The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 12, 2011, 10:32 PM   #101
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
OK, it's December now...

Do the courts shut down soon for the Christmas holiday?

If Judge Sue Myerscough hasn't delivered a verdict by now does that mean we won't get one until January at the earliest?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old December 15, 2011, 11:15 AM   #102
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
A transcript of the Injunction proceedings in Moore v. Madigan has been made available. You download it here.

It's a very good argument by David Jensen. Given the time the court is taking in ruling on the PI, my guess is that the court is trying to write an opinion that twists the facts to the favor of Illinois. I hope I'm wrong, but this seems to be the trend.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 03:42 AM   #103
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Well my favorite part so far is when Jensen says, in response to the state's assertion that "There's suggestion that the rate of firearms deaths goes up with public carrying of firearms."

Quote:
"I am loath to even go there, but to resort to statistics is essentially impertinent. This is a court of law, not a court of social science."
I'm certainly biased but it seems that the state has problems with contradictions - the one being that they started their argument by saying "This case is not about whether gun regulations are a good or a bad idea." But then they later argue that gun regulations are a good thing and allowing people to carry is a "bad" thing that has significant societal costs.

I also felt that Jensen was correct in pointing out the flaw in their argument referencing 19th Centruy English law... When the 2nd Amemdment was in part a response to England's attempt to disarm the colonies in the first place. And also pointing out that further analysis of 19th century English law should not be undertaken by the lower courts since the Supreme Court has already done the definitive analysis of it in the Heller decision.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 4, 2012, 10:40 AM   #104
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
The decision is out in Moore v. Madigan.

Quote:
2012-02-03 38 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Dismiss; denying 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 13 Motion for Permanent Injunction; ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/3/2012. (CT, ilcd) (CT, ilcd). (Entered: 02/03/2012)
2012-02-03 39 JUDGMENT in favor of Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan against Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Illinois Carry, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Peggy Fechter (CT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
2012-02-03 40 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 38 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, by Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Illinois Carry, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0753-1306898. (Jensen, David) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
Judge Sue Myerscough gives lip service to the historical approach and then proceeds to cite every district court case that has failed. She then proceeded to find that everyones right to self defense stops at the threshold of your house.

The convolutions the Judge uses to deny the defense of self is staggering, but also was expected.

As the district courts have shown, not only is the collective rights theory alive and well within the judiciary, but that the Supreme Court is indeed, the Court of First Resort, in all matters 2A.

David Jensen immediately appealed not only the denial of the PI, but also the dismissal of the suit.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 4, 2012, 12:32 PM   #105
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
It's really dissapointing also in that it seems to affect the Illinois Leglislature.

Re-introducing HB148 was sort of stalled awaiting the outcome of this and the Shepard case.

If we would have gotten a favorable decision, Illinois HB 148 would probably be called for consideration this month. Since we didn't, I'm thinking we might not see HB148 until after the election.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 4, 2012, 03:14 PM   #106
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,835
Dear Lord, so do we then have a new "Right to Armed Protection" like her and other Chicago "elite and royalty"?
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 5, 2012, 01:57 AM   #107
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Despite Heller's individual right separate from the militia clause, last time I checked, the militia is still the only stated purpose in the amendment. Are we to believe the amendment was written for only indoor militias? I suppose so.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 10:45 PM   #108
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
McDonald v. Chicago? What the win looks like!



The official docketing of the appeal;
Quote:
02/06/2012 42 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 40[RECAP] Notice of Appeal, filed by Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Charles Hooks, Michael Moore, Illinois Carry, Peggy Fechter. USCA Case Number 12-1269 (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
And over at the 7th CCA;
Quote:
02/06/2012 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee paid. Transcript information sheet due by 02/21/2012. Docketing Statement due for Appellants Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated by 02/10/2012. Appellant's brief due on or before 03/19/2012 for Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore and Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. [1] [6372098] [12-1269] (AD)
Boy, the Week of March 19 is going to be a busy one (9th CCA - Nordyke; 10th CCA - Peterson)!!
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 01:59 AM   #109
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Thanks, Rahm!
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 12:54 PM   #110
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I'm a little bit dissapointed that Daley's signature is not on that check...

The entire thing happened under Daley, Rahm just happened to be in office when the checks were cut.

The citizens in Oak Park are still demanding to know how much the MacDonald case cost the villlage.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 13, 2012, 09:39 PM   #111
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Motion in Shepard case to cite Moore as supplemental authority

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....52207.55.0.pdf

Basically defendants / State of Illinois asking Judge Stiehl to adopt Judge Myerscough's ruling in Moore v Madigan
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 13, 2012, 11:28 PM   #112
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
The supplemental authority cited above, was filed on Mon, Feb 6th. On Wed, Feb 8th, the NRA responded with a rebuttal, which is here. It is short and sweet, so I'm reproducing it, below:

Quote:
Now come Plaintiffs who respond to Defendants' Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 55) as follows:

1. As Defendants note, in Moore v. Madigan, No. 11-cv-03134 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2012), the Central District of Illinois granted the State's motion to dismiss a Second Amendment challenge to the same Illinois statutes banning public carriage of firearms at issue in this case. Moore does not, however, add anything of substance to Defendants' case.

2. The principal basis for the Moore Court's decision is its sweeping conclusion that "individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home." Moore, Slip. Op. at 47. This conclusion finds no support in the text of the Second Amendment or in history. See Doc. No.40 at 6-13.

3. In reaching its erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment is limited to the home, Moore asserts that the Supreme Court has not "explicitly recognized a general right to carry firearms in public." Slip. Op. at 28. Supreme Court precedent does, however, speak directly to the meaning of the right to "bear arms" in public subject to regulation, such as involving sensitive places. See Doc. No. 40 at 13-15. At any rate, the fact that the Supreme Court has left an issue not wholly decided does not relieve a lower court of the duty to face that issue squarely when properly presented in a case before it. See id. at 15-16.

4. As an alternative ground for its holding, Moore asserts that Illinois's public carriage ban satisfies intermediate scrutiny. See Slip. Op. at 39-43, 47. As an initial matter, Illinois's ban must be evaluated either pursuant to the textual and historical approach employed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), or strict scrutiny (both of which it fails), not intermediate scrutiny. See Doc. No. 40 at 17-18. Furthermore, Moore is incorrect in concluding that the ban can survive even intermediate scrutiny. See id. at 18-20.

5. In sum, Plaintiffs have already amply demonstrated in prior briefing to this Court why the conclusions reached by Moore are in error.
In case you didn't quite understand that, in 5 short paragraphs, the NRA just shredded the Moore decision.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 14, 2012, 01:08 AM   #113
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,326
So why can't they say it plainly and forceably?

Like so:

The US Supreme Court does not grant new civil rights as cases appear. They protect civil rights which in turn are protected by the Bill Of Rights, Constitution and other documents and rulings.

The Bill Of Rights took effect in 1792. No reasonable government official of 1793 would assume that since the US Supreme Court had not yet made rulings related to the Bill Of Rights in any detail, torturing a confession out of somebody would be constitutional.

That is exactly what the Moore court has ruled: since the US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on "bearing arms", no constitutional right to "bear arms" exists, even though any possible reading shows the same group of people must possess both the right to "keep" and "bear" arms and no scholarly authority has ever tried to differenciate the two.

---

How simple is that?
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old February 29, 2012, 09:47 PM   #114
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Article by Bob Barr in the Daily Caller on the Moore decision:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/fe...ndment-rights/

It didn't stike me until I just read it that Mysercough is a lifetime appointee.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old March 6, 2012, 05:27 PM   #115
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Opening brief was filed last Friday, but corrected on Saturday.

At 115 pages, I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Moore v Madigan CCA7 Opening Brief.pdf (834.9 KB, 29 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 7, 2012, 10:06 PM   #116
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Wow, that's quite a read.

I don't know if I'm just biased, but I can't understand how Judge Myerscough could have ruled as she did.

SCOTUS has identified and clarified that 2nd Amendment Rights exist - in Heller and MacDonald. The state cannot have an interest in the wholesale prohibition of a constitutional right.

Illinois has been given three clear examples that broad outright bans are unconstitutional first in Heller, then MacDonald and then Ezell.

Then along comes Sue Mysercough who utilized the most convulted and self-contradictory logic possible to approve a virtually identical ban codified in state law.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old March 8, 2012, 05:42 PM   #117
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
OK. The actual brief was only 61 pages. The rest of the brief was an appendix: District Court Opinion and Judgment.

So what was in the 61 relevant pages? Pretty much what we should expect.

The first 18 pages entails on how Judge Myerscough erred in her opinion and judgment. The rest is devoted to the historical evidence that carry, in whatever form, is part and parcel of the core right to self defense.

Quote:
3. The District Court’s Decision

The District Court began its analysis of the merits by opining that “neither the United States Supreme Court nor any United States Court of Appeals has recognized” a right to carry handguns in public for self-defense. SA 14. It then opined that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is limited to its facts of having a gun at home. SA 16.

Curiously, the District Court then cited this Court’s holding that “the Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates . . . were left open.” SA 17 (quoting United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc)) (emphasis added). The District Court asserted that McDonald applied against state actors “the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense.” SA 17.

The District Court then offered that this Court’s opinion in Ezell “did not make a finding regarding the scope of the Second Amendment outside of the home.” SA 19. And Ezell’s citation to Skoien’s observation that “one of” the Second Amendment’s rights is the right to having arms at home was said by the lower court to “support[] the conclusion that the Second Amendment right, as recognized by the Supreme Court, does not extend outside of the home.” Id. The District Court confirmed its conclusion with citation to a number of opinions that similarly limited the Second Amendment. SA 19-22.

The District Court found that assuming that the Second Amendment secures rights outside the home, such rights would warrant no more than intermediate scrutiny. SA 38. The District Court then balanced any public Second Amendment right out of existence by finding that completely prohibiting the carrying of guns for self-defense is substantially related to the government’s asserted public safety interest. SA 42. Denial of Plaintiffs’ motion, and the granting of Defendants’ motion, followed directly from this determination of the constitutional merits.
The above is an accurate, if somewhat simplistic, stating of the actions of the court below. Since the appeal is on the nature of the MTD and the denial of the injunction, the 7th circuits review of Myerscough's decision will be De Novo.

That means that the 7th circuit panel will review all the facts of the case as if for the first time. And those facts (the historical record) are laid out in much detail. In one brief, David Sigale has laid out almost the entire record that was originally in many of the amici to Heller.

If you want to brush up on your history of applicable judicial cites, this brief is an excellent study. David Sigale is excellent when it comes to this sort of thing.

I have to mention that it is becoming harder to distinguish the writings of David Sigale and David Jensen from that of Alan Gura. Sigale appears to be the researcher, while Jensen is the firebrand. They are both being tempered by the wordsmithing abilities of their associate, Alan Gura. I may be wrong in my assumptions, here, but after reading all of their pleadings, we are experiencing another Gura first - Team-Building.

This is a distinct, "Good Thing."
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 8, 2012, 08:27 PM   #118
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
The 7th Cir has 4 Reagan appointees, 3 Bush /combo appointees, 2 Clinton and 1 Obama appointee.

After the Judge Myerscough debacle I'm beginning to think that the only thing that matters is their political view / what party they belong to.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old March 8, 2012, 09:39 PM   #119
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 673
Bingo.

For upcoming elections I want a list of gun friendly people in Illinois that are up for election.

Most of the time there are too many judges and most people including myself do not know what they stand for.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old March 8, 2012, 10:22 PM   #120
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Does anyone have a good bead on Mary Jane Theis's(running for Illinois Supreme court) judicial record or public statements about the second amendment?
Patriot86 is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 08:18 AM   #121
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Todd Vandermyde would know.

If the info isn't already present on the forum somewhere you could post a thread under Illinois Politics:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=6
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old March 11, 2012, 06:27 PM   #122
Jolly Rogers
Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36
Quote:
I'm a little bit dissapointed that Daley's signature is not on that check...

The entire thing happened under Daley, Rahm just happened to be in office when the checks were cut.

The citizens in Oak Park are still demanding to know how much the MacDonald case cost the villlage.
I can only think of two other people that I would like to sign that check. Obama and/or Holder. Rahm works for me though.
I hope the significance of it gets through to the Chicago politicos.
Joe
Jolly Rogers is offline  
Old March 12, 2012, 11:36 PM   #123
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
The Chicago Tribune did a rundown of the current cases in Illinois:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3566633.story
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old March 15, 2012, 05:04 PM   #124
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 673
Great link. That is what I wanted to see.


Now for the upcoming elections on the 20th I believe...

I need to make a list of all those that will help out the above cases.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old April 2, 2012, 08:04 PM   #125
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Last Friday, Judge Stiehl dismissed the NRA lawsuit, Sheppard v. Madigan. Today, the NRA backed attorneys filed their Notice of Appeal. The Docket is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....07.docket.html

The document is literally signed by one of their attorneys!

Quote:
BY: s/William N. Howard
One of Their Attorneys
And I have wondered why they didn't notice Woollard, Weaver or Bateman to the court??!!
Al Norris 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 06:21 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 0.20162 seconds with 8 queries