oral argument to the Court. Um, June 8th is the date set for that. This is fast tracking, indeed! |
|
May 18, 2012, 08:30 AM | #142 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Krucam, over at MDShooters, peaked at the docket and has reported the following activity:
Quote:
|
|
May 18, 2012, 10:31 PM | #143 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Over at the Illinois State Rifle Association, they have a list of the more important filings in the Shepard case (of which they are a party): http://www.isra.org/lawsuits/#Shepard
So here you go (not to be read while drinking or on a full stomach):Read them or not. I wasn't about to pay money to post them. |
May 20, 2012, 10:17 PM | #144 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Hah, I knew the Brady Campaign would cite Trayvon Martin. The trial hasn't even stared yet.
Last edited by Tom Servo; May 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM. |
May 20, 2012, 10:49 PM | #145 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
They'll grasp at whatever straws they can at this point. Notice that most of the internal citations in support of their arguments are from VPC broadsides, or from supporters like John Donohue.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
May 23, 2012, 09:40 PM | #146 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Today, the appellant, Shepard and Moore, was to have filed briefs in reply to the State. Nothing has yet shown up in the docket for Moore but the attached brief did show up for Shepard.
39 pages, which I have yet to read. I did catch this little gem, in the opening statements. Y'all will like it: Quote:
ETA: OK, for whatever reasons, my wires were crossed. This is the final reply brief by the appellant/Plaintiff Shepard. Still waiting for Gura's brief in Moore. Last edited by Al Norris; May 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM. Reason: got my wires crossed. |
|
May 23, 2012, 11:13 PM | #147 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
"The State’s defense fails at the threshold, for the interest it asserts—“preventing the discharge of firearms in public,” State Br. 38—is not, standing alone, an important one."
I get the feeling this statement will be twisted and abused by the antis. |
May 24, 2012, 01:05 AM | #148 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
May 24, 2012, 07:53 AM | #149 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
May 24, 2012, 11:31 AM | #150 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Now that I've had a good nights sleep, got my first few cups of coffee down, allow me to highlight a few items from both briefs.
The brief for Moore has finally shown up. What follows is the opening summary of Alan Gura's argument. Quote:
(I)n (Heller), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.Gura then recites what I (and many others) have said from the beginning: "Self-defense, not home possession, is the 'central component of the right itself.'" In case you are not aware, the Brady's have filed 2 amici briefs for various groups; LCAV has filed 2 amici briefs for various groups; the City of Chicago has filed an amicus brief as did the District of Columbia. Gura, in his final reply, deals with them all, by refuting each and every one of these briefs and their claims. While Gura dealt majorly with all the bogus stats, thrown about by the defendants and their amici, or that the State was merely regulating and not prohibiting the exercise of the right, in the home, NRA attorney Charles Cooper in his reply brief (Shepard), deals with the (once again) raised spectre of the collective militia theory or that the right was not a right to self defense. This two-pronged defense makes it absolutely clear that the two sides (NRA v. SAF) have in fact collaborated. Just as Alan Gura has gone into explicit detail on the idea that the right to bear arms for self defense in public, is not outside the core of the right, Cooper goes into explicit detail showing that regulation does not mean the total prohibition of the right, or that the right was limited only to the confines of one's property. Speaking to the interests of the State, Cooper says this: Quote:
Charles Cooper goes into great detail on this aspect of "public safety" and the erroneous conclusions of disarming its citizens. The only "blood in the streets" will be that of the citizens. Protecting the criminal, at the expense of the law abiding citizen, is not a "public safety" issue. Both briefs overlap in some areas, but the overall thrust is to use both briefs to refute the contentions all of the various amici of the State and the State itself. Alan Gura makes his final conclusion: Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|