|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 11, 2013, 10:35 PM | #601 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And, not to be outdone....
Quote:
|
|
July 12, 2013, 07:29 AM | #602 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Al, that's hilarious. Madigan is asking the lower court to rule that it's superior court (7th circuit US Appeals) was ignorant of the implications of what it was ruling upon. The hubris and arrogance of Madigan is stunning. And what's even funnier (in my opinion, anyway), is she'll probably prevail in district court.
|
July 12, 2013, 09:33 AM | #603 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Wow. Did anyone catch the last line?
Quote:
With Mary Sheppard having been attacked at church, I'm thinking prayer won't help Ms. Madigan.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
July 12, 2013, 09:35 AM | #604 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
That is standard legal speak in court documents.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." |
July 12, 2013, 09:43 AM | #605 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
The "pray" language is fairly standard in legal pleadings. In the complaint, the paragraph in which a party expressly states what it wants from the other side or from the court is called the "prayer for relief."
ETA: cross-posted
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
July 12, 2013, 09:51 AM | #606 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Thanks for the replies. I learned something. I can sleep peacefully now.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
July 12, 2013, 10:23 AM | #607 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Sorry, I meant 210
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...ois&id=9170452 Quote:
These tactics remind me of the Ezell case, it's just never-ending maneuvering. Last edited by Luger_carbine; July 12, 2013 at 10:38 AM. |
|
July 12, 2013, 09:10 PM | #608 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here's where we stand at the end of today:
The referenced documents can be found at the docket on the Internet Archive. Of note is what Judge Stiehl has ordered. After briefly stating what has happened in the last few days, the judge then writes: Quote:
|
|
July 18, 2013, 04:36 PM | #609 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And here we have it.
The defendants Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (12 pages). The plaintiffs Supplement to Response to Defendants MTD (9 pages). I don't think Judge Stiehl will need more than a week to decide the issue. |
July 18, 2013, 04:43 PM | #610 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
So if this judge rules for Illinois, how fast to get this back in front of CA7?
|
July 18, 2013, 07:29 PM | #611 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
not to be the bearer of bad news but as usual "the machine" is thumbing its nose at the courts and the law and daring someone to stop them.
http://www.suntimes.com/21380581-761...is-served.html In violation of state law Chicago is going to pass an ordnance that will require any business that sells liquor posts a no carry sign or they lose their liquor licence. State law only requires a business post if more than 50% of sales are in Alcohol. This is a blatant violation of the new state law which says it is the sole authority of the state to regulate the possession of handguns... Ontop of that Cook County, also in violation of the new state law barring local regulation of handguns, handgun magazines and handgun ammunition decided they can regulate handgun magazines.... all and all its business as usual. A lot of blood sweat and tears given to get a carry law only to have the provisions that made those sacrifices worth it unlawfully ignored by Chicago and Cook County. Sadly out state AG will do nothing about it because now that she is not running for governor she needs to make no attempt to be palatable to downstate voters.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
July 19, 2013, 06:45 AM | #612 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Just means those localities will have to be sued, and keep cutting large checks.
|
July 19, 2013, 10:51 AM | #613 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
14 counties in Illinois are now refusing to prosecute for CCW if ISP arrests you.
Fortunately I live in one of them. We've been carrying here without fear of prosecution since 12JUN.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." |
July 19, 2013, 08:27 PM | #614 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Update for Moore
Now its quite possible that I'm reading this entirely wrong, not being a legal expert of any kind...
We've read the MTD that Madigan filed, which is identical in both Moore and Sheppard. We've read and analyzed the response that the NRA has given, which is to oppose the dismissal. The laws in question are still active and being actively pursued by the State (the new exception of the CC permits - which will not be available for some time - is not active). The NRA has made an extremely valid argument against the State. Judge Stiehl really doesn't have much recourse here. Should the judge balk at issuing the injunction, the case can be immediately appealed to the Posner panel. I have no question in how that panel will rule. It will come quickly and in language that will brook no leeway for the district court. On the other side of the aisle, David Sigale is arguing that the case is not moot, because wrangling over §1988 attorney fees have not concluded. Nothing else. Knowing how McDonald panned out (Chicago changed it laws, but after the decision by SCOTUS but before the mandate could be applied, mooted the case but did not moot prevailing party status and therefore §1988 attorney fees were awarded), this argument appears to be specious, at best. I agree with the reply by Madigan that the plaintiffs in Moore failed to properly respond to the matter of the dismissal. This gives judge Myerscough the perfect out to dismiss the case. Thus, further fees for the case will basically cease. Meanwhile, the NRA will continue to rack up fees, because they have a legitimate challenge to the MTD. I believe this to be a grave error on the part of Moore. I hope I'm wrong. Quote:
|
|
July 19, 2013, 09:30 PM | #615 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Slightly OT:
If there isn't already, there ought to be a private think-tank of vetted individuals who look these briefs over before they're filed. The several fine lawyers here, Equapellate, also Al Norris, Patrick and few others I'm not thinking of just now. Nobody, not even Gura is infallible. Sometimes when I see typos and grammar errors (though not much recently) I can't help but wonder how few sets of eyes have actually seen the drafts. An error like not actually addressing the matter of the dismissal is unimaginable. Last edited by maestro pistolero; July 20, 2013 at 12:30 AM. |
July 20, 2013, 12:04 AM | #616 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Moore schmoore (Kidding)
interesting synopsis Al. I am really waiting to see what happens with Wilson or an as yet unfiled clone of Wilson vs one of the Lake County(much friendlier courts) localities that banned "assault weapons" in the past month.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
July 26, 2013, 11:55 AM | #617 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I think the plaintiffs requested an answer by July 25th ??
Does that get any consideration? |
July 26, 2013, 01:42 PM | #618 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The MTD was granted in Sheppard, this morning:
Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2013, 02:02 PM | #619 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 801
|
The state is going to slow-roll CC into complete dysfunction. I moved to IL early in the year, been waiting on my FOID since April, no end in sight. Calls to the ISP result in endless excuses and apologies...the CC process will no doubt be the same or worse.
It's like the old saying, "you can make me work, but not necessarily hard or fast" The state of IL is making that come true. |
July 26, 2013, 02:07 PM | #620 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
On the other hand, non-residents can car carry right now.
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
July 30, 2013, 08:48 AM | #621 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Mary Shepard's attorneys filed notice of appeal last night, hopefully they have their appeal ready to file with CA7.
Hiram Grau head of Illinois State Police made a statement that the ISP was basically ready to issue permits, but I wonder if that was to bolster the argument that Shepard was indeed moot? People have varying estimates on when permits will actually be issued - some estimating 300 or so days away. The deadlines outlined in the Illinois Firearms Concealed Carry Act are not legally binding on the ISP and I'm guessing that the only thing that is really motivating them to get the system in place is the fear of the Posner panel enforcing the mandate which I think means anyone with an Illinois FOID card could carry concealed, but it doesn't have to mean that. Technically it would just mean the end to the Illinois AUUW/UUW prohibition on carrying a firearm. But I believe the ISP specifically asked Judge Stiehl for concealed carry for FOID card holders. I guess that is what they would ask the Posner Panel for also? Last edited by Luger_carbine; July 30, 2013 at 09:14 AM. |
July 30, 2013, 11:31 AM | #622 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
July 30, 2013, 12:13 PM | #623 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
And that would amount to political suicide for that prosecutor.
Have at it but don't expect to have a job after your current term. Besides, a request for those services has to be made, a motion filed, and accepted by a judge and signed. Madigan can't just say get your but over to one of those counties and prosecute the offender. This state has six special prosecutors. Just because they are appointed doesn't mean they will prosecute a particular case. Especially without jumping through all the hoops to do so.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." |
July 30, 2013, 12:18 PM | #624 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I haven't researched the law on this, but my guess: The appointment must also be accepted by the prosecutor.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
July 30, 2013, 12:34 PM | #625 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
The point is, it must be a request made by that county prosecutor.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." |
|
|