The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 10, 2013, 11:11 PM   #426
MTGreen
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 35
Availaility of filings and judgments

I am new to The Firing Line and trying to follow the jurisprudence on 2A. I do not have access to Lexis, Westlaw or even a convenient law library.

I love the resources here in the L &CR forum, but I have noticed that older postings have links that are no longer functioning.

For example:

Quote:
June 8, 2012, 07:24 PM #155
Al Norris
Staff

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...
At one point in my review I listened to Alan Gura say that an MP3 was no longer available at a court website, but that it was available at sites maintained by friends in the 2A community.

Do you know of links that maintain older arguments if interest of people like myself interested in Jurisprudence?

I would like to get up to date on the issues quickly. An organized list of relevant and up to date links would be helpful.

Thanks for all who have contributed to this forum. I am glad to learn of these efforts in supporting the 2A.
MTGreen is offline  
Old March 11, 2013, 08:11 AM   #427
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
MTGreen,

If you were to go to the 7th's home page (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/), you would see a link to oral arguments (it's a new feature at the CA7). That leads you to: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp You will see two boxes to fill in the case number. Plug 12 into the first box and 1269 into the next box, then click on the List Case(s) button. 12-1269 is the case number of the Moore case. You will see the file appear. Click on that to listen or right click to download the file and listen later.

As it stands, the moved link is: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/...06_08_2012.mp3

There is a problem with the Federal Courts. They do not all do the same things or even in the same way. One of the circuits (CA2? I forget, offhand), requires that you pay to get the audio file and it takes several weeks.... They mail it to you! The CADC won't even release the audio until after the case is closed! Each Federal Circuit does things in its own manner. Some are very user and computer friendly, others... not so much.

Oh, and welcome to TFL!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 11, 2013, 09:59 PM   #428
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,450
If a link is broken, you might try http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/ to search for a case. You'll just have to poke around a bit on their site to see how you can find cases.
__________________
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 offline  
Old March 11, 2013, 11:05 PM   #429
MTGreen
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 35
Level of Judicial Scrutiny

Please forgive the late entry into this discussion, but I believe the appropriate level of scrutiny has not been clearly determined and would like to discuss the following:

Quote:
June 8, 2012, 09:14 PM #158
Al Norris
Staff
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).
The post prior, #157, expressed amazement at the tangents, but I believe the Courts questioning in oral arguments was important and worthy of keeping out from under the bus.

If Alan should have taken a different tack, it would be clearly and repeatedly, if necessary, stating the standard he would like the court to adopt, then showing how it could address the Court's concerns.

Allen did respond with: establish the right, then place time, place and manner restrictions -perhaps weighing regulatory interests vs. individual interests using some form of means ends analysis.

But then he got bogged down in the meaning of "Bar." I think a better approach would have been to state something similar to his Kachalsky Response Brief:

Quote:
The intermediate scrutiny pattern is clear. Even where the law’s
constitutionality is not in doubt, federal appellate courts are open to as-applied challenges, and demand particularized evidence and findings
that specifically-targeted categories of people are, in fact,
untrustworthy with firearms. Where regulations sweep too broadly,
being aimed at the general public or categories of individuals that
cannot be claimed as dangerous, courts will invalidate the laws.
pg 46
The point being not the definition of "Bar" but that functional jurisprudence can be established in accordance with both the fundamental right to keep and bear arms and legitimate regulations.
MTGreen is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 01:18 PM   #430
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 446
I read a report that Governor Quinn apparently still wants an appeal:
http://news.yahoo.com/ill-gov-wants-...172009711.html

I'm confused. I thought the time for an appeal had expired.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 01:23 PM   #431
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,843
It isn't Quinn's choice. It's Lisa Madigan's choice to appeal. If she sees a potential boost in being seen as gun friendly (compared to Quinn), then Quinn is going to have to pound sand. He might as well wish for a pony; he'd be more likely to get it.

Not living in IL I don't have as clear a picture of the politics over there, but it sure appears to me that principle on these issues means quite a bit less than potential for votes (to the big name players, at least). Quinn is a die hard anti-gun fellow, right up there with Daley, Rahm Emmanuel, and even in the stripe of Bloomberg. The Madigans are hardly friends to the RKBA, but if tossing pro-gun groups a bone means gaining the governor's mansion then that's what they'll do.
Technosavant is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 04:20 PM   #432
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
MTGreen-I would have said (referring to bars) that the "sensitive places" mentioned in Heller referred to government locations, and as far as I know governments typically don't own bars.
press1280 is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 01:18 AM   #433
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 206
AG Madigan is waiting to see what the Legislature and the Governor do first. If a law is passed, that will moot the case and no appeal will be necessary. She can afford to wait. As I understand it, since the final opinion/ injunction of the circuit Court will not issue until June, her time to petition for cert will not start to run until then. If no law is passed, she will file for cert and request an immediate stay from SCOTUS of an injunction issued by the lower court. I don't know whether that will create a timing problem as somewhere n there is when the SCOTUS ends its session, and that may effect whether she will even be able to get a stay--the justices tend to flee DC to farflung parts about then. It will be interesting to watch developments.

Also remember that the injuction, should it issue, is not the end all be all for concealed carry in Illinois. It will simply preclude the state from enforcing the current absolute ban--the state always has the option of passing a carry law at a later time, but there will just be a period of "anarchy" (what others would call freedom) until it does. The other side of the political equation, however, is that the Legislature has enough votes to pass a shall issue bill, defeat a may issue bill, and maybe, just maybe, have enough votes to overcome a veto by the Governor. They were only two votes shy last year.

Since I have no crystal ball, I will just have to wait out the next few months with everybody else!
62coltnavy is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 07:52 AM   #434
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote:
since the final opinion/ injunction of the circuit Court will not issue until June, her time to petition for cert will not start to run until then.
I believe that the 90 timer for time to file for cert started when en banc was denied. So it is ruuning now

I don't have the exact date, but time to file for cert would run out sometime around May 23.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 08:06 AM   #435
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Luger_carbine is correct. The SCOTUS clock on time to file began when the en banc petition was denied.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 05:57 PM   #436
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 206
The clock running upon denial of an en banc petition would normally be the case, as the case is then "final" as to the court of appeals. But here we have the unusual circumstance that the Court of Appeal has stayed issuance of its decree for 180 days; and if the state passes a CC law, the decision will be mooted and no injunction will issue. Hence there is no "final determination" in the Court of Appeals on the merits until June when an injunction order issues. At least this is my understanding based on the language of the opinion; the Illinois ban remains in effect until mid June when a decree issues.

See 28 USCA section 1254: "Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by the following methods: (1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to a civil proceeding to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree." Again, the Seventh has issued its opinion but stayed rendition of its decree, so that the clock, to my mind, hasn't started to run.

The timing issue is that the current Supreme Court session will end in June, and the court does not reconvene until October, and since the issuance of a stay is mandatory if Madigan wants to preserve the status quo, getting enough justices together to have one issued after mid June would appear to be problematic.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 08:32 PM   #437
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
But hasn't the clock run out for them to ask for a stay pending certiorari?
press1280 is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 01:51 AM   #438
MTGreen
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 35
Sensitive places

Press1280 - Thanks for the comment.

Quote:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Heller at 2816-2817
"Sensitive places such as schools and governments buildings" identifies anything deemed "sensitive" with schools and government buildings being examples not the full scope.

The issue of ownership seems irrelevant except for private property rights and issues of trespass. Would the county dump be a sensitive place because the government owns it? Would Virginia ABC stores operated by the government be sensitive if the government owned the site but not sensitive if it leased the building?

We may like to provide a narrow reading of Heller's sensitive places comment and hope a court agrees, but providing a clear, workable and constitutional standard of review that a lower court will adopt is a favorable way to put the standard before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in Heller clearly chose not to state a standard of review of any "sensitive places" determination, as with the other limiting factors addressed, but a standard must be established. Those iin support of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms should be consistently working to establish a standard of review that will protect such rights from certain efforts to narrow it.

Last edited by MTGreen; March 16, 2013 at 01:59 AM. Reason: cite added
MTGreen is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 06:40 AM   #439
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
I think it would be difficult for the government to prohibit carry at a private establishment where the owner wants carry, even though I know some states do it in churches for example. However, in those cases, I would say the 2A probably wouldn't be the avenue of attack.
press1280 is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 07:30 AM   #440
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,045
Quote:
"Sensitive places such as schools and governments buildings" identifies anything deemed "sensitive" with schools and government buildings being examples not the full scope.
We do have some confusion on that, with the 11th Circuit recently ruling that churches fall under the aegis of "sensitive places," a conclusion that was echoed by the dissent in the recent Madigan case. The implication is that the right to carry can be watered down by arbitrarily declaring many places to be "sensitive" and therefore off-limits.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 02:05 PM   #441
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 206
In response to Tom, I have a problem with the government declaring any private place a "sensitive place." If it wants to do so for its own property, that's one thing, but the owners of private property should have the right to determine for themselves whether to ban cc. the government has no business reqgulating churches, nor is there any apparent need for it to intrude into this private realm. We cannot allow the exception to swallow the rule, notwithstanding that the dissenters in Madigan certainly encourage such (mis)conduct.

In response to press1280, there is no "clock" per se on requesting a stay, but it cannot start until the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Until a petition for cert is filed, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction. Yes, Madigan could ask the Seventh to extend its stay, but unless ther is some showing of progress on a bill, I think such relief would be unlikely. But that's just my opinion--as others have noted, the Seventh seems to be getting increasingly irritated by Chicago's and Illinois' foot dragging.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 03:30 PM   #442
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Some of the updates that I've read about bills or amendments to bills filed in Illinois would prohibit carry in these "sensitive" places:

your vehicle
restaurants
truck stops
any place that has video gaming to include but not limited to casinos
church, temple, or other place of worship
zoos
parks
amusement parks
museums
schools, colleges, daycare
state government buildings
libraries
hospitals and clinics, to include veternarian offices
public transportation
any other private property unless express permission is given

to include parking lots for any of the above mentioned places and any adjacent or nearby areas (not well defined)

Now think about that... outside of your own property where could you carry?

It's a re-creation of the existing Illinois UUW/AUUW law via "sensitive places" - one location at a time until almost all locations outside of your own home have been covered.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 05:18 PM   #443
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 545
An oppressive state...
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 05:19 PM   #444
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
Yea I saw the amendments proposed by (you guessed it) Chicago politicians. Unfortunately if these pass then many will probably be upheld by the courts, at least temporarily. If the place restriction is one that's found in another state, that gives it enough cover. On a public sidewalk, though, would be pushing it. I hope the downstate pols hold firm and don't make much (if anything) off-limits.
press1280 is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 07:11 PM   #445
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 446
The whole idea of "sensitive places" is absurd, and I am extremely disappointed that Justice Scalia gave credence to the idea. The effect of labeling a location "sensitive" simply labels it "easy victims inside".

Other than an airplane in flight and a nuclear power plant, I can't immediately think of anywhere that a stray bullet would cause any more havoc than any "non-sensitive" place. Churches, hospitals, schools, stadiums are not "sensitive".
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 07:27 PM   #446
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
My personal opinion is that a "sensitive" site should be required to have armed security, restricted access, and metal detectors; lacking those, it should not be "sensitive."
MLeake is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 11:46 PM   #447
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,450
I think most of us can agree on at least a few sensitive places that should be off-limits for carry by the general public -- jails and prisons (visiting hours), family law courtrooms, and others.
__________________
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 offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 03:07 PM   #448
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
@KyJim those places are crawling with armed LEO's. The federal courthouse in Rockford, even though at the time I visited court was not in session, no judges present etc still had about 10 armed LEO's around.

That said, how many prosecutors, judges, witnesses etc have been gunned down right outside a courthouse? Didn't a prosecutor in Texas or Arizona just get gunned down a couple of months ago on his way out of court?

I support Prisons and Courthouses as GFZ's but there should be a mechanism like a coat check but for guns where you can carry up to a point, have your gun "checked in" to a secure guarded storage area then get it back before leaving the building.


I do NOT support any type of schools as GFZ's; even the ones with armed guards or LEO's on site do not have very good coverage unless you are talking about the School where the Presidents children go.
My HS In Florida had 2 or 3 SRO's on a given a day, for a school that was about 300 yards x 200 yards, with 2500 students.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 09:45 PM   #449
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,450
Patriot86 -- Believe me, I am not pressing for inclusion of places as "sensitive places." I was responding primarily to the notion that there should be absolutely no "sensitive places." The list should be short and the government required to show a compelling need and that there is not a less restrictive alternative. If the judges are intellectually honest, they should find very few places that would be "sensitive places."

BTW, I do recall a local situation a number of years ago where one lawyer shot another in a courtroom during misdemeanor pleas (wife of one cheating with the other). The deputies didn't stop the shooter. The judge, who played major college football, tackled the shooter and subdued him. It was right after this that we started seeing metal detectors in courthouses.
__________________
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 offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 09:50 PM   #450
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
KyJim, I think Thomas Provenzano shooting up the courthouse in Orlando, FL in 1984 had more to do with metal detectors and gun bans in courthouses.

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Harrison_Provenzano

Quote:
Provenzano was sentenced to death for a shooting at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Florida in 1984 that killed 60-year-old bailiff William Arnie Wilkerson. Another bailiff, 53-year-old Harry Dalton, suffered brain damage and was partially paralyzed, dying from his injuries 7 years later. Provenzano also shot correctional officer Mark Parker, 19, who was hit in the spine and ended up being paralyzed from the neck down. Parker eventually died in March 2009 due to complications from his injuries.
MLeake 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 05:23 AM.


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 0.19841 seconds with 8 queries