The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 15, 2011, 03:30 PM   #76
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Kalchalsky is a carry case. It is a carry case that involves the discretionary issuing of a carry permit.

In Moore (and also Shepard), the issue isn't about a discretionary issuance of a permit. The issue is a complete ban on carrying an operational defensive firearm in any form (open or concealed).

In his reply to the notice, Attorney Jensen simply states that the decision in Kalchalsky has no bearing whatsoever on the issues facing the court in Moore. David Jensen goes even further. He is saying that if this is all the State has, then he welcomes the States Notice of Supplemental Authority, as it bolsters his own case against the State of Illinois.

He's right. The State, by submitting this case as an authority is implicitly acknowledging that the State has no permit and that there is in fact a complete ban on exercising a fundamental right.

In the case of Palmer and Woollard, Alan Gura has shown how the Kalchalsky decision flies in the face of historical analysis as commanded by the Supreme Court in Heller and the 7th Circuit in Ezell.

The Judge in Kalchalsky was very stupid. She let her emotions and bias override her judicial demeanor. We have seen this in some of the past decisions at district court, but never to this extent.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 10:56 AM   #77
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Thanks for the clarification.

Sometimes very bad decisions by a court are the seeds for landmark rulings later on by a higher court.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 17, 2011, 10:06 AM   #78
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
In Shepard v. Madigan (NRA case), we've had cross-motions for summary judgment hanging around and a motion for a preliminary injunction, just sitting out there. On 9/2, the defendants filed a Motion to Defer a Ruling on the Existing MSJ.

This motion says that the State needs time to effect Discovery... Since the entire suit "is a pure issue of law that requires no discovery", discovery is a stall tactic. Go back and see what happened in Benson and you'll see what Madigan is trying to do.

Yesterday, the plaintiffs filed their Response to Motion to Defer Ruling.

This is a 4 page brief, in which the plaintiffs NRA/Shepard is calling out the defendants stalling tactics.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 17, 2011, 10:39 AM   #79
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 679
"And in their Motion to Defer Ruling on Summary Judgment, Defendants
expressly state that the Court may decide this Second Amendment question “without the use of
extrinsic evidence.” Doc. No. 47 at ¶ 3 (emphasis added)."

Duh ... Defendants expressly state the error in their Motion to Defer, i.e., the court may decide the issue of law without the use of extrinsic evidence of facts, but please give us some months (years?) to find that evidence the court doesn't need.

__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old September 17, 2011, 10:23 PM   #80
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I know this is unrelated, but to think that my tax dollars go to pay the salaries of such inept, incompetent bungling boobs...

I guess though that for me as a citizen desiring to fully exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights, it's to my advantage that the state is rife with ineffectual lawyers.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 21, 2011, 12:57 PM   #81
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
What is the difference between Shepard v Madigan and Moore v Madigan?

Don't courts usually roll similar cases like these into one case?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 21, 2011, 01:23 PM   #82
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Other than some cosmetic differences?

Moore is a SAF/Gura case filed in the Central District and is being argued mostly on a point of law. Sheppard is a NRA case filed in the Southern District and has a more emotional argument.

But because they are filed in different districts, they can not be combined.

Now should a (bad) decision be reached in both cases at more or less the same time, then expect them to be combined at the Circuit level, on appeal.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 07:33 AM   #83
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
If Moore v Madigan overturns current IL state gun laws and the State legislature doesn't pass some kind of new regulations in a timely manner - what happens?

I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?

What would happen?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 08:07 AM   #84
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
If Moore v Madigan overturns current IL state gun laws and the State legislature doesn't pass some kind of new regulations in a timely manner - what happens?

I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?

What would happen?

I imagine at the very least you would have the County of Cook or City of Chicago(or both) pass some sort of ad-hoc ordnance. That aside, unrestricted CCW In Illinois, I have had dreams like that....
Patriot86 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 07:50 PM   #85
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
what happens if Myerscough overturns current IL gun laws?

If Moore v Madigan overturns current IL state gun laws and the State legislature doesn't pass some kind of new regulations in a timely manner - what happens?

I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?

What would happen?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 07:51 PM   #86
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
Quote:
If Moore v Madigan overturns current IL state gun laws and the State legislature doesn't pass some kind of new regulations in a timely manner - what happens?

I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?

What would happen?
As was just stated cook and chicago would pass restrictive may/shall not issue permiting laws.
Davey is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 10:45 PM   #87
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
The pro-gun legislators tried to pass 148 and couldn't.

If Myerscough rules Illinois law unconstitutional. Then the anti-gun legislators will suddenly want to pass some kind of legislation. But at that point - all the pro-gun legislators have to do is say "screw you" And after a time - Illinois gun laws can not be enforced - so it reverts to constitutonal carry (I beleive).
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 18, 2011, 10:47 PM   #88
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Isn't Illinois like one of the last hot spots in the country for the NRA to focus on? I mean - there's New Jersey, California, NYC... But wouldn't Illinois be one of the NRA's top priorities now?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 01:40 PM   #89
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
This was initially posted in the Current 2A Cases thread, but it bears repeating here.

Quote:
Then there is something going on with the Moore v. Madigan, Il carry case. From the Docket:

Quote:
11/02/2011 35 TEXT ORDER: The Court has received a letter in reference to this case that it has forwarded by United States Postal Service mail to the Parties. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/2/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)

11/02/2011 36 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNREDACTED Letter. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
According to Krucam (MDShooters), the highlighting you see above is just what was found at PACER. Something is shaking in this case, we just don't know what. Yet.
A question I have is that in all the cases I've been watching for these past 2+ years, I have never encountered anything like this PACER entry. Note that the link to item #36 leads to a page that simply says that no file is available.

Can any of our attorneys proffer an explanation of what might be going on?
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 02:40 PM   #90
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
I looked at the docket and even consulted with another attorney here in our office (who used to clerk for a federal judge). I don't know what's going on, but the only other sealed documents in the docket are summons, which probably contain Madigan's home address. This thing appears to be a letter, but there's no indication of who sent the letter, or what personal information it might contain. If anyone wants to make a quick call to the court, the clerk should at least be able to provide some general information on what it is and why it's sealed.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 05:22 PM   #91
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Maybe the State of Illinois decided to capitulate; that it's not worth fighting this anymore.....and maybe you will see a Republican Mayor of Chicago too but hey anything can happen.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 05:23 PM   #92
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
On first blush, the "letter" appears to have come from an outside source directed to the Court (Judge Myerscough). So whatever else this may be, it pertains only the SAF/Moore case and not the (almost identical) NRA/Sheppard case (nothing in that docket even remotely similar).

Which only brings up more questions....
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 3, 2011, 11:03 PM   #93
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,609
I doubt the letter just contains isolated personal information such as an address or social security number. Typically, these are simply redacted before filing. The letter might not even be related to the merits of the case. It could, for example, contain a threat of some sort. I have no reason to believe it is. I'm just pointing out how speculative this can get.
__________________
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 November 4, 2011, 08:48 AM   #94
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
KyJim, you're right about all that. It is also ordinarily the responsibility of counsel to redact documents before submission. What I've suggested is speculative, but I'll see if I can find some time today to call the court and see what's going on. (No guarantees, though, as I have a very busy day in front of me.)
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 4, 2011, 05:46 PM   #95
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Not that the judge was moving along quickly or anything but does this delay the ruling ?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 4, 2011, 10:51 PM   #96
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,609
Quote:
Not that the judge was moving along quickly or anything but does this delay the ruling ?
That's impossible to say since we hardly know anything about the letter.
__________________
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 November 5, 2011, 07:45 AM   #97
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
Unfortunately, I did not get around to calling the court on Friday.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 8, 2011, 10:15 PM   #98
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
On the Illinois carry forum people have speculated that someone wrote the judge directly.

Maybe it was someone who was a victim of gun violence and he or she felt the need to wax poetic on the matter.

I hope it wasn't the opposite - a gun nut writing Judge Myerscough to "set her straight".
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 9, 2011, 02:18 PM   #99
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
I hope it wasn't the opposite - a gun nut writing Judge Myerscough to "set her straight".
It is always a shame when people exercise constitutional rights, or at least some seem to want us to believe so....
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; November 10, 2011 at 01:44 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old November 9, 2011, 04:50 PM   #100
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
^ It's my understanding that sending a Judge ex-parte communications in reference to a case can be illegal (in some situations). I could be wrong.

But I'm not getting down on someone for exercising constitutional rights. If they want to file for their permit, and protest on the steps of the courthouse and hold up signs, and give a speech about why the judge should rule one way or the other - that's fine.

I'm all for it.

Yay First Amendment.

But that isn't what happened.
C0untZer0 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 03:39 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 0.24934 seconds with 8 queries