|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 8, 2012, 01:22 PM | #151 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
MP3 of today's oral arguments.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/IS0PEARF.mp3 Three lawyers, Gura, then Cooper for us, than Triebel for the state(spelling?). Those that like looking at train wrecks will be particularly entertained. |
June 8, 2012, 02:26 PM | #152 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Page Cannot be Found.
|
June 8, 2012, 03:23 PM | #153 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
|
June 8, 2012, 04:44 PM | #154 |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Posts: 7
|
yikes
unbelievable. words can not express how i feel about clowns in charge.
just WOW! |
June 8, 2012, 06:24 PM | #155 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
From today's calendar:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/calendar.pdf 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... |
June 8, 2012, 06:25 PM | #156 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
The state's argument (no 2A outside the home) was not being bought by the panel, and Gura/Cooper were pretty much only getting questioned on sensitive place restrictions. That tells me IL's ban is toast-although the panel may say bars and the like can be restricted. But really this sounds like the original IL CCW bill will fit nicely after the hammer is dropped, with its several restrictions but full state pre-emption.
|
June 8, 2012, 06:28 PM | #157 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Wow
Talk about tangents! Their lines of questioning are so off of the heart of the question so often, it's amazing.
Sounds like they aren't big fans of Heller though... |
June 8, 2012, 08:14 PM | #158 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the first part, Judge Posner dominates Gura's time by splitting hairs on the limits to the right. Most particularly, can one carry in liquor stores and bars.
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). I realize the above will not make any friends here, but the right is going to be limited to some extent. By not capitulating to the concerns of the court, Gura did not get to move on to other areas, he may have wished to present. This turns out to be a non-sequitur, as we see, when we get further into the arguments by the State. Charles Cooper's presentation was sorta lackluster in my opinion. It neither helped or hurt. To his credit, Cooper did correctly state what the Act of Northhampton really said and how the crime of affray translates to brandishing weapons today. This was necessary, I feel, as the State's case hinges on this one aspect of English Common Law to prove that carry in the public was forbidden, or in the alternative, heavily restricted. The meat of the orals was the States case and the way the Judges all but ridiculed the State and it's law. Heavy emphasis was given to bearing arms and how Heller expounded upon that word. Several examples were given (by the judges themselves) of how the State made its own citizens defenseless against the criminal element. I'm cautiously optimistic that we will see the Illinois laws ruled unconstitutional. |
June 8, 2012, 10:14 PM | #159 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Unlike the Hightower orals, I am very optimistic now, after listening for the 2nd time this evening. I see a unanimous decision, shortly.
|
June 9, 2012, 04:42 AM | #160 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Agreed Al. The bars question could probably be resolved w/o a 2A challenge. Bars are almost always private property(as well as churches), so a property owner could say they WANT carry on their property and the government has no interest in barring otherwise lawful conduct on private property. The only sticky areas are on government property-specifically those raised in Heller.
|
June 9, 2012, 12:13 PM | #161 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I was puzzled at the amount of time given to the carry-in-bars question. The whole premise of it, however, was that carry is protected outside the home.
Wouldn't the legislature have to create such a law? There would have been no need for it in a state that bans carry totally. As there are several states in which licensed or unlicensed carry is legal in bars, it would seem to be a relatively straightforward inquiry as to the frequency of firearm misuse by licensed or un-prohibited individuals. But to make that inquiry, the legislature wouod have to be truly interested in the answer, and I doubt they are. I always chuckle a bit when the discussion turns to the idea that open carry is best because then "you know what you are dealing with", as I think Judge Posner said. What criminal, bent on nefarious activity, is going to openly carry a weapon? It's laughable. I know a few career LE officers who have taken a lot of guns from criminals, and not one of them has ever caught a criminal with a gun IN A HOLSTER, let alone visible. |
June 9, 2012, 12:54 PM | #162 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
I believe the panel's mind is already made up, and the ban will be struck down. I suppose they're looking for boundaries, although they really don't need to go there. Perhaps they're aware of the IL carry bill that almost got through last year(and I believe didn't allow carry in "bars")?
|
June 9, 2012, 10:24 PM | #163 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
On initial impression, the judges seemed very hostile to a complete ban, but several comments seemed to lead me to think they might go for some sort of intermediate-scrutiny plan. IMO, that would be an improvement, but not a "Big Win" to 2nd Amendment case law. (BIG WIN for IL residents, of course)
|
June 10, 2012, 12:38 AM | #164 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Any clue when we might see a decision?
|
June 10, 2012, 01:02 AM | #165 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'll go out on a limb here and say that it will probably be within 60 days. Could be less, but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if it was much less.
The speed at which this particular appeals has gone forward, suggests that the decision will be just as speedy. |
June 10, 2012, 10:30 AM | #166 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
The last day of the session is August 8th. We are expecting a ruling before then.
|
June 30, 2012, 11:19 AM | #167 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Judge orders a recalculation of fees in NRA case vs Chicago & Oak Park
I couldn't find a recent McDonald thread so I am throwing this in here.
I'm not sure which suit these legal fees pertain to since Alan Gura represented Otis McDonald. Maybe someone can clarify it for me. http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles...equired_to_pay But I think the good thing is that the cities will actually have to pay now. It's a good reminder to the taxpayers at a time when the mayor of Chicago continues to pursue financially risky anti-gun legislation despite recent legal setbacks. |
July 18, 2012, 12:01 PM | #168 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
I predict the court says, "the second ammendment extends outside the home."
Then Mayor Rhambo and Quinn say, "now this doesn't mean you can carry until we pass legislation blah blah blah." Don't be surprised if those boneheads order police to continue to arrest those found to be carrying, even though they know charges will not be filed |
July 18, 2012, 04:50 PM | #169 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
The fun part will be when the 2A people hold the legislation hostage until it is actually reasonable. Payback time...
As for Quinn and Co, It would be fun to see those two spend 6 months in Federal pen for contempt of court. |
July 30, 2012, 03:14 PM | #170 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
The waiting is the hardest part - since for the first time in two decades of fighting for gun rights in Illinois - I really do have my hopes up that we may actually get a shall issue ccw law. Whilst I know that should the complete prohibition on the bearing of arms be overturned by the court (which I am very hopeful will happen) that it will be appealed- I also hope that the preassure of such a decision will force the hands of enough of the anti's to allow passage of a statewide shall issue law. So many have worked so hard for so long to get to this point. I am dying waiting for the decision. A clear win would be such a victory. Sending back to the lower courts another intermitable frustrating delay. And a clear loss a devastating blow. I think I will either be estatic or depressed and angry come August 8th.
|
August 21, 2012, 09:14 AM | #171 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
Three opinions released today. Not one of them was Moore/Shepard. One of them was argued in Nov 2010
|
December 6, 2012, 04:14 PM | #172 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Interesting article from Nortwestern U on possible carry in Illinois
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/...aspx?id=212738
One of the things I noticed was this from Collen Daley, commenting on a possible pro-gun ruling from CA7: Quote:
It's pretty vague, but something has energized the anti-gun politicians in Illinois so they must be taking this rumor seriously. |
|
December 11, 2012, 12:21 PM | #173 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Decision in Moore BIG WIN !
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=12&num=1269
Sorry this looks like a drive-by I'm just so happy |
December 11, 2012, 12:27 PM | #174 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I think this crushes the "In the home" BS that the antis have been claiming
The opinion is so chock full of good stuff...
Quote:
Last edited by Luger_carbine; December 11, 2012 at 12:32 PM. |
|
December 11, 2012, 12:27 PM | #175 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Me too; I think Illinoiscarry crashed from all the sudden traffic.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0NQFGJ.pdf I have skimmed through the ruling and all I can say is freaking WOW. |
|
|