The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 14, 2011, 10:22 PM   #26
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,582
I just read the motion for preliminary injunction. It's a well written motion with compelling facts and persuasive legal arguments.
__________________
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 July 14, 2011, 11:52 PM   #27
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Which motion? Moore or Shepard?

They are both excellent.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 27, 2011, 08:08 PM   #28
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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:
07/27/2011 TEXT ORDER: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction set for August 4, 2011, at 10 AM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/27/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 24 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. Responses due by 8/15/2011 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 25 MEMORANDUM in Support re 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 26 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , and alternatively MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (Attachments: # 1 Coffman Affidavit, # 2 Hosteny Affidavit)(Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

07/27/2011 27 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants by Amicus Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Responses due by 8/15/2011 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Harris, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
In #25, the MTD, the defendants attempt to restate the question of carry as one of only concealed carry and not carry in general. Assuming arguendo, that some form of public carry is within the scope of the 2A, IL laws still satisfy means-end rationality and are therefore constitutional. Public Carry does not implicate the "core" right to possess and carry within the home.

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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 4, 2011, 04:18 PM   #29
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 4, 2011, 10:04 PM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
The hearing appears to have went well today. Post #146 from:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...c=26176&st=120

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abolt243
OK,

Here's a brief rundown on the happenings in court today. I'll let those that took copious notes address specifics if they wish. I'll just give you my perception and understanding of the hearing. Our side was well represented by Attorneys Jensen and Sigale. Mr. Jensen presented the plaintiff's case to the Judge and answered her questions. The state was represented by two attorneys, I believe one was named Simpson, but I didn't catch the name of the other.

A couple of thier points: They hit real hard on the "in the home" theory of Heller, and interjected comments about Old English law and the fact that it restricted carry of weapons outside the home. They also pointed out that \if the UUW and AUUW laws are stricken from the books, then IL will be left with no method to regulate carry. They also claimed to have studies that showed that relaxed laws on carry of weapons actually INCREASED crime and illegal use of weapons. The biggest gaffe of the day, and one that raised Todd right out of his seat (to his credit, he said not a word, at least not while court was in session) was the statement by the state's counsel that there were no firearm manufacturers in the state of IL!! Guess they've never heard of Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory, et. al.!!

Mr. Jensen countered the above arguments with: repetition of the words "such as" in the home, as well as reference to other sections of Heller that reference carry in case of confrontation. Old English law actually restricted carry of "unusual weapons", not necessarily all weapons, and was superceded by 19th century law. He emphasised that the point of this case was not to write a new carry law or to tell the legilslature how to regulate carry, but simply to let the state know that the current law is unconstitutional. And the fact that removal of present law would leave the subject unregulated was no reason to continue with the unconstitutional law. I believe that after the hearing was over, Todd buttonholed the attorney for the defendants and named at least half of the 65+ firearm manufacturers in this state. I'll bet they don't make that mistake again!!

One revelation that was made early in the hearing. When discussing transportation and carry of firearms, the judge mentioned that she transported HER firearm broken down and encased! So, in spite of her political history, she's a firearm owner and is somewhat aware of firearm laws in the state. Mr Jensen did mention that as he traveled across the country from the west back to his home in NY and came across the river into IL, he had to stop in MO and disarm before entering the state.

All in all a good hearing. Some points came to light that we weren't aware of. In conversation with Mr Jensen and Mr. Sigale afterwards, they were very upbeat about the way the hearing went, they would still not be surprised or dissapointed if we receive an unfavorable ruling in this court. In their words, "it's going on up the judicial ladder one way or the other, we just as well move it as quickly as possible". As to when we might expect a ruling: Judge Myerscough didn't believe that she could reach a decision by tomorrow, but promised an answer as quickly as possible. In my humble opinion, we might get a decision next week, which will be at light speed in judicial time!!

To the others that were there, please fill in the blanks, correct me where I've misrepresented anything. In Molly's word's, "It was a good day!"

I typed this while Molly posted. Funny how she can say the same thing in a lot fewer words.


AB
I'm waiting for Don Gwinn (very active over at IllinoisCarry and is Staff Emeritus, here) to make his post on the hearing. That ought to be interesting an informative.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 4, 2011, 11:09 PM   #31
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
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.
Davey is offline  
Old August 5, 2011, 12:09 AM   #32
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
Update by Don Gwinn regarding today's hearing...

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...c=26176&st=160

Quote:
Sorry this took so long, everyone. I've been dealing with some of my real-life alter ego's family commitments, I'm on call tonight, and there are news reporters looking for grist for the mill.

By the way, WCIA News Channel 3 out of Champaign says they plan to lead tonight's 10:00 newscast with a story on the hearing, and their reporter is interviewing Illinois Carry's own Michael Moore (No, not THAT Michael Moore.) If you can tune in Channel 3/49, you might want to watch. I can't . . . . but they'll probably have a clip on the web at http://www.illinoishomepage.net if you can find it.

So . . . the hearing.

I arrived at the courthouse a little early and surrendered my laptop and cell phone to security. Oops. Luckily I had a pad of post-it notes with me as backup. On the other side of the metal detectors, I found Molly and Mr. Molly, Abolt, and TVandermyde waiting for our attorneys to escort us to the court room. The security staff took pity on us after a few more minutes and gave us directions, which was just as well since the attorneys were busy upstairs. In the courtroom, the state's attorneys and the court workers chatted amiably, but no one seemed to know where the plaintiffs' attorneys were, including us. Once the courtroom staffers had begun looking up phone numbers, someone suggested that they check the attorneys' conference room, and sure enough, there they were.

Judge Sue Myerscough is a familiar name around Springfield. Like a lot of judges, you hear her name but I don't know a whole lot about her. I've never heard her associated with any outright scandals, though she's been nominated to the federal court where she now sits more than once, starting with Bill Clinton, and withdrew her name at least once. Today she did a good job of keeping things moving along and seemed to ask good questions.

David Sigale and David Jensen appeared for Moore/SAF/Illinois Carry; some members will know Sigale from SAFR events and the MacDonald case. Jensen has family in southern Illinois but practices in New York; he's on his way home across country from a western vacation. Jensen presented the arguments; he pointed out to the judge in passing that he has a CCW in New York and that Illinois is the only place that required him to disarm along his entire route across the country and back.

Attorneys Terence Corrigan and a man I believe was named Simpson appeared on behalf of Madigan and Illinois. More on them later.

Mr. Jensen consistently argued that the case has one central issue: is the right to keep and bear arms, as the state has argued, really limited to a citizen's home or private property? Or does it extend out into public? If the right is confined to the home, then Illinois doesn't infringe it by prohibiting carry outside the home. The state has been trying to argue that they only regulate "time, place, or manner" of carry, significant language, but Jensen dismissed that argument. Moreover, he argued, Heller did not limit the right to the home, nor did MacDonald, nor did the 7th Circuit in Ezell. Judge Myerscough let Jensen say his piece, then lobbed questions at him at a leisurely pace. Judge Myerscough did stop Jensen at one point and point out that Illinois must allow carry outside the home because, as she put it:

Quote
"I know I've had my gun in the car, broken down, in a case . . . "

This, along with Judge Myerscough's disclosure that she used to be an English teacher, endeared her to me somewhat. Did you notice the inconsequential but interesting detail, there? She says she had her gun broken down and in a case--more than the law requires. Does that mean she's extra careful, or does that mean that even judges born in Illinois aren't really clear on Illinois law when it comes to transporting firearms?

I made notes on four questions Judge Myerscough asked Attorney Jensen. I'll only use quotes where I think I have the question accurately noted, but any errors are mine:

1. "Mr. Jensen, what am I to do in light of Ezell? The panel in Ezell was bound to follow stare decisis and they didn't . . . so what is stare decisis for me in this case?"
Basically, the judge was complaining here that it isn't clear to her whose guidance she should follow. She seems to be saying that the Ezell panel overstepped by deciding which level of scrutiny to use despite the fact that the Supreme Court has not decided that issue (she alludes to SCOTUS more directly later on.) Jensen answered that the Ezell panel decided correctly and that their use of strict scrutiny was appropriate (I'm really paraphrasing from memory here, as I have no notes on that.)

2. "Mr. Jensen, is Peruta your best case?"
Jensen answered that Peruta is "the most on-point of the decisions to come out so far, but not the best case" because the issue is so different. Peruta is discussed here; it's the case in which San Diego was sued over their may-issue CCW requirements, and the court issued a summary judgment that the sheriffs' office had not burdened "the core right to keep a firearm in your own home" by making CCW permits harder to get. Since Jensen is arguing that Illinois completely prohibits carry, there's a clear difference there. The judge accepted his response without argument and moved on . . . hard to say what that meant, at least for a layman like me.

3. "Mr. Jensen, the Supreme Court has not handed down a standard of scrutiny to be applied in a case like this, so what standard do I apply?"
Jensen responded that the judge should look to the Ezell decision, in which the panel used strict scrutiny because they concluded that the "core of the right" was being infringed. However, he added (and it did my heart good to hear it) that NO standard is actually necessary--no scrutiny is necessary at all, because Illinois completely prohibits the practice of the right, and that's forbidden on its face. It's "more than a mere burden" and so scrutiny is unnecessary.

4. "Mr. Jensen, Ezell was decided on strict scrutiny. Skoien wasn't. How do I resolve that? What do I do with that?"
[i]Skoien is discussed here and there's a very good overview here complete with discussion of the levels of scrutiny. Jensen explained that U.S. v Skoien was decided using intermediate scrutiny, but did not establish that level of scrutiny as appropriate for 2nd Amendment cases in general, and certainly not for this case. Skoien was not a law-abiding individual and possession by felons or people convicted of certain crimes is not protected.
In other words, Skoien is not binding precedent in this case . . . . and again, when a right is completely denied, no scrutiny is necessary; the court can simply overturn the statute because it's unconstitutional on its face.
Davey is offline  
Old August 5, 2011, 02:40 AM   #33
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
Part 2 of Don Gwinn's update of Thursday's hearing...

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...c=26176&st=164

Quote:
When Jensen had finished answering the judge's questions, it was time for Illinois' attorneys to present their case. They split the case, with Mr. Simpson presenting the historical argument and Mr. Corrigan presenting the legal arguments. Simpson began by stating that, more or less, "This case is not about whether gun regulations are a good idea or a bad idea, whether they're good policy or bad policy." This turned out to be the beginning of a pattern of contradiction, as he and Mr. Corrigan then proceeded to argue largely that Illinois' gun "regulation" (remember that they need to establish that Illinois doesn't actually prohibit carry, but only "regulates the place, times and manner" in which weapons can be carried) is a good idea and that striking it down would have bad social consequences.

Anyway, Simpson argued essentially that Heller's consideration of the intent and public understanding of the 19th century (when the 14th Amendment was written) was misplaced, as SCOTUS should instead have considered the intent and public understanding at the time of the founding. Since that understanding would have come from English common law, and since the British government recognized a right to keep firearms in the home but not a right to be armed in public (Britain had prohibitions on "riding or going armed in public places") the right to keep and bear arms can only be a right to own firearms in the home. Obviously, this seems to play to Jensen's argument--Simpson didn't use the words "right to keep and bear arms," but notice how jarring it is when I write it there? The right to keep and bear arms was intended only to protect a right in the home? That's hard to resolve. Simpson further pointed out that there were conflicting cases and even regulations prohibiting carry in various states and territories in the late 19th century, and therefore nothing was done which "changes the founders' intent." Simpson did not explain what that intent was, and the judge asked him no questions, but he strongly implied that "the founders' intent" was to prohibit the carrying of arms. That seemed like a tough sell. Simpson also repeated the argument that Illinois allows citizens to carry firearms outside the home "under certain circumstances."
It was hard to tell what Myerscough thought of these arguments, and she asked no questions.

Next, Mr. Corrigan presented the state's legal case. Mr. Corrigan stated that he would show that the plaintiffs had not met their burden (remember, this was a hearing for a preliminary injunction, so the burden is higher--the plaintiffs have to show that they're very likely to win on the merits, that they would be done "irreparable harm" if the right in question were denied, and that the injunction would not cause serious harms or that the harms balance.) Obviously, Mr. Jensen was arguing that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail because, well, "because 'bear arms'" to quote Jalopnik. And he argues that irreparable harm is a given when a constitutional right is denied . . . and that 49 other states already allow carry with no serious problems, so harm caused by allowing carry is unlikely. For his part, Corrigan then needed to show either that those aren't the important questions, or that there's no right to carry that's being denied, or that there's no irreparable harm caused by denying the right, or that harm would likely be done if the court overturned the ban. This is where Mr. Corrigan started to wander a little; he didn't seem sure of his ground and jumped around quite a bit.

Corrigan argued that "plaintiffs want injunctive relief that would apply beyond the plaintiffs themselves" and "the court is not authorized to grant relief beyond the plaintiffs." Presumably this means that since an injunction against the ban would benefit you and me, not just Mr. Moore, or perhaps even because wouldn't benefit only SAF or Illinois Carry members, the scope would be too broad. I don't see how that can be, and in any case, the injunction in Ezell did exactly that, overturning the ban on ranges for everyone in Chicago, not just for the plaintiffs. Maybe there's a legal rationale for that, but I can't figure out the logic in arguing that someone is not entitled to relief if someone else would benefit from it as well.

Corrigan further argued that no irreparable harm is caused by the ban on carrying firearms, and went on to argue that Ezell actually held that ranges are necessary only because the lack of ranges "impinges" (he chose that word carefully, taking back the word "burdens" to use it instead) the "right to use firearms in the home." (Notice that once again his entire argument hinges on the premise that Heller and MacDonald limited the right to keep and bear arms to a right to keep arms in the home.) Remember that Jensen had argued that irreparable harm is to be assumed if a right is actually denied.

Corrigan tried to distance this case from Ezell by saying that Ezell dealt with a "facial challenge" to the ban on ranges in Chicago, while Moore consists of an "as applied" challenge. I'm no expert and not qualified to evaluate that, but it seems to me that Jensen had made the argument that since Illinois' ban completely bans carry aside from hunting, it's unconstitutional on its face.

This where Corrigan went off the rails a little in my opinion. The judge wasn't asking questions or really giving him a lot of cues or even eye contact, and he floundered a little and seemed to reach for something to say. He argued that the plaintiffs "ignore balancing by saying that there is no harm" in striking down the ban because 49 other states allow carry, but that "repudiates federalism by saying that the legislature in one state must follow the legislatures of all the others." If you're thinking that this is way off, as saying that the court wouldn't likely cause harm by doing X is clearly NOT the same as arguing that the legislature must do X, well, I agree. It's not the weirdest thing he said, though.

Forgetting that he and his co-counsel had actually stated that "this case is not about whether any gun regulation is good or bad," he proceeded to make a series of arguments that Illinois' ban is good for society and striking it would result in bad consequences. The plaintiffs, he noted, had written in our brief that the question is purely legal--is there a right to carry arms, and is it being infringed in Illinois?--and that there was no need to argue about the "consequences to society" either way.
"In other words," he translated, "to hell with with the public, they're entitled to their guns, no matter how much death and bloodshed results." It's a good thing the case wasn't about good or bad policy results, because otherwise some appeals to emotion might have snuck in there. . . .

In the same vein, Corrigan continued with the argument that Ezell had balanced the harms better: "Ezell didn't find that residents could just go out and set up targets in their back yards and start blasting away. That's the equivalent of what the plaintiffs want!" This was part of his argument that since the state does not have a statute to regulate carry (because carry is banned--an odd thing to bring up if you're trying to argue that the state is only regulating carry, not banning it) the statute cannot be overturned, or anarchy will reign supreme. I'm not going to bother explaining what I thought of that line to Illinois Carry members; I'm sure you all know. Corrigan further argued that striking down the ban would mean that anyone with a FOID card could "carry at any time, in any place, and in any manner that they choose, without regard to age, mental illness, etc." He pointed out that there have been cases in which people who have been convicted of federal violations have had FOID cards issued (a reference to some people with domestic violence convictions who had rights restored and the like.) This was the context in which Corrigan stated that all firearms in Illinois are obtained through interstate commerce, since there are no firearms manufacturers in the state. I pride myself on not being that yokel rolling his eyes and snorting in a courtroom, but I think I let a little air out when he said that. We all did, and in the near-empty courtroom I'm sure the judge noticed. . . . hope we didn't annoy her, but it was a surprise.
Corrigan claimed to have evidence that violent crime and deaths would increase if people were allowed to carry firearms in Illinois, especially if the ban were struck down and anyone with a FOID card could carry anywhere, any time, any way. "The plaintiffs talk about 49 other states, but no other state allows that." Obviously he missed Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska and Arizona, as well as states where permits are about as easy to get as a FOID, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Like Simpson, Mr. Corrigan finished by trailing off and trying to elicit questions from the judge. I don't have notes on any questions she asked him, and I don't believe she did ask any, but don't quote me on that. Once he was done, the judge asked Jensen to rebut. Jensen reiterated his basic argument--Heller found a right to keep and bear arms, Heller did NOT limit that right to the home, that right is being denied in Illinois, and thus an injunction is appropriate. Then he turned to Corrigan's argument that striking down the statute would result in children and madmen shooting it out in the streets. DC responded to Heller with a new ordinance, he pointed out, and Chicago made the same "regulatory vacuum" argument in MacDonald, but then passed a new ordinance within four days. In the Ezell case, they did it again, then passed a new ordinance a day before the decision. Besides, Jensen argued, there is always a regulatory vacuum where a right has been denied. By that logic, the schools in Topeka would still be segregated, because Brown vs. Board of Education couldn't have ordered desegregation--the district would simply have argued that integrating the races in their schools would be complicated, that they didn't have regulations in place, and could have kept arguing that indefinitely. At some point the court has to tell the state that they have to stop denying a constitutional right even if that means that they will need to pass a new law to regulate the practice of that right, and of course, the court would not be telling the legislature that it couldn't pass a new carry law, only that it couldn't be another outright ban.

The judge was complimentary to both sides, at one point telling Jensen, "I only wish the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court had been as explicit and concise as you have been." (As a thoroughly biased gun nut, of course, I think "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is both explicit and concise, but judges are still apparently allowed to argue that it's all so murky and imprecise that it's hard to tell what vague words like "keep" and "bear" mean.)

The judge noted that there's a lot to read and that much of it had come in late, and she said that the attorneys had introduced new information in their oral arguments that she would need to consider. She warned that she might not have a decision by Friday the 5th as expected. I consider that good news for us; if she's being honest, then her mind was not made up when she walked into the courtroom--and if her mind had been made up at that point, it would have been against us.

Obviously, if she refuses to grant the injunction, we will appeal to the 7th. And if she grants the injunction, the state will appeal. In that sense, it doesn't matter much what she does because she knows that the 7th will decide the issue anyway. But Molly opined, and I think she may be right, "It seemed like she wanted to be careful and make sure she got it right. She gave the impression that she knows she might be overruled, but she doesn't want to know she made a mistake."

Man, I can't believe it took that long to write those two dinky posts. . . . but it did make my shift fly by. I'm going to head off to bed, folks. Goodnight.

By the way, the Channel 3 piece about Mr. Moore was very positive. Good job!
Davey is offline  
Old August 5, 2011, 12:00 PM   #34
C0untZer0
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...
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 6, 2011, 10:36 PM   #35
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 7, 2011, 03:22 PM   #36
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,890
Quote:
By the way, WCIA News Channel 3 out of Champaign says they plan to lead tonight's 10:00 newscast with a story on the hearing, and their reporter is interviewing Illinois Carry's own Michael Moore (No, not THAT Michael Moore.) If you can tune in Channel 3/49, you might want to watch. I can't . . . . but they'll probably have a clip on the web at http://www.illinoishomepage.net if you can find it.
Dang, I was in IL all last week visiting family and I missed that newscast. My grandparents, however, did mention hearing something about a lawsuit over CCW and they routinely watch the Channel 3 News (the majority of my family lives fairly close to Champaign-Urbana), I wonder if one of them saw that broadcast.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old August 7, 2011, 04:42 PM   #37
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 7, 2011, 08:08 PM   #38
C0untZer0
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".
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 7, 2011, 09:11 PM   #39
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
Quote:
I don't want to see a system like there is in California where it's up the Sherrif's dept
HB148 is shall issue. This is the one we're pushing for. HB3794 is a POS may issue bill and is not backed by the NRA at all.
Davey is offline  
Old August 7, 2011, 09:23 PM   #40
C0untZer0
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...
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 8, 2011, 03:43 AM   #41
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
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.
Davey is offline  
Old August 8, 2011, 04:16 AM   #42
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
I'm just wondering how the administration of it will be handled.
It would be great to get a court decision immediately stopping all enforcement against non-prohibited persons. There could be a period of constitutional carry until the bureaucrats could get their ducks in order. Chaos. I tell you! Utter chaos!
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 8, 2011, 05:55 AM   #43
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 852
Mentioned earlier in this thread, Daley asking for bodyguards, he has 8 Police Officers!
Brit is offline  
Old August 8, 2011, 09:18 AM   #44
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 8, 2011, 11:37 AM   #45
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
HB148 has nothing to do with FOID really.
Davey is offline  
Old August 8, 2011, 01:40 PM   #46
C0untZer0
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 !
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 15, 2011, 10:23 PM   #47
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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:
If the right to bear arms exists outside the home, then the State’s motion fails. If the right is homebound, then Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief. Everything turns on this one question.
From the concluding paragraph:

Quote:
The only real question is whether the right to possess and carry weapons for confrontation applies outside the home. Plaintiffs submit that after Heller, the answer to this question is “written on the wall.” A law that prohibits conduct that the Constitution affirmatively protects is (by definition) unconstitutional.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 16, 2011, 05:00 AM   #48
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
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...
Davey is offline  
Old August 16, 2011, 10:39 AM   #49
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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!
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 16, 2011, 11:33 AM   #50
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,890
Quote:
It would be great to get a court decision immediately stopping all enforcement against non-prohibited persons. There could be a period of constitutional carry until the bureaucrats could get their ducks in order.
I wouldn't hold my breath based on the way Chicago (the ones who've been preventing CCW in IL all along) seems to have been doing things. Chicago actually replaced their draconian gun ban with a slightly less draconian set of regulation once the writing was on the wall about McDonald. While Chicago politicians like to drag their feet when the situation suits them, they can also ramrod things through very quickly when they feel they need to. I think that may-issue or even shall-issue is probably preferable to constitutional carry in the eyes of CCW obstructionists like Gov. Quinn and Speaker Madigan (the IL AG is the daughter of the Speaker of the House hence the same last names), so I wouldn't be suprised to see a CCW law passed with lightning speed if it looks like either of these cases isn't going the state's way.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv 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 07:47 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 0.21387 seconds with 8 queries