View Single Post
Old August 4, 2011, 10:04 PM   #30
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,549
The hearing appears to have went well today. Post #146 from:

Originally Posted by Abolt243

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 Old English law actually restricted carry of "unusual weapons", not necessarily all weapons, and was superceded by 19th century law.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.

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  
Page generated in 0.03906 seconds with 7 queries