PDA

View Full Version : SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN (7/7/11)


wildhawker
07-07-2011, 1:48 PM
Motion is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.13.0.pdf

Memo Supporting Motion is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.14.0.pdf

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=365

For Immediate Release: 7/7/2011

BELLEVUE, WA – Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state’s prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.

The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.

Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year’s landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday’s appeals court win – forcing a temporary injunction against the city’s ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced – that “Even Chicago politicians must respect the people’s fundamental civil rights…Gun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city’s intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way.”

“Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois’ law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction,” said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs.

“Yesterday’s win was a wake-up call to Chicago,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Today’s motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state’s total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday’s ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago’s gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today’s motion are key components of SAF’s overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

putput
07-07-2011, 1:49 PM
Haha haha ha ha!!!

Newbius
07-07-2011, 1:50 PM
That was quick. The email only hit my inbox a few minutes ago...

Write Winger
07-07-2011, 2:08 PM
I'm sure they just thought it up this morning... :D

VAReact
07-07-2011, 2:09 PM
...and the hits just keep on coming! :43:

wash
07-07-2011, 2:14 PM
Wow, I thought they would be busy tearing down permits and FOID cards before they went after carry.

I am surprised.

bwiese
07-07-2011, 2:16 PM
Wow, I thought they would be busy tearing down permits and FOID cards before they went after carry.

If you get a right to carry, the aforementioned are superfluous or must essentially be low-fee/shall issue administrivia.
If you have a right to carry, you end up with the right to relevant paperwork issued in relation to that ;-)

Bigtime1
07-07-2011, 2:16 PM
Some folks just gotta learn the hard way.

CalBear
07-07-2011, 2:19 PM
Smart. Very very smart. Some form of carry, concealed or open, is as close to the "core" of the second amendment as you can get. This was clear in Heller, and I'm sure the 7th agrees. I'm glad to see the best of the best leading the charge on this one.

PsychGuy274
07-07-2011, 2:26 PM
Michael Moore?! :eek: :D

HowardW56
07-07-2011, 2:31 PM
Who else would like to be a fly on the wall in Rahm Emanuel's office?


Do you think he might be having a bad day?

Briancnelson
07-07-2011, 2:42 PM
I'm guessing this Michael Moore is skinnier and better looking. Just sayin.

nick
07-07-2011, 2:45 PM
Beautiful.

2009_gunner
07-07-2011, 2:46 PM
Oh, how much fun are the banners for our side? And so profitable too.

Wasn't there something in Ezell appeals opinion about self-defense being a core right? Sounds like we have a home-run here.

How fast can a state legislature move to try to moot this case? Probably not as fast as the Chicago city council.

ps - the archive.org links don't work for me

ETA: I think these are the links
Motion for PI (http://ia700603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.13.0.pdf) and Memorandum (http://ia700603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.14.0.pdf).

Uxi
07-07-2011, 2:49 PM
Awesome. Win in the 7th and a loss in, say... the 9th creates a split and sets up for SCOTUS, no?

safewaysecurity
07-07-2011, 2:55 PM
Hasn't Moore v Madigan been around for like a month now?

hoffmang
07-07-2011, 2:57 PM
Wonder how many weeks they've been planning this step :D

Alan Gottlieb hinted at this yesterday if people were reading closely.

Illinois carry may move ahead of the entire carry pack outside of Williams/Masciandaro.

-Gene

Connor P Price
07-07-2011, 2:58 PM
With all the amazing work that Alan Gura has done in the past couple years I really hope he's been raising his hourly rate accordingly. Chicago should be buying him an island in French Polynesia by the time he's done with them.;)

moleculo
07-07-2011, 2:58 PM
Linkys to motions no worky

hoffmang
07-07-2011, 2:58 PM
Hasn't Moore v Madigan been around for like a month now?

Yes but the difference is the schedule. Pre Ezell, there would be cross motions for summary judgement and it would take 180 days. Now, the Preliminary Injunction motion is heard in a couple of weeks and decided in a couple of weeks and could be on appeal - either way - inside of 90 days and maybe even 60. The "irreparable harm standard" is the new key.

-Gene

2009_gunner
07-07-2011, 3:06 PM
Yes but the difference is the schedule. Pre Ezell, there would be cross motions for summary judgement and it would take 180 days. Now, the Preliminary Injunction motion is heard in a couple of weeks and decided in a couple of weeks and could be on appeal - either way - inside of 90 days and maybe even 60. The "irreparable harm standard" is the new key.

-Gene

Yes, yes. I think you wrote something yesterday about guessing SAF's next step, and this was probably it.

Here's a useful quote from the SAF Motion:

4. On July 6, 2011 the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the
deprivation of Second Amendment rights is an irreparable injury giving rise to preliminary
equitable relief. See Ezell v. Chicago, no. 10-3525, slip op. p. 24 (7th Cir. Jul. 6, 2011).

wildhawker
07-07-2011, 3:13 PM
Linkys to motions no worky

Repaired.

Crom
07-07-2011, 3:14 PM
I love it. Alan Gotlieb is a genius. I'm proud to be a member of SAF.

Wernher von Browning
07-07-2011, 3:17 PM
I'm guessing this Michael Moore is skinnier and better looking. Just sayin.

It would be hard for him not to be. Whenever I see the "primary" Michael Moore, I can't help but think of Jabba the Hutt. A grosser toad never disgraced this planet.

Kharn
07-07-2011, 3:21 PM
Oh snap!
I wasn't expecting something this quick, but SAF rarely disappoints.

moleculo
07-07-2011, 3:30 PM
Repaired.

gracias. Just finished reading them. Absolutely brilliant.

BlindRacer
07-07-2011, 3:32 PM
Looking forward to this one
:popcorn:

spgripside
07-07-2011, 3:37 PM
This ought to be good.

Big Ben
07-07-2011, 3:37 PM
Do you think the collective legs of SAF, CGF, et al are getting tired from kicking the cr*p out of Chicago?

SoCal Bob
07-07-2011, 3:49 PM
I especially liked this from page 12 of the memo supporting motion:

The final consideration is that the “injury” here is the preclusion of an act that the Constitution affirmatively and explicitly protects. This weighs significantly on the balance of equities because “there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).

Stated differently (and perhaps more accurately), any “harm” that necessarily results from allowing protected conduct to take place is the necessary price of protecting civil rights – rather than a consideration weighing against equitable relief.

Southwest Chuck
07-07-2011, 3:49 PM
Repaired.

Down again. 502 Bad Gateway

Edit: Working now. Seems inconsistent?

stix213
07-07-2011, 3:54 PM
Donations to the SAF is money well spent for certain. Arguably as important as an NRA membership right now with all the waves the SAF has been making.

safewaysecurity
07-07-2011, 4:01 PM
Repaired.

Still not working.

wildhawker
07-07-2011, 4:07 PM
Still not working.

They are for me; it's not a page link but a direct download. Check the downloads folder.

safewaysecurity
07-07-2011, 4:09 PM
They are for me; it's not a page link but a direct download. Check the downloads folder.

Not it works. It was giving a gateway error before like the previous poster said.

Wherryj
07-07-2011, 4:24 PM
Wow, I thought they would be busy tearing down permits and FOID cards before they went after carry.

I am surprised.

I guess when you perceive that you have your opponent "punch drunk" and against the ropes, it's time for to push for the knockout?

Rossi357
07-07-2011, 4:28 PM
The links on post #14 work for me.

Patrick-2
07-07-2011, 4:37 PM
If you get a right to carry, the aforementioned are superfluous or must essentially be low-fee/shall issue administrivia.
If you have a right to carry, you end up with the right to relevant paperwork issued in relation to that ;-)

Technically, you get an ownership right to the paperwork. Subtle but important difference. A good one for us, btw.

05FLHT
07-07-2011, 4:38 PM
How fast can a state legislature move to try to moot this case? Probably not as fast as the Chicago city council.
.

Our carry bill, HB148, was pulled by the author when he saw the votes were not there. As it sits now, the bill is on 'postponed consideration' and is able to be brought back up in the Fall veto session (if not sooner by the Governor calling a special session).

Bills in Illinois are like zombies, they never really die.

6172crew
07-07-2011, 4:39 PM
Like Gene said "it's like one big Lulz fest"

choprzrul
07-07-2011, 4:42 PM
Not it works. It was giving a gateway error before like the previous poster said.

They all work for me instantly.

Get Opera web browser (http://www.opera.com/browser/download/), the fastest one out there. The alternative to the alternative browser.

.

Kharn
07-07-2011, 4:47 PM
Do you think the collective legs of SAF, CGF, et al are getting tired from kicking the cr*p out of Chicago?When Gura has to debate buying Ferrari #3 vs Lamborghini #3, he might be tired of it.

G60
07-07-2011, 5:04 PM
He's gonna buy a Zamboni!

HowardW56
07-07-2011, 5:07 PM
He's gonna buy a Zamboni!

Then he can hire someone in a Snoopy costume to drive it....

joe4702
07-07-2011, 5:14 PM
Nice!
Been meaning to join SAF.
This prompted me to finally get off my butt and do so.

FullMetalJacket
07-07-2011, 5:15 PM
Donation to SAF sent. These guys are advancing on all fronts!

Patrick-2
07-07-2011, 5:18 PM
When Gura has to debate buying Ferrari #3 vs Lamborghini #3, he might be tired of it.

I am on the same street as his office fairly frequently. He's better driving something that won't suck gas while sitting at a stand-still.

Then again, with Chicago paying the bills...who cares?


On topic: Gene points out the fast-track possibiliies here. If you allow three months in each court with a little extra in the middle, we could see a cert request for the coming session. It would be tight, but possible. Of course, by then they could have picked up Williams, Masciandaro or both.

Illinois will be throwing stalling actions every chance they get to avoid this. But with the 'irreparable harm' standard in your back pocket, that is going to be hard.

Notice where they filed...not Chicago, but in Springfield. Again. Better judges downstate.

hornswaggled
07-07-2011, 5:30 PM
It's news like this that makes it fun to be part of an anti-gun state fighting the good fight.

hoffmang
07-07-2011, 6:08 PM
He's gonna buy a Zamboni!

http://www.insidesocal.com/hockeywood/zamboni.jpg

And the team that goes with it!

-Gene

kcbrown
07-07-2011, 6:21 PM
Yes but the difference is the schedule. Pre Ezell, there would be cross motions for summary judgement and it would take 180 days. Now, the Preliminary Injunction motion is heard in a couple of weeks and decided in a couple of weeks and could be on appeal - either way - inside of 90 days and maybe even 60. The "irreparable harm standard" is the new key.


Um....what if the court you're petitioning claims out of the gate that there's no irreparable harm involved?

Not that it's necessarily terribly likely in this case regardless. I'm sure the specific venue was selected precisely because it would probably treat this particular issue an an irreparable harm issue.

gunsandrockets
07-07-2011, 6:29 PM
Go Go Go!:party:

hoffmang
07-07-2011, 6:31 PM
Um....what if the court you're petitioning claims out of the gate that there's no irreparable harm involved?

Not that it's necessarily terribly likely in this case regardless. I'm sure the specific venue was selected precisely because it would probably treat this particular issue an an irreparable harm issue.

The law of the Second Amendment in the 7th Circuit is that violation of the 2A is irreperable harm based on Ezell. If the court disagrees you get a fastrack appeal.

-Gene

kcbrown
07-07-2011, 6:37 PM
The law of the Second Amendment in the 7th Circuit is that violation of the 2A is irreperable harm based on Ezell. If the court disagrees you get a fastrack appeal.


But violation of the 2A is exactly what the court would be deciding on!

The plaintiffs can (and do, properly I might add) claim that the laws in question violate 2A, but what you're saying is that the district court is going to treat this case as if the law does violate 2A, and therefore dispense with the whole cross-motion thing.

I'm questioning that here. I'm raising the possibility that the court might come right out and say that because they don't know (or, worse, outright disagree) that the law in question violates 2A, they won't consider fast-tracking anything.


How is that not a possibility here?

hoffmang
07-07-2011, 6:47 PM
A preliminary injunction requires fast tracking by the court system. There will be no need for cross motions for summary judgement. Once that fast track ends - either way - the appeal is automatically fastracked as well.

It's a part of the rules of court. Under this standard Palmer couldn't happen for example.

-Gene

kcbrown
07-07-2011, 7:02 PM
A preliminary injunction requires fast tracking by the court system. There will be no need for cross motions for summary judgement. Once that fast track ends - either way - the appeal is automatically fastracked as well.


So why isn't a preliminary injunction always requested, especially for what we do?

timdps
07-07-2011, 7:47 PM
I guess when you perceive that you have your opponent "punch drunk" and against the ropes, it's time for to push for the knockout?

Knockout? Not even. Bullies need to pounded to a pulp (at least twice) so they don't ever bully anyone again.

Its been one helluva Independence Day week! :party:

Tim

hoffmang
07-07-2011, 9:32 PM
So why isn't a preliminary injunction always requested, especially for what we do?

Because it was an extra issue in the past that we didn't wish to add. Now that we had McDonald and Fundamental, it was time to prove the point that "infringement" = irreparable harm. It was a risk to push for the full equivalency with mostly speech. Ezell confirmed we're right on that - and that is a HUGE win.

Now it's time to use the *bleep* out of it. We can't import it just yet in CA-9 as we have to finish cleaning up Nordyke w/ Ezell - but very soon... We will very soon dare CA-9 to adopt a different standard and create a circuit split!

-Gene

kcbrown
07-07-2011, 11:06 PM
Because it was an extra issue in the past that we didn't wish to add. Now that we had McDonald and Fundamental, it was time to prove the point that "infringement" = irreparable harm. It was a risk to push for the full equivalency with mostly speech. Ezell confirmed we're right on that - and that is a HUGE win.

Now it's time to use the *bleep* out of it. We can't import it just yet in CA-9 as we have to finish cleaning up Nordyke w/ Ezell - but very soon... We will very soon dare CA-9 to adopt a different standard and create a circuit split!


Wouldn't asking for preliminary injunctions here and now in CA yield the very circuit splits we seek? Or is it better to get positive rulings (e.g., Ezell) in other circuits before going for the "please don't throw me into that briar patch!" rulings from the 9th? :43:

hoffmang
07-07-2011, 11:49 PM
Wouldn't asking for preliminary injunctions here and now in CA yield the very circuit splits we seek? Or is it better to get positive rulings (e.g., Ezell) in other circuits before going for the "please don't throw me into that briar patch!" rulings from the 9th? :43:

It's more of a "where litigation currently is" issue in CA-9, but yeah - generally.

-Gene

Paladin
07-08-2011, 10:30 PM
We can't import it just yet in CA-9 as we have to finish cleaning up Nordyke w/ Ezell - but very soon... We will very soon dare CA-9 to adopt a different standard and create a circuit split!

-Gene

http://s2d4.turboimagehost.com/sp/148f7f7b9ceb6e953c3f3a111a4d3003/The-Simpsons-Mr-Burns-Excellent.jpg

timdps
07-08-2011, 11:39 PM
http://www.insidesocal.com/hockeywood/zamboni.jpg

-Gene

CalGuns version:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/zamboni-1.jpg

Tim

hoffmang
07-08-2011, 11:47 PM
CalGuns version:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/zamboni-1.jpg

Tim

Perfect.

-Gene

Funtimes
07-09-2011, 12:23 AM
CalGuns version:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/zamboni-1.jpg

Tim

Got a big laugh out of this hahaha.

Liberty1
07-09-2011, 9:48 AM
Our carry bill, HB148, was pulled by the author when he saw the votes were not there. As it sits now, the bill is on 'postponed consideration' and is able to be brought back up in the Fall veto session (if not sooner by the Governor calling a special session).

Bills in Illinois are like zombies, they never really die.

If they don't act, IL gets constitutional carry by default it appears in a matter of weeks/months.


:twoweeks:

05FLHT
07-09-2011, 1:49 PM
If they don't act, IL gets constitutional carry by default it appears in a matter of weeks/months.


:twoweeks:

The injunctions would enjoin the State from enforcing the Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW) and the Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (Ag UUW) statutes. These statutes currently restrict bearing arms that are uncased or loaded to your own property or place of business.

My guess is the IL General Assembly is going to want to take another, more serious look at passing our concealed carry bill.

If they don't pass HB148 and the injunction is granted, we still would have other statutes to contend with, namely 720 ILCS 5/21‑6.

(720 ILCS 5/21‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑6)
Sec. 21‑6. Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons.
(a) Whoever possesses or stores any weapon enumerated in Section 33A‑1 in any building or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds or in any building on such land without prior written permission from the chief security officer for such land or building commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) The chief security officer must grant any reasonable request for permission under paragraph (a).
(Source: P.A. 89‑685, eff. 6‑1‑97.)

Which means 'sensitive places' is going to very likely be the next target here in IL.

Connor P Price
07-09-2011, 3:04 PM
CalGuns version:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/zamboni-1.jpg

Tim

Who's up for a 2A gathering at a hockey game?

Liberty1
07-09-2011, 3:22 PM
CalGuns version:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/zamboni-1.jpg

Tim

Replace 'Bud Light' with 'Raging Bjtch', add SAF to the team logo, then it will be perfect. (& put the names of the vanquished on the roller! :))

http://www.google.com/m/url?client=ms-android-verizon&ei=_OMYTvioD6DuqwP-salT&gl=us&hl=en&q=http://brewerylaw.com/2011/07/flying-dog-gets-its-way-in-michigan-but-lawsuit-continues/&source=android-browser-type&ved=0CC0QFjAG&usg=AFQjCNF7Phargr0oNpFHDlDVJZ9OCjDXnA

Guess who their attorney is. :gura:

Andy Taylor
07-09-2011, 10:11 PM
:jump:

Window_Seat
08-01-2011, 11:30 PM
25 Memorandum of law in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.25.0.pdf)

26 Response to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.26.0.pdf)

And yet, more Brady Briefs... :rofl:

27.1 Amicus Brief in support of defendants by Brady Center (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.27.1.pdf)

Erik.

Connor P Price
08-02-2011, 12:04 AM
In the response to the motion for preliminary injunction, they argue that "intermediate scrutiny applies because the 'core' of the second amendment right does not extend outside of the home."

They then go on to use a quote from Ezell to try to illustrate that point. They're clearly aware that Ezell specifically protected shooting ranges, which are where? You guessed it, outside of the home.

Watching opponents have to engage in such incredibly mental gymnastics in order to argue their point is just one more clear sign that the gun rights advocates are WINNING!

Funtimes
08-02-2011, 2:12 AM
I've read large portions of the freedmen and the fourteenth amendment, it was clearly about bearing arms outside the home.

You also see that they obviously danced over Ginsburg's "bear" definition.


haha -- man I just got through that opp to the injunction. We are going old school here -- all the way back to England, which we defected from because they were tyrants and were keeping the 'people' down and controlled by not letting them have arms. We could go even further, and look to the right before then, say, Medieval times. I'm down for carrying my morning star around town, that would be kind of cool.

Anchors
08-02-2011, 2:27 AM
25 Memorandum of law in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.25.0.pdf)

26 Response to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.26.0.pdf)

And yet, more Brady Briefs... :rofl:

27.1 Amicus Brief in support of defendants by Brady Center (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.27.1.pdf)

Erik.

I don't understand who invites the Bradys? I guess if Illinois wants to hire their lawyers, cool. But why do they just get to decide to show up?

The NRA/SAF get to show up because they file their respective suits, so that seems different...

krucam
08-02-2011, 2:40 AM
I don't understand who invites the Bradys? I guess if Illinois wants to hire their lawyers, cool. But why do they just get to decide to show up?

The NRA/SAF get to show up because they file their respective suits, so that seems different...

They're not invited. Once you start thinking of fire ants, biting flies & mosquitoes at your picnic, you'll better understand their "role"...

Patrick-2
08-02-2011, 5:50 AM
I don't understand who invites the Bradys? I guess if Illinois wants to hire their lawyers, cool. But why do they just get to decide to show up?

The NRA/SAF get to show up because they file their respective suits, so that seems different...

In addition to Mark's comments, I would add that their positions are of the sort that the defendants actually believe, but do not want to admit believing in front of the court. So they let the amicus do it for them.

Maryland went so far as to use several Brady positions in their initial defense to the SAF suit. But recently they appear to have backed away from that a bit (as well as some other interesting positions).

Brady is the elephant in the room: the true belief of the other side, even if they are afraid to admit it.

wildhawker
08-02-2011, 6:39 PM
This is exactly correct, and another example of why we're damned lucky to have such a person as Patrick here at CGN to offer very informed commentary on the issues that matter.

-Brandon

In addition to Mark's comments, I would add that their positions are of the sort that the defendants actually believe, but do not want to admit believing in front of the court. So they let the amicus do it for them.

Maryland went so far as to use several Brady positions in their initial defense to the SAF suit. But recently they appear to have backed away from that a bit (as well as some other interesting positions).

Brady is the elephant in the room: the true belief of the other side, even if they are afraid to admit it.

Anchors
08-02-2011, 7:01 PM
Yeah, I know why they are there.
I just felt like bemoaning over the fact that they're still allowed in the courtroom and are still considered credible in any way.

Can't wait to see more on this case as it develops.
If the injunction is granted, I bet Illinois pulls a San Francisco real quick like and slaps together a ridiculously arbitrary and prohibitive permit process.

1BigPea
08-02-2011, 7:28 PM
Yeah, I know why they are there.
I just felt like bemoaning over the fact that they're still allowed in the courtroom and are still considered credible in any way.

Can't wait to see more on this case as it develops.
If the injunction is granted, I bet Illinois pulls a San Francisco real quick like and slaps together a ridiculously arbitrary and prohibitive permit process.

^^
I can see this happening too. Illinois won't go down without kicking and screaming first.

dantodd
08-02-2011, 7:30 PM
In addition to Mark's comments, I would add that their positions are of the sort that the defendants actually believe, but do not want to admit believing in front of the court. So they let the amicus do it for them.

Maryland went so far as to use several Brady positions in their initial defense to the SAF suit. But recently they appear to have backed away from that a bit (as well as some other interesting positions).

Brady is the elephant in the room: the true belief of the other side, even if they are afraid to admit it.

Excellent post.

kcbrown
08-02-2011, 7:33 PM
Yeah, I know why they are there.
I just felt like bemoaning over the fact that they're still allowed in the courtroom and are still considered credible in any way.


I dunno. I don't mind fighting an incompetent enemy. :43:



Can't wait to see more on this case as it develops.
If the injunction is granted, I bet Illinois pulls a San Francisco real quick like and slaps together a ridiculously arbitrary and prohibitive permit process.

Yep. You know they will.

ilbob
08-03-2011, 3:25 PM
Yeah, I know why they are there.
Can't wait to see more on this case as it develops.
If the injunction is granted, I bet Illinois pulls a San Francisco real quick like and slaps together a ridiculously arbitrary and prohibitive permit process.

I kind of doubt it would go that way.

There is a fair amount of support in the state legislature (at least in the House) for LTC, just not the 3/5 majority necessary to pass it (it needs 3/5 due to home rule issues).

I do not see anyway a LTC bill gets passed in Illinois that is worse for us then what HB148 provides for, and there may be enough leverage to improve upon it. OTOH, some of the people on "our" side may not want to get much more. Politics is a funny game. I have often thought that the way "our" side has attacked this problem in the state legislature was almost designed to fail. That is not to say it was a winner anyway, just that the tactics seem odd to me at times.

It reminds me of the regular LTC reciprocity bills that pop up in congress and then just die for no apparrent reason. I am not convinced that "our" side really wants them passed, just red meat for the faithful.

wildhawker
08-03-2011, 3:38 PM
Yep. You know they will.

This is an odd thing to say, being that SF *already* has an arbitrary, unconstitutionally-burdensome, and prohibitive permit system. The floor exists thanks to Sheriff Hennessey; we're now working our way back to the constitutional margin.

-Brandon

kcbrown
08-03-2011, 3:41 PM
This is an odd thing to say, being that SF *already* has an arbitrary, unconstitutionally-burdensome, and prohibitive permit system. The floor exists thanks to Sheriff Hennessey; we're now working our way back to the constitutional margin.


Er...."they" == Illinois, not SF.

Glock22Fan
08-03-2011, 3:47 PM
I've read large portions of the freedmen and the fourteenth amendment, it was clearly about bearing arms outside the home.

You also see that they obviously danced over Ginsburg's "bear" definition.


haha -- man I just got through that opp to the injunction. We are going old school here -- all the way back to England, which we defected from because they were tyrants and were keeping the 'people' down and controlled by not letting them have arms. We could go even further, and look to the right before then, say, Medieval times. I'm down for carrying my morning star around town, that would be kind of cool.

Let me say that although England has had tighter regulations that the U.S. for quite a long time, it was still possible, with a hassle, for most people to own handguns until relatively recently. Indeed, in the early part of the 20th Century, it was pretty common and far less restricted. Just read Sherlock Holmes and the Simon Templar (the Saint) novels for fictional representation.

Certainly, back when you defected, arms in the hands of the people was common place in England.

Window_Seat
08-04-2011, 10:19 AM
Plaintiffs and SAF file a brief in response to the Brady brief:

Response to Amicus Curiae Brady Center to prevent gun violence (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.29.0.pdf)

Erik.

Patrick-2
08-04-2011, 10:29 AM
Plaintiffs and SAF file a brief in response to the Brady brief:

Response to Amicus Curiae Brady Center to prevent gun violence (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.29.0.pdf)

Erik.

Nailed it. Won't go into the details, as it is a short read.

Brady is called out for trying to misread the context of the cases Brady cited in their own briefs.

Ironically, I expect some lower courts to agree with Brady, no matter what. The question now is if we can pass that hurdle and get into the Circuit before the Supreme Court picks up a related case.

dantodd
08-04-2011, 10:37 AM
after reading the response to amicus I'm starting to get the feeling SAF might win their PI which would motivate IL to move right away to put into effect some licensing provision.

Connor P Price
08-04-2011, 12:22 PM
That response was a good read. Basically all those frustrations that we felt when reading the Brady's brief were spelled out in plain simple language for the court to be clear on.

press1280
08-04-2011, 2:20 PM
"Amicus responds by attempting to confuse the issue. Amicus cites historical authorities that upheld non-preclusive restrictions on carry, and then claims that these authorities show that States can completely ban the carry of firearms."

The Bradys once again easily caught trying to rewrite history. Unfortunately, as Patrick noted, you will have judges that either fall for this or dishonestly sweep the open carry legality under the table.

Southwest Chuck
08-04-2011, 5:12 PM
Ok, I picked this up over at Illinois Carry about the hearing today, post #146...
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26176&st=120


Posted by:Abolt243
OK,

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.


AB

All I can say is WOW. Looks like we might have a P.I. by next week!

(Fingers Crossed) :jump:

Window_Seat
08-04-2011, 6:11 PM
after reading the response to amicus I'm starting to get the feeling SAF might win their PI which would motivate IL to move right away to put into effect some licensing provision.

They had that chance with the last round of legislation, and while it was a bare bones CCW measure, it still didn't pass... They may just have one of those "Be careful what you wish for" moments. With them now being the lone donut hole...

OTOH, it's the DC, so we should be careful NOT to get our hopes too high.

Erik.

Chicago
08-05-2011, 10:26 AM
Additional first-person commentary is available in one of "The Firing Line" forums at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4688166 .

Window_Seat
08-08-2011, 8:36 AM
08/08/2011 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sue E. Myerscough: MOTION HEARING on (d/e 13) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Charles Hooks, Michael Moore, Illinois Carry, Peggy Fechter. Plaintiffs represented by Attorneys David D. Jensen and David G. Sigale. Defendants represented by Attorneys Terence J. Corrigan and David Andrew Simpson. Plaintiff's Motion heard and argued. Motion taken under advisement. Hearing adjourned. (Court Reporter KS.) (CT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

And that's what I got from PACER. No link to anything (yet).:)

Erik.

Crom
08-08-2011, 9:13 AM
Additional first-person commentary is available in one of "The Firing Line" forums at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4688166 .

Thank you Sir. That was a good read.

dantodd
08-08-2011, 11:21 AM
If SAF wins the preliminary injunction and IL passes emergency legislation a month later I have to think that legislation would also be challenged. If so, would IL have to prove that their new legislation would be narrowly tailored to address the rise in crime associated with the short interval of "constitutional carry" that the state experienced?

Patrick-2
08-08-2011, 11:58 AM
If SAF wins the preliminary injunction and IL passes emergency legislation a month later I have to think that legislation would also be challenged. If so, would IL have to prove that their new legislation would be narrowly tailored to address the rise in crime associated with the short interval of "constitutional carry" that the state experienced?

Assuming an SAF win, true anti-2A legislation might have a hard time getting passed. Remember than IL made a good run this year towards Shall-Issue, and it was only the fact that the super-majority required to over-ride Chicago home-rule could not be attained that the bills died. A court-ordered PI does not need a super-majority.

The result would probably be most communities in the state accepting the ride and looking to create some regulation around it, much like the recent bills would have set up. That leaves Chicago and the usual suspects to push their home rule allowance to the max.

I think the irony here is that our side might want to see new legislation, because a court victory might push enough state legislators over the line into supporting the Shall-Issue bills that recently failed to elicit the super-majority required. Without that, you can bet Chicago will fight and its citizens will not receive full benefit of the court ruling until they get beat. Again.


From a tactical level, you could expect the state AG to file an emergency request to hold the order while she appeals. Who knows if she gets it.


Regardless of however/whenever a pro-carry ruling comes, the state will feel the need to pass something in response. The rest of the state is mostly pro-carry. My guess is that whatever new legislation looks like, Chicago will try to opt out of it. The question is whether a court victory will push enough of the legislative critters to tell tell Chicago to go pound sand. It's one thing for a politician to say "No more guns!", but quite another to say "No more rights!"

Redistricting will also play a role...blah, blah, blah.

Al Norris
08-15-2011, 7:58 PM
While we are awaiting a response to Moore's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction from the court, today, Moore filed its Opposition to #24 Motion to Dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.30.0.pdf).

There is much to say about David Jensen's writing. I'm really liking his "let slip the dogs of war" style.

The first paragraph:

If the right to bear arms exists outside the home, then the State’s motion fails. If the right is homebound, then Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief. Everything turns on this one question.

The concluding paragraph:

The only real question is whether the right to possess and carry weapons for confrontation applies outside the home. Plaintiffs submit that after Heller, the answer to this question is “written on the wall.” A law that prohibits conduct that the Constitution affirmatively protects is (by definition) unconstitutional.

David started off (Muller v Maenza) using much of Alan Gura's style of writing. This has evolved into his own "no holds barred" style. I'm liking it a lot (did I say that already?).

Psy Crow
08-17-2011, 9:06 AM
While we are awaiting a response to Moore's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction from the court, today, Moore filed its Opposition to #24 Motion to Dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.30.0.pdf).

There is much to say about David Jensen's writing. I'm really liking his "let slip the dogs of war" style.

The first paragraph:



The concluding paragraph:



David started off (Muller v Maenza) using much of Alan Gura's style of writing. This has evolved into his own "no holds barred" style. I'm liking it a lot (did I say that already?).

I too, enjoyed the writing style: it's clear and to the point. Either that or I'm actually beginning to understand legalese :D

Not intended as a threadjack:
I did find giving the example of machine guns as "dangerous and unusual weapons" in Part II as being unnecessary ("The Supreme Court relied (in part) on Blackstone when it counseled that the Second Amendment does not protect “dangerous and unusual weapons” such as machineguns.") - I think ending that sentence after "weapons" would be sufficient, but IANAL...

From an objective POV most things are dangerous (if misused) and machine guns are only "unusual" due to the efforts of gov't (NFA, FOPA:Hughes Amendment).

It seems counterproductive to give the enemy any ammunition for use in the eventual fight to reopen the machine gun registry.

Uxi
08-17-2011, 9:21 AM
I did find giving the example of machine guns as "dangerous and unusual weapons" in Part II as being unnecessary ("The Supreme Court relied (in part) on Blackstone when it counseled that the Second Amendment does not protect “dangerous and unusual weapons” such as machineguns.") - I think ending that sentence after "weapons" would be sufficient, but IANAL...

From an objective POV most things are dangerous (if misused) and machine guns are only "unusual" due to the efforts of gov't (NFA, FOPA:Hughes Amendment).


agreed. The original intent as a safeguard against tyranny clearly includes then military-equivalent arms. The Revolution had cannons and warships and the like.

Many of us could come around to 'reasonable' regulation, especially for NBC weapons, but that needs to be done with a properly ratified Amendment.

hoffmang
08-17-2011, 4:58 PM
Trying to get FA recognized as arms in common use at this time is like asking the girl you met in the bar for the first time if she'd like to have anal sex with you.

All in time, and sometimes not at all.

-Gene

2009_gunner
08-17-2011, 5:46 PM
Well, tomorrow will be two weeks since the hearing on the preliminary injunction... not that I'm counting the days for the first post-Ezell ruling!

mag360
08-17-2011, 5:58 PM
being that the 2A protects all common and available arms, even a select fire M16 given its use as a common infantry weapon it's just a matter of time til the courts have no choice but to realize this. If I owned one of those $15,000 nfa guns I'd be very worried. Not a good long term investment.

Kharn
08-17-2011, 6:10 PM
Very few NFA owners see their MGs as an investment, they are very expensive toys bought with disposable income and most would gladly lose the value of their collection if they could buy new M16s, SCARs and ACRs in return.

yellowfin
08-17-2011, 6:10 PM
You wouldn't be worried at all, you'd be eager to buy more of them @ the new price and new stuff you couldn't get because of it being post '86. Who cares if your $15k M16A1 goes to $2k if you can get a new KAC PDW for $3k?

hoffmang
08-17-2011, 6:16 PM
being that the 2A protects all common and available arms, even a select fire M16 given its use as a common infantry weapon it's just a matter of time til the courts have no choice but to realize this.

That's not what Heller held.

-Gene

kcbrown
08-17-2011, 6:24 PM
being that the 2A protects all common and available arms, even a select fire M16 given its use as a common infantry weapon it's just a matter of time til the courts have no choice but to realize this. If I owned one of those $15,000 nfa guns I'd be very worried. Not a good long term investment.

The courts will never recognize the "check against tyranny" role of the Second Amendment as legitimate.

Never.

They are part of the very government that would become tyrannical, and would prefer to reserve the role of gatekeeper to themselves.


No, self-defense is going to be the only recognized role the Second Amendment will play in a "system of ordered liberty". This is why full auto arms will never be truly protected by the Second Amendment, regardless of what the founders of the country intended.

Drivedabizness
08-17-2011, 6:29 PM
The courts will never recognize the "check against tyranny" role of the Second Amendment as legitimate.

Never.

They are part of the very government that would become tyrannical, and would prefer to reserve the role of gatekeeper to themselves.


No, self-defense is going to be the only recognized role the Second Amendment will play in a "system of ordered liberty". This is why full auto arms will never be truly protected by the Second Amendment, regardless of what the founders of the country intended.

+1 - I'm afraid he's right

yellowfin
08-17-2011, 7:01 PM
Self defense includes defense against the government. That's irrefutable and plain as day.

mag360
08-17-2011, 7:12 PM
I think it's coming. I can see an additional process of eligibility such as a training requirement or registration but not a ban like there is now. It's not like they can say they are so dangerous nobody can own them.

gunsmith
08-17-2011, 7:30 PM
I'm all for not having to spend ten grand or more for FA, but my main concern is simply being allowed to legally carry on my ccw in any state-just like I can drive in any state.

Once we have nat reciprocity & have defeated all the AW bans nationwide, and CA NYC residents/new jersey ETC can buy a gun & take it home the same day they buy, then I'll worry about FA....

kcbrown
08-17-2011, 7:48 PM
Self defense includes defense against the government. That's irrefutable and plain as day.

Yes, it is, but since when have courts been logically consistent except when they want to be?

You're basically asking the government to agree that the citizenry has the right to defend itself against the government. Not gonna happen.

Uxi
08-17-2011, 8:13 PM
I think it's coming. I can see an additional process of eligibility such as a training requirement or registration but not a ban like there is now. It's not like they can say they are so dangerous nobody can own them.

Right. I can see the NFA being Constitutional as long as the tax fee isn't prohibitive (as the $200 stamp was in the 1934) and every State MUST go to the equivalent of shall issue for the BATFE stamps. That satisfies the "well regulated" part.

Regardless of what the Founders intended, the 14th Amendment ensures they can prohibit felons, etc from RTKBA.

Psy Crow
08-18-2011, 8:00 AM
Yes, it is, but since when have courts been logically consistent except when they want to be?

You're basically asking the government to agree that the citizenry has the right to defend itself against the government. Not gonna happen.

If you had told me in Jan. 2000, when the Federal AWB, Roberti-Roos, and SB23 were in effect, that in less than 10 years the 2A would be found by SCOTUS to be a fundamental constitutional right that applies to the States, I would have told you the same thing: Not gonna happen.

Yet here we are.

Patrick-2
08-18-2011, 9:37 AM
being that the 2A protects all common and available arms, even a select fire M16 given its use as a common infantry weapon it's just a matter of time til the courts have no choice but to realize this. If I owned one of those $15,000 nfa guns I'd be very worried. Not a good long term investment.

I'll amplify Gene. Heller said "arms in common use for self defense". Handguns were the particular item under review. DC claimed hand guns posed a special risk due to their size and ease of carry/deployment/use. The Court essentially took that as a concession that they are especially capable of providing defense to the citizen for those same reasons. They did touch on the fact the "bad guys" would have hand guns no matter what, so the law would essentially penalize lawful people for acts potentially committed by unlawful people.

But the "common use" test (as some are erroneously calling it) is really a recognition that arms in common civilian use are protected to the point that the government probably needs a darn good reason to ban one (or all). Handguns, semi-auto rifles, shotguns...all pretty common in the USA and used for everything from hunting to self-defense.

Whether the Court would extend that into NFA items is something that some may challenge going forward, but the Heller decision seemed to foreclose the success of the challenge. They essentially said that because NFA made MGs 'uncommon', they do not fall within the umbra of 'commonly used' arms for self defense.

Despite all the talk in Heller of militia service and the history of personal arms being used in war in early America, the Court did not say that the 2A protects RKBA of arms in common use by the standing army infantryman.


My personal opinion: if we want to fix NFA we will need to do it in the legislature. If some time after that those arms were to become 'commonly used' by citizens for self-defense, they might become protected. But it is that very possibility that will keep laws against MGs in our books. The government is not quite ready to turn fully-auto rifles into common items. Suppressors, on the other hand, offer some safety over unsuppressed arms and might be easier for a legislature to risk making common (obvious sound reduction but also less muzzle waste that could ignite surrounding dry brush, etc.).


EDIT: Just so you know where I stand, I like NFA-controlled firearms. I have multiple tax stamps for various stuff. So I am a big fan of dumping the crazy rules. I just recognize that the effort will need to be legislative and gradual.

Uxi
08-18-2011, 9:47 AM
Despite all the talk in Heller of militia service and the history of personal arms being used in war in early America, the Court did not say that the 2A protects RKBA of arms in common use by the standing army infantryman.


They didn't specifically say that either, though. We really need another challenge to NFA as Miller wasn't really decided on it's merits. I can accept that being back in priority, as well as a practicality.


Suppressors, on the other hand, offer some safety over unsuppressed arms and might be easier for a legislature to risk making common (obvious sound reduction but also less muzzle waste that could ignite surrounding dry brush, etc.).


Indeed. I'm thinking reverse psychology on the likes of DeLeon to remove the ban, if not require it. Get the requirement shot down as an unlawful infringement. We end up open to NFA stamps on suppressors.

Untamed1972
08-18-2011, 9:53 AM
Despite all the talk in Heller of militia service and the history of personal arms being used in war in early America, the Court did not say that the 2A protects RKBA of arms in common use by the standing army infantryman

Except that when the 2A was written the intention was the we would never have a standing army......we were supposed to have a militia of all able bodied men who kept and bore arms in common military use and suitable for that purpose. So wasn't part of the intent of the 2A that at least every able bodied man would have at his disposal a suitable infantry rifle of the day?

How does the later creation of a standing army create the power to nullify the intent of the 2A?

And as is commonly stated.....they have become "uncommon" because of gov't restriction. Had they not been restricted, who is to say how common they might be? I'd bet there would be ALOT of G18's out their if they were readily available.

At a minimum I think the closing of the registry in 1986 could be challenged. It does essentially create a ban, by limiting the number of weapons available and driving up the prices of those that are. How can they claim a public safety interest in saying: "OK, you can have SOME MGs/FA rifles but not too many." If the public safety concern was addressed for 52yrs with the original NFA, then what changed?

I think alot of the reasoning used in challenging the CA handgun Roster would also apply at least to the closing of the registry. The Feds are not saying you CANT have an FA rifle, you just limited to the now VERY EXPENSIVE few that are available. It's kind of that whole "creating a licensing system and then refusing to issue licenses" thing.

Patrick-2
08-18-2011, 11:15 AM
Also consider that the "original" intent of 2A is considered to change depending upon the application. If towards the Federal Government then it is the 1790s. If it is aimed at the states, the understanding of the right is contextualized around ratification of the 14th - about 70 years later.

I am not saying this is how it should be, only how it is being considered.

So under those assumptions, the federal MG ban would fall because the understanding of 2A at the time of the BoR was that of a citizen infantry. But by 1868 we had a standing military. So the states might be able to step in.

See why need to be careful not only what we challenge, but also where we challenge?

To that end, DC should remain the friend of gun-rights litigators for a long damn time.

Untamed1972
08-18-2011, 11:37 AM
Also consider that the "original" intent of 2A is considered to change depending upon the application. If towards the Federal Government then it is the 1790s. If it is aimed at the states, the understanding of the right is contextualized around ratification of the 14th - about 70 years later.

I am not saying this is how it should be, only how it is being considered.

So under those assumptions, the federal MG ban would fall because the understanding of 2A at the time of the BoR was that of a citizen infantry. But by 1868 we had a standing military. So the states might be able to step in.

See why need to be careful not only what we challenge, but also where we challenge?

To that end, DC should remain the friend of gun-rights litigators for a long damn time.

Points taken! :thumbsup:

yellowfin
08-18-2011, 12:00 PM
NYC will be even more fruitful:

1. It's a city that thinks itself fit to exempt itself from all state laws.
2. Does not respect ANY out of state residents' RKBA.
3. Treats NYS but non-NYC residents as out of state.
4. Has more stringent and irrational restrictions on long guns than anywhere including DC.
5. Residents cannot take handguns outside the city except w/ hunting permit, and then only narrowly as prescribed.
6. Any "violation" of #5 becomes unlawful possession of handgun and thus instant felony.
7. Glaringly obvious discriminatory licensing practices, instead of DC's plain no to everyone.
8. Known witch hunting of gun owners.
9. Taking #8 outside their jurisdiction just because they feel entitled to.

The list goes on for days. DC, by contrast, is simple. They just said no to everything as a blanket no with few details. NYC's gun laws are basically a satanic bible.

Patrick-2
08-18-2011, 12:15 PM
DC is covered under federal jurisdiction/legislation, and as a result any interpretations of "original intent" would be unarguably based on 1790 understanding of arms and personal freedoms, as opposed to views of those same topics post-revolutionary war/segregationist views. The 14th applies to the states, and due to the 1835 Barron v Baltimore ruling the BoR did not apply - until the 14th. So as a result you could muddy the waters in terms of original intent*.

Given the choice, I'd tend to aim for the 1790 view, myself.

Just like Heller: get the right established in federal space, then use the 14th to extend it everywhere.


* EDIT: Not everyone agrees with the "split origin" views. Many think the 14th should be interpreted with 1790 in mind, because rather than create a new set of Amendments to reflect 1860-ish understanding, the authors of the 14th said "the Bill of Rights applies to the states." Kinda. Then it got messed up. And this completely ignores several small issues in 19th century legal understanding that kinda sorta get in the way of that whole liberty/freedom thing. The folks in 1790 really took the liberty thing seriously. Unless you were black. Or a woman. Or not a landowner.

Isn't this fun?

Chicago
08-23-2011, 2:03 PM
Plaintiffs having moved for a Preliminary Injunction on 07-JUL-11; most of us have, since arguments were heard on 04-AUG-11, been expecting Judge Myerscough to rule any day now. Couriously, however, Defendants today filed a Motion to Clarify as relates to their 27-JUL-11 response to the Motion for PI. You gotta wonder what precipitated this.

yellowfin
08-23-2011, 4:17 PM
You're basically asking the government to agree that the citizenry has the right to defend itself against the government. Not gonna happen.Already happened at least once:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Chief Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

kcbrown
08-23-2011, 4:31 PM
Already happened at least once:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Chief Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

Nope, that doesn't count, because it's a dissent by a single judge on the denial to rehear Silveira v Lockyer en banc.


The only thing that counts is an actual majority court opinion stating what Kozinski stated, because that's the only thing that makes any difference as to government's actions. Even worse, said court opinion has to survive all appeals.

When it comes to government agreeing that the population has the right to defend itself against that same government, that's simply not gonna happen. And dissenting court opinions carry no real weight, particularly on that.

hoffmang
08-23-2011, 9:45 PM
Plaintiffs having moved for a Preliminary Injunction on 07-JUL-11; most of us have, since arguments were heard on 04-AUG-11, been expecting Judge Myerscough to rule any day now. Couriously, however, Defendants today filed a Motion to Clarify as relates to their 27-JUL-11 response to the Motion for PI. You gotta wonder what precipitated this.

Illinois claimed you could open carry in some places and thus the laws weren't a complete ban. Oops. It's a complete ban! Nothing to see here. Move along.

There is a reason they weren't all that "plain" in that filing...

-Gene

Paladin
08-23-2011, 11:03 PM
Illinois claimed you could open carry in some places and thus the laws weren't a complete ban. Oops. It's a complete ban! Nothing to see here. Move along.

There is a reason they weren't all that "plain" in that filing...

-GenePerfect example of what NOT to do if you want a judge to be sympathetic to your side. :D

Is it okay for me to say "Go Team, go!" for IL's lawyers? LOL! Kinda reminds me of the mayor of DC asking for cert. for Heller. "Go Team, go!"

Chicago
08-24-2011, 6:12 AM
... There is a reason they weren't all that "plain" in that filing...
-Gene

In their reply to plaintiff's Motion for PI, defendants asserted:
"
In any event, Illinois does not stop plaintiffs from 'bearing' arms now. Nothing in Illinois law prevents people from 'carrying' arms in ... any land outside 'the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town' ... Accordingly, Illinois' current statutory scheme aligns with the Second Amendment's text as well as its history.
"

Those of us who live in Illinois know that to be patently false though plaintiff's attorney (David Jensen of New York city) may not have, as there was no challenge; certainly not in written reply and apparently not during oral arguments.

Intriguing here, however, is what, at this late point in time, inspired our Attorney General to recant her lie; ehem ... acknowledge that "the brief did not make that distinction clear".

socal2310
08-24-2011, 10:11 AM
Trying to get FA recognized as arms in common use at this time is like asking the girl you met in the bar for the first time if she'd like to have anal sex with you.

All in time, and sometimes not at all.

-Gene

I think most of us can agree to that. On the other hand, I also think it would be better if our side could refrain from dragging the argument: full-auto = unusual before courts repeatedly. If we ever find ourselves in a position to challenge either the Hughes Amendment or the NFA in its entirety (unlikely though that seems from our present vantage point), I really hate the thought of the defendants saying, "Other plaintiffs have agreed that bans are constitutional, here, here, here, here and here."

Ryan

dvcrsn
08-24-2011, 10:45 AM
Do you think the collective legs of SAF, CGF, et al are getting tired from kicking the cr*p out of Chicago?

I sure hope not--the well known stubbornness of Chicago and other machine politicians is one of the best ways of eliminating many of the restrictions here in Kali

hoffmang
08-24-2011, 1:27 PM
I think most of us can agree to that. On the other hand, I also think it would be better if our side could refrain from dragging the argument: full-auto = unusual before courts repeatedly. If we ever find ourselves in a position to challenge either the Hughes Amendment or the NFA in its entirety (unlikely though that seems from our present vantage point), I really hate the thought of the defendants saying, "Other plaintiffs have agreed that bans are constitutional, here, here, here, here and here."

Ryan

How about we just have the federal legislature repeal the Hughes Amendment at the right time?

Sounds a whole lot easier.

-Gene

dantodd
08-24-2011, 1:50 PM
How about we just have the federal legislature repeal the Hughes Amendment at the right time?

Sounds a whole lot easier.

-Gene

When the time is right this needs to be addressed for what it is. It keeps the weapons capable of being used to stop tyranny out of the hands of the common person and makes them available only to those wealthy enough to be essentially unaffected by such tyranny, should it come to pass.

Uxi
08-24-2011, 2:51 PM
How about we just have the federal legislature repeal the Hughes Amendment at the right time?

Sounds a whole lot easier.


Not with a POTUS receptive to the idea. This one would veto it if it even got out of the Senate (which it wouldn't). It will hopefully be different in 2012.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 3:33 PM
Not with a POTUS receptive to the idea. This one would veto it if it even got out of the Senate (which it wouldn't). It will hopefully be different in 2012.

If we form our stragy only for the current occupant of the white house or e make up of the legislature and judiciary we would be doomed. We can't solve every problem in a single decade.

yellowfin
08-24-2011, 4:20 PM
Trying to get FA recognized as arms in common use at this time is like asking the girl you met in the bar for the first time if she'd like to have anal sex with you.

All in time, and sometimes not at all.

-GeneA task made considerably more possible by listening first to whether they've said they're into it before asking. Keep your ears open and your attention focused and you can find the right person for anything.

Chicago
09-13-2011, 10:29 AM
Yesterday defendants filed a motion to cite supplemental authority in support of their objection to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and of their motion to dismiss. That 'supplemental authority'? Kachalsky v. Cacace. No surprise here.

7x57
09-13-2011, 7:47 PM
How about we just have the federal legislature repeal the Hughes Amendment at the right time?

Sounds a whole lot easier.


It has always seemed the only realistic option.

Even if one believes one can win on the "in common use" argument in this epoch at all, it seems one would have to first repeal the Hughes amendment and let the logjam break to solidify the case for commonality. That's assuming one believes it will fly even when "in common use" really *means* common.

The most probable outcome seems to me to be that the controlling precedent will be set by some lackwit with a history of liquor-store robberies or something arguing an NFA case pro se, and then we can quit arguing over long-since spilled milk. I imagine that's the maximum-likelihood outcome for a number of items that need to be waited for. :(

On folly there is no waiting period. :D

7x57

yellowfin
09-15-2011, 9:13 AM
Nope, that doesn't count, because it's a dissent by a single judge on the denial to rehear Silveira v Lockyer en banc.


The only thing that counts is an actual majority court opinion stating what Kozinski stated, because that's the only thing that makes any difference as to government's actions. Even worse, said court opinion has to survive all appeals.

When it comes to government agreeing that the population has the right to defend itself against that same government, that's simply not gonna happen. And dissenting court opinions carry no real weight, particularly on that.Aha! Well looky here what I found...a whole bunch of them...
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

Purple K
09-19-2011, 7:59 PM
Aha! Well looky here what I found...a whole bunch of them...
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Very interesting

kcbrown
09-19-2011, 8:53 PM
Aha! Well looky here what I found...a whole bunch of them...
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Most of those look like state cases, but the point is yours. I can't really refute it. Good job! Looks like my categorical statement was incorrect...

Chicago
11-02-2011, 9:34 AM
Just Posted ...

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)

36) +++ SEALED DOCUMENT - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNREDACTED Letter. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)

... but haven't a clue as to what to make of it.

HowardW56
11-02-2011, 9:48 AM
Just Posted ...

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)

36) +++ SEALED DOCUMENT - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNREDACTED Letter. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)

... but haven't a clue as to what to make of it.

What is this case?

Kharn
11-02-2011, 10:09 AM
Someone circulating a brief with law-enforcement-sensitive (effectively classified, but for cops instead of the military) information?

chris12
11-02-2011, 10:13 AM
Since SAF is a plaintiff, shouldn't all SAF members be allowed to see the document?

hoffmang
11-02-2011, 8:11 PM
This is... abnormal.

-Gene

Al Norris
11-02-2011, 9:31 PM
Understatement.

safewaysecurity
11-02-2011, 9:38 PM
I'm confused. Secret win? Hehe

dantodd
11-03-2011, 12:12 AM
Someone circulating a brief with law-enforcement-sensitive (effectively classified, but for cops instead of the military) information?

why do you think it is a "law-enforcement-sensitive" document? Did I miss something?

Kharn
11-03-2011, 2:54 AM
why do you think it is a "law-enforcement-sensitive" document? Did I miss something?It could be anything containing an active investigation, for example, some idiot sent the Judge a letter saying rule one way or he's going to ________, which would trigger an investigation and warrant warning the parties involved.

dantodd
11-03-2011, 7:26 AM
It could be anything containing an active investigation, for example, some idiot sent the Judge a letter saying rule one way or he's going to ________, which would trigger an investigation and warrant warning the parties involved.

I understand what it is, I was wondering WHY you assume that's what it is. Sis I m,OSS something that said the document is law enforcement related?

Kharn
11-03-2011, 8:53 AM
I understand what it is, I was wondering WHY you assume that's what it is. Sis I m,OSS something that said the document is law enforcement related?Its one possibility, another (from MDShooters) is that its from the Supreme Court saying to watch for cert in another case and to hold off on doing anything rash in this one.

Chicago
11-03-2011, 9:32 AM
... one possibility ... is that its from the Supreme Court saying to watch for cert in another case and to hold off on doing anything rash in this one.

Perhaps; excapt that the docket for Shepard v. Madigan -- the Southern District analogue to this Central District case -- contains no similar entry and, indeed, has not beenj updated since 26-OCT-11.

Connor P Price
11-03-2011, 9:38 AM
http://sas.guidespot.com/bundles/guides_70/assets/widget_b3S83FmJvnJyVZVv2pAFoT.jpg

choprzrul
11-03-2011, 10:02 AM
Somebody needs to open their mail and send us an update....

.

Connor P Price
11-03-2011, 10:05 AM
Somebody needs to open their mail and send us an update....

.

It looks like it was given to the United States Postal Service yesterday. It could be weeks before its in anyone's mailbox.

dantodd
11-03-2011, 10:41 AM
Somebody needs to open their mail and send us an update....

.

Sealed means no updates, for a while at least.

choprzrul
11-03-2011, 11:08 AM
Sealed means no updates, for a while at least.

Do I have this correct: the document is sealed from public view, but the mail recipients will have full access? Would the judge dictate non-disclosure of said letter's contents, or will recipients be able to disclose upon receipt?

Is the 800lb gorilla handing out smackdowns?

.

Gray Peterson
11-03-2011, 12:43 PM
Do I have this correct: the document is sealed from public view, but the mail recipients will have full access? Would the judge dictate non-disclosure of said letter's contents, or will recipients be able to disclose upon receipt?

Is the 800lb gorilla handing out smackdowns?

.

Sealed means they can't talk about it.

Mrbroom
11-03-2011, 2:20 PM
Someone call the Enquirer please...

hoffmang
11-03-2011, 8:58 PM
Random letter sealed to protect the odd. Nothing to see here. Move along.

-Gene

dantodd
11-03-2011, 9:20 PM
Random letter sealed to protect the odd. Nothing to see here. Move along.

-Gene

Birdt or Gorski?

hoffmang
11-03-2011, 11:16 PM
Birdt or Gorski?

Heh.

-Gene

Window_Seat
11-04-2011, 10:16 AM
Birdt or Gorski?

You forgot Charles Nichols...

Erik.

Mrbroom
11-07-2011, 6:55 AM
So I would assume that all parties now should have received the sealed document.. Anyone from TMZ here that can shed some light?

Kharn
11-07-2011, 7:46 AM
Disclosing the contents of a sealed letter from the court might result in disbarment, we wouldn't want that for someone on our side. Unless the judge unseals it, or mentions it in a ruling, the vast majority of us will never know.

hoffmang
11-07-2011, 4:56 PM
So I would assume that all parties now should have received the sealed document.. Anyone from TMZ here that can shed some light?

I know not the content, but I know from those who I trust implicitly that there is nothing to see there.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
12-14-2011, 12:31 AM
Here's the transcript:

Preliminary Injunction Transcript (http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.37.0.pdf)

ckprax
12-14-2011, 9:31 AM
A good read. Thanks for the link. Illinois seems to be grasping at straws. I am biased but it was clear who made the better case. The Judge apparently owns a gun.

Funtimes
12-14-2011, 9:29 PM
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one... I've seen something quite similar. :popcorn:

Window_Seat
01-19-2012, 1:53 PM
01/19/2012: "TEXT ORDER: The Court now considers Defendants' Motion to Clarify (d/e 31), in which Defendants move to clarify a point made in their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (d/e 26). Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion. See d/e 32. Defendants' Motion to Clarify is GRANTED. Also before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority (d/e 33), in which Defendants request leave to cite an additional case in support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (d/e 26) and Motion to Dismiss (d/e 24). Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion. See d/e 34. Defendants' Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority (d/e 33) is GRANTED. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 01/19/2012. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 01/19/2012)".

Erik.

safewaysecurity
01-27-2012, 11:27 PM
I feel like the judge is going to rule against us despite Ezell. I read the transcript and she only asked questions of the plaintiff. Also she's appointed by Obama and clerked for a judge appointed by Jimmy Carter. But who knows I could be wrong. Anything that gets this up to the next level faster is good.

Kharn
01-28-2012, 4:59 AM
All that matters is we get rulings quickly.
The only court that counts is at 1 First St, DC.

press1280
01-28-2012, 5:02 AM
Most likely they're going to cite the NJ and TX 18-20 YO CCW cases as supplemental authority. More "only in the home," as the lower courts continue to try to box the 2A in as keeping only, not bearing.

press1280
02-05-2012, 2:56 AM
Another loss :mad: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.38.0.pdf

More "only in the home". Already appealing to the 7th Circuit.........

kcbrown
02-05-2012, 3:14 AM
Another loss :mad: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.38.0.pdf

More "only in the home". Already appealing to the 7th Circuit.........

Catch me whilst I faint in astonishment... :rolleyes:


Since this is a preliminary injunction that's being gone after, the appeal should be fast, and we should get a ruling from the circuit court in 3 months, right?

press1280
02-05-2012, 5:45 AM
Catch me whilst I faint in astonishment... :rolleyes:


Since this is a preliminary injunction that's being gone after, the appeal should be fast, and we should get a ruling from the circuit court in 3 months, right?

Good question-Although I thought that would have been the case in the District court-and that took 7 months or so?

Chicago
02-05-2012, 7:39 AM
Since this is a preliminary injunction that's being gone after, the appeal should be fast, and we should get a ruling from the circuit court in 3 months, right?
|
We waited nine months for the 7th circuit's reversal (06-JUL-11) of the district court's denial of Ezell's motion for PI (12-OCT-10); a ruling which, three months later (28-SEP-11), the district court advised it would be ignoring. Today, a full year and one half after the Ezell complaint was originally filed (16-AUG-10), the prospects for a public gun range in Chicago -- fruit that hangs pretty darned low -- seem as remote as ever.
|
The Moore complaint was filed on 12-MAY-11. There is, IMHO, little reason to expect substantive relief for Illinoisans; or even a slot on the SCOTUS docket; any time this year.
|

OleCuss
02-05-2012, 7:56 AM
It should be pointed out that the EDBU district court judge's ignoring of the Ezell circuit ruling is not being appealed. That's because the pro-RKBA side would rather use the bad ruling for our own purposes rather than simply going back up to the 7th and getting her stomped on.

SAF/CGF are crafty devils. They understand that what you can do is not always what you should do. They also understand that maturity might be defined as the ability or inclination to endure short-term unpleasantness in pursuit of a greater good.

So accept the fact that we're getting screwed by the Ezell district court and use that fact to keep hammering at Chicago until we've gotten the courts to clearly delineate how little an entity can do to obstruct our RKBA.

Without a chity council like Chicago's and without a district court like they have, it could take us a very long time to get a court to stomp on all the stupidity - and in this case we get to do it in the 7th Circuit which gave us Ezell!

Life is good if we are patient!

Rossi357
02-05-2012, 9:21 AM
It amazes me how none of the lower courts use any of the reasoning (there is a name for it?) used by Heller and McDonald to reach it's ruling. Ezell held that having access to a gun range is very close to the core right, but no other court holds that carrying outside the home is anywhere near the core right.
My head is going to explode.

ziegenbock
02-05-2012, 10:53 AM
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=10-2356_002.pdf

7th circuit opinion: Before BAUER, WOOD, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. To bad this guy went out and killed somebody...might have won his loaded open carry case.

Window_Seat
02-05-2012, 4:13 PM
The Seventh Circuit has not specifically considered the question of whether the Second Amendment right articulated in Heller includes a general right to bear arms outside of the home. Most recently, the court considered whether a city-wide ban on firing-range training, where such training was a prerequisite for lawful gun ownership, burdened the core of the Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home. See Ezell, 651 F.3d at 689-90. The court's finding that the ban burdened the core of the Second Amendment right was based on its reasoning that the ban, by effectively precluding lawful gun ownership, severely interfered with “the right to keep and bear arms for defense of
self, family, and home” articulated in Heller. Id. at 704. The court did not make a finding regarding the scope of the Second Amendment outside of the home.

The Ezell Court didn't need to make that finding, because it was automatically made when they found that the total ban on gun ranges violated the core right. By virtue of the fact that gun ranges are that which is commonly located "outside the home" made it so that the Second Amendment is a protected right outside the home, did it not?

However, the Seventh Circuit’s characterization of the scope of that right in Ezell and Skoien supports the conclusion that the Second Amendment right, as recognized by the Supreme Court, does not extend outside of the home.

OK, then let's really look at that statement, and compare it with this holding:

McDonald v. Chicago Pp. 33-34:
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a by-gone era. Municipal respondents submit that the Due Process Clause protects only those rights “‘recognized by all temperate and civilized governments, from a deep and universal sense of [their] justice.’” Brief for Municipal Respondents 9 (quoting Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 166 U. S., at 238). According to municipal respondents, if it is possible to imagine any civilized legal system that does not recognize a particular right, then the Due Process Clause does not make that right binding on the States. Brief for Municipal Respondents 9. Therefore, the municipal respondents continue, because such countries as England, Canada, Australia, Japan, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, and New Zealand either ban or severely limit handgun ownership, it must follow that no right to possess such weapons is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 21–23. This line of argument is, of course, inconsistent with the long-established standard we apply in incorporation cases. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. And the present-day implications of municipal respondents’ argument are stunning.

So the way I'm taking this is that if the core right is treated as a second class right, then it would be treated as a right strictly limited to only inside the home.

Guys, Gals... We wait for these cases to get out of the District Court.

Remember, Heller and McDonald were losses in the District Court. McDonald was a loss at CA7, while Heller won in the Federal Circuit. Both of them won in the USSC. So far, we're 3 for 3 (even as Nordyke III goes en banc).

It's a matter of when the Justices give guidance to the Article 3 courts on how NOT TO RULE in these matters, and that guidance will likely come in the form of a big spanking by none other than Mr. C. J. Roberts himself. CA7 already did, and now the District Court needs an even bigger spanking and will likely get one if we get the same panel as in Ezell, but I'm still not sure how exactly that works.

Moore might just be "thee" carry case (if it's not Peterson). If it's not either of the 2, it will likely be Scocca as that is a straight Fourteenth Amendment equal protection case, and we just might see that one going to "1, First Street, NE", and a win in that case would be gigantic for everyone in all "57 states" (snort snort).

With Ezell, if Peterson is ruled in the defendants favor, will there not be a massive circuit split?

Having made these points, as I understand it, the Roberts Court would rather take "as applied" challenges as opposed to facial attacks, but I need confirmation on that.

So with that stated, and now this little optimism bit as it's finally out of the District Court, and that's what I'm really waiting for, and we need to take this as sort of a victory, no?

:jump::party:

Erik.

Gray Peterson
02-05-2012, 6:48 PM
Moore might just be "thee" carry case (if it's not Peterson). If it's not either of the 2, it will likely be Scocca as that is a straight Fourteenth Amendment equal protection case, and we just might see that one going to "1, First Street, NE", and a win in that case would be gigantic for everyone in all "57 states" (snort snort).

With Ezell, if Peterson is ruled in the defendants favor, will there not be a massive circuit split?



Yes, which would allow for an appeal up to SCOTUS in my case on easier and firmer ground per SCOTUS rule 10. If you win your case, you can't appeal to SCOTUS.

Chicago
02-06-2012, 7:53 AM
The Ezell Moore might just be "thee" carry case (if it's not Peterson). If it's not either of the 2, it will likely be Scocca ...

Don't forget Shepard v. Madigan.

Recall that Mary Shepard is the petite (5'2", 135lbs) church treasurer who; having attained the age of sixty-nine, completed five firearm training courses, secured two CCLs, and dutifully left her gun "in the home"; was found, with a seventy-six year old co-worker, robbed, beaten, and left for dead by career criminal Willis Bates. Her case was filed one day after the Moore case -- both in response to failure of Illinois' legislature to advance HR822 (public carry) -- so it ought not be long before we find out if Judge Stiehl agrees with Judge Myerscough.

Librarian
02-06-2012, 11:33 AM
Challenged the Illinois “Unlawful Use of Weapons” and “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon” statutes regarding carry for self-defense.

At No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/02/moore-v-madigan-dismissed-but-will-be.html), who has links to the District court opinion and the notice of appeal.
As I wrote in a post last year regarding Judge Myersclough and the Mishaga case, she was nominated by President Obama. She had been asked whether Heller and McDonald limited handgun possession to the home and she replied that the Supreme Court left that for future evaluations. I guess we know now where she stands on that.

dexter9659
02-06-2012, 11:41 AM
"Myersclough then says that even if the laws violated the Second Amendment, the statutes would survive constitutional scrutiny."

Assuming she was the overseeing judge...

mag360
02-06-2012, 11:44 AM
that is an impossible justification to come to post Heller. The argument is "where can't I bring my gun" as a limit on a fundamental right that must survive strict scrutiny. I think when the dust settles on a carry case at the supreme court with the current justices, nationwide cary will look like California's places of carry.

Rossi357
02-06-2012, 11:58 AM
This case will get the default decision...."Most notably in the home means only in the home."
Eating a sandwich and taking a nap. :sleeping:

A-J
02-06-2012, 12:21 PM
Myersclough then says that even if the laws violated the Second Amendment, the statutes would survive constitutional scrutiny.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but how can something violate the second amendment, yet still "survive" constitutional scrutiny?

hoffmang
02-06-2012, 8:30 PM
Her argument is incredibly thin and contradicts itself in places. That's good because if she had an argument better than, well the 2A doesn't apply out doors, then she would have made it.

We're out of District and CA-7 moves quickly. This and Peterson are the ones to watch at this point.

-Gene

Al Norris
05-11-2012, 5:29 PM
Looks like this thread hasn't been updated in a while!

For your reading pleasure, here are the opening brief and the States response.

press1280
05-12-2012, 9:14 AM
IL's info regarding the carry laws of DC is also wrong(or they're just omitting important information on purpose). From the Palmer briefs:"Accordingly, the history of laws regulating the carrying of handguns in Washington, D.C.
is as follows: In 1858, Congress banned the concealed carrying of guns but left open carrying
unregulated. In 1892, Congress continued the ban on concealed carrying, and added that open
carrying was permitted so long as the individual not harbor unlawful intent. In 1932, Congress
created a licensing mechanism for concealed carrying in the District, which in 1943 was extended
to the open carrying of handguns. None of this is remarkable." IL was trying to pass it off that DC had a carry ban since 1858, when technically the ban came into effect right after Heller(although they pretty much didn't issue permits in recent years).
Also, I've seen the Wyoming carry ban of 1875 used by several of the state defendants. I can't recall how Gura and Co. refuted this before, but at that time WY had no RKBA amendment(2A not applicable either), so what's the point of bringing this up? There's also the fact that not too long after (1889) , WY added a RKBA amendment to their state constitution. Think that ban on carry had something to do with it?
IL also tries to use some of the 19th Century "dangerous weapons" cases (aka cheap pistols bad expensive horsemen's pistols OK) to back them up. I highly doubt the court will fall for that.
Seems IL has made a lot of errors here and Gura should be able to call them on it easily. Let's hope the panel takes into account all of these errors.

Al Norris
05-23-2012, 7:19 PM
Today, the appellant, Shepard and Moore, was to have filed briefs in reply to the State. Nothing has yet shown up in the docket for Moore but the brief did show up for Shepard.

39 pages, which I have yet to read. I'm over my upload limit, so you will have to get it from the ISRA site.

I did catch this little gem, in the opening statements. Y'all will like it:

The State’s primary defense of its unique law banning all carrying of operable firearms in public is that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to bear a firearm outside one’s home for personal defense. State Br. at 8, 14. Rather, the Second Amendment right to bear a firearm in public is collective in nature, tied exclusively to service in the militia and arising only when necessary for the common defense against “an oppressive military force if the constitutional order [breaks] down.” State Br. 17, quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599 (2008).

And y'all thought the collective rights argument was dead!!

ETA: OK, for whatever reasons, my wires were crossed. This is the final reply brief by the appellant/Plaintiff Shepard. Still waiting for Gura's brief in Moore.

Al Norris
05-24-2012, 9:14 AM
Now that I've had a good nights sleep, got my first few cups of coffee down, allow me to highlight a few items from both briefs.

The brief for Moore has finally shown up. What follows is the opening summary of Alan Gura's argument.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Much, if not most of the material submitted by Defendants and their amici has already been anticipated—and fully addressed—in Plaintiffs’ opening brief. The remainder is clearly foreclosed by circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

At bottom, Defendants and their amici simply cannot refute the plain fact that the right to “bear” arms, as historically understood in this country, includes the right to carry handguns for defensive purposes outside one’s home. That right is the starting point of any legislative program designed to regulate the right in the interest of public safety—but it is the end of Defendants’ total prohibition on bearing arms.

Because the right to carry defensive arms outside the home is within the Second Amendment’s original public meaning, and as “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010), Defendants’ policy choice to totally prohibit the public carrying of firearms is “off the table.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008).

The statistical debate, though interesting, is entirely irrelevant. It does not matter whether the people’s policy choice is alleged to be unwise or outdated. This Court cannot utilize means-ends scrutiny—a mechanism for weighing a regulation against a right—to determine whether a right exists in the first place. To the extent any level of scrutiny could be applied to analyze a complete prohibition of a constitutional right, the standard of review is strict scrutiny, or the “not quite” strict scrutiny used in Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).

Mr. Gura then gets to the meat of his argument by first reminding the Court that in their en banc decision in Skoien that even they noted that 2A rights outside the home were "left open" by the SCOTUS. Then he quotes Justice Alito's opening statement in McDonald.

(I)n (Heller), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.

Gura then recites what I (and many others) have said from the beginning: "Self-defense, not home possession, is the 'central component of the right itself.'"

In case you are not aware, the Brady's have filed 2 amici briefs for various groups; LCAV has filed 2 amici briefs for various groups; the City of Chicago has filed an amicus brief as did the District of Columbia.

Gura, in his final reply, deals with them all, by refuting each and every one of these briefs and their claims.

While Gura dealt majorly with all the bogus stats, thrown about by the defendants and their amici, or that the State was merely regulating and not prohibiting the exercise of the right, in the home, NRA attorney Charles Cooper in his reply brief (Shepard), deals with the (once again) raised spectre of the collective militia theory or that the right was not a right to self defense.

This two-pronged defense makes it absolutely clear that the two sides (NRA v. SAF) have in fact collaborated.

Just as Alan Gura has gone into explicit detail on the idea that the right to bear arms for self defense in public, is not outside the core of the right, Cooper goes into explicit detail showing that regulation does not mean the total prohibition of the right, or that the right was limited only to the confines of one's property.

Speaking to the interests of the State, Cooper says this:

The State’s defense fails at the threshold, for the interest it asserts—“preventing the discharge of firearms in public,” State Br. 38—is not, standing alone, an important one. Whether or not gun-fire is harmful or beneficial depends on the circumstances. By seeking to prevent public discharge of firearms regardless of the circumstances, the State equates criminal, malicious discharges with discharges that are responsible and justified and perhaps life saving. It essentially values the health and safety of criminals, whose firearm discharges are highly unlikely to be prevented by the State’s carriage ban, over that of innocent victims, whose are.

It is finally written: State bans on carry are no more than the State saying that either the entire public is criminal in nature, or that it values the criminal element more than its law abiding citizens.

Charles Cooper goes into great detail on this aspect of "public safety" and the erroneous conclusions of disarming its citizens. The only "blood in the streets" will be that of the citizens. Protecting the criminal, at the expense of the law abiding citizen, is not a "public safety" issue.

Both briefs overlap in some areas, but the overall thrust is to use both briefs to refute the contentions all of the various amici of the State and the State itself.

Alan Gura makes his final conclusion:

The judgment below should be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to enter a permanent injunction consistent with Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief.

This is shorthand for what Charles Cooper asks:

IV. THIS CASE IS RIPE FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION.

In the alternative, the State asks for a “remand to permit the district courts in the first instance to make the factual findings necessary to determine whether the State can demonstrate a sufficient fit between the challenged statutes and their public-safety purpose.” State Br. 52. No remand is necessary. “A fact that goes to the reasonableness of a rule or other enactment is a classic example of a legislative fact.” Menora v. Illinois High Sch. Ass’n, 683 F.2d 1030, 1036 (7th Cir. 1982). Judicial consideration of legislative facts is not limited by “any formal requirements of notice other than those already inherent in affording opportunity to hear and be heard and exchanging briefs,” nor by “any requirement of formal findings at any level.” FED. R. EVID. 201, 1972 advisory committee note. The State has had an opportunity to be heard, and it does not suggest that it has held anything back in its presentation to this Court. The practical result of a remand for further proceedings would be to delay resolution both of this case and the Moore case to allow for proceedings before two different district courts, only to end up back before this Court exercising “plenary” review of any findings of legislative facts entered below. See Free v. Peters, 12 F.3d 700, 706 (7th Cir. 1993). This Court should forego such a pointless exercise and decide this case now.

CONCLUSION

This Court should REVERSE the judgment below granting the State’s motion to dismiss, and REMAND with instructions to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and to enter a permanent injunction against enforcement of the challenged statutes. Alternatively, should the Court decide to remand the case for further proceedings, it should order the district court to enter a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the challenged statutes pending final judgment.

Both briefs are excellent reads.

Briefing is done. Oral arguments at the 7th circuit are scheduled for June 8th, a bare 2 weeks ahead.

hammerhead_77
05-24-2012, 10:19 AM
That is some very cool writing, indeed. [now, insert tired "two weeks" reference here]

Finally something seems to be moving at the pace we mortals expect...

05FLHT
05-24-2012, 11:18 AM
That is some very cool writing, indeed. [now, insert tired "two weeks" reference here]

Finally something seems to be moving at the pace we mortals expect...

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but orals are literally two weeks away on the 8th.

ELBong
05-25-2012, 10:54 AM
Any links to the reply briefs in Shepard and Moore?

05FLHT
05-25-2012, 1:08 PM
MdShooter. (http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=57800&page=8)

Links to the Reply Briefs are in post 160 & 162.

Paladin
06-07-2012, 6:17 PM
Briefing is done. Oral arguments at the 7th circuit are scheduled for June 8th, a bare 2 weeks ahead.June is a busy month....

Paladin
06-08-2012, 7:33 AM
Anyone know what time oral arguments in this case are being heard? when the audio will be online?

safewaysecurity
06-08-2012, 10:11 AM
The oral argument is already online.

RKV
06-08-2012, 10:33 AM
At the risk of being over obvious, a link to the oral arguments would be very nice to have.

spalterego
06-08-2012, 10:49 AM
I believe this is the link, although I haven't listened all the way through to confirm.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/IS0SKAQ1.mp3

About :30 seconds of paper shuffling at the beginning. Then argument begins.

Gray Peterson
06-08-2012, 10:50 AM
When the presiding judge calls the state attorney an idiot, you are done.

dantodd
06-08-2012, 11:03 AM
Just started listening and I am very intrigued by the number of times I've heard "is that an 18th century concept?" and other references to what limits were permissible in the 18th century.

Drivedabizness
06-08-2012, 11:14 AM
I'm amazed at the dogged refusal to give a straight answer to a simple question. If I was a judge, I'd be highly tempted to vote against the advocate who was unable/unwilling to give a straight answer.

dantodd
06-08-2012, 11:18 AM
I'm amazed at the dogged refusal to give a straight answer to a simple question. If I was a judge, I'd be highly tempted to vote against the advocate who was unable/unwilling to give a straight answer.

There are many reasons to not answer a specific question. In many situations you might simply tell the inquisitor that, for example, regulating carry in bars is beyond the scope of the instant lawsuit. You will get much more crap for telling a judge that than for "dodging" the question.

Drivedabizness
06-08-2012, 11:31 AM
Judge: What are the data which show that IL has a lower death rate as a result of its very strict law?

Attorney: We don't have any

Judge: Of course not

spalterego
06-08-2012, 11:33 AM
Oh man this is fun listening. They really grill the State's Attorney.

Drivedabizness
06-08-2012, 11:33 AM
The more I listen to the judge...I like.

The State's attorney is in a tough spot - trying to say Heller says something other than what it plainly said.

RKV
06-08-2012, 11:39 AM
Judges are getting hung up on doing what the legislature should do, rather than fixing on what the Constitution and history says. Agreed that the 2nd half of the questions with the states attorney were very pointed.

dantodd
06-08-2012, 11:41 AM
OK, I'm really excited about this after hearing the oral arguments. The judges seem to be asking all the right questions of the state and the questions of the plaintiff's seem to be focusing on the limits of the injunction rather than if there is to be an injunction. I really hope this went as well as it sounds.

I didn't hear the exact word "idiot" but "that's just rhetoric" was pretty funny.

I sure got the feeling that the court wasn't real fond of the State's Atty.

2009_gunner
06-08-2012, 2:21 PM
Listening to the audio now. The best quote, so far, is by Judge Posner speaking to Illinois' attorney around 28:50

What does it mean to "bear arms" if there's no right to carry arms in a public place? You don't bear guns in your house. You don't march around with a gun over your shoulder. Right?

:D

safewaysecurity
06-08-2012, 2:46 PM
I liked when the judge corrected the defendants history when he pointed out that Wyoming and Arizona were not part of the U.S when the constitution was written.

HowardW56
06-08-2012, 2:56 PM
I liked when the judge corrected the defendants history when he pointed out that Wyoming and Arizona were not part of the U.S when the constitution was written.

that one made me laugh too....

Gray Peterson
06-08-2012, 3:38 PM
that one made me laugh too....

They are focusing on 1791. This is a good thing.

Mrbroom
06-08-2012, 4:26 PM
I believe this is the link, although I haven't listened all the way through to confirm.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/IS0SKAQ1.mp3

About :30 seconds of paper shuffling at the beginning. Then argument begins.

is the link broken or is it just me? I am getting the unable to download message.

OleCuss
06-08-2012, 4:47 PM
The link doesn't work for me, either.

monk
06-08-2012, 4:48 PM
is the link broken or is it just me? I am getting the unable to download message.

Im getting it too. Maybe it got taken down?

Fjold
06-08-2012, 4:50 PM
Im getting it too. Maybe it got taken down?

Ouch, I really want to listen to it.

Gray Peterson
06-08-2012, 5:01 PM
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=12-1269_001.mp3

Dreaded Claymore
06-08-2012, 5:38 PM
Without a chity council like Chicago's and without a district court like they have, it could take us a very long time to get a court to stomp on all the stupidity - and in this case we get to do it in the 7th Circuit which gave us Ezell!
http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab17/DreadedClaymore/sp_0611_06_m4.jpg

"Goddamn SAF, get away from my chity council!"

HowardW56
06-08-2012, 5:42 PM
They are focusing on 1791. This is a good thing.


Yes it is...

OleCuss
06-08-2012, 6:01 PM
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=12-1269_001.mp3

Thank you.

That one works.

Drivedabizness
06-08-2012, 6:15 PM
Call me a worrier, but in 1791 the "right to bear arms" so laboriously laid out in Heller was taken for granted.

I'm uncomfortable with the whole "were pistols commonplace in the 18th century?" line of questioning.

I'm glad the attorney reminded the Court that they are bound by both Heller and McDonald - but a lot of the questions appeared to border on mental masturbation on the part of the Court.

Of course, IANAL - but the whole proceeding waxed strange at times.

dantodd
06-08-2012, 6:17 PM
Since this is an injunction hearing can we expect a relatively speedy opinion?

hoffmang
06-08-2012, 6:20 PM
Since this is an injunction hearing can we expect a relatively speedy opinion?

CA-7 moves quickly. In McDonald they issued an opinion in two weeks (no really) but here I expect it will be a bit longer than that. Either way, pretty soon.

-Gene

SilverBulletZ06
06-08-2012, 6:48 PM
Pretty good news that the court seems to "get it" that firearms are to be allowed to be outside the home and that people have genuine uses for defensive firearms.

Bad news is that they seem to have a thing for "may issue".

OleCuss
06-08-2012, 6:52 PM
As someone with essentially no legal training I did not take great comfort from the oral arguments.

It seemed to me that there was little sympathy for the Illinois law as currently written but that the court might allow a rather restrictive "Good Cause" provision encoded by a legislature.

Of course, my interpretation of where the court is headed is pretty limited based on who was doing the questioning and an incomplete understanding of the written briefs.

But it sounded to me like the state's current law was found by three judges to be into the ridiculous realm. That's good.

Paladin
06-08-2012, 8:19 PM
* Gura was floundering from about 10 - 13 min in re "concealed weapons" at the time of the drafting of the 2nd A, as did Cooper later. (Related, but OT Q: Does anyone know when holsters for HGNs became common?)

Gura could have said knives were common back then and were readily concealed. Maybe he didn't think of it or maybe he didn't want to go there. Either way, the panel pretty much dismissed him when he kept bringing up fact-based criteria. Why not just say state and local gov'ts can ban drinking while carrying, but can't ban mere carrying in bars, but owners of bars can ban carry if they want??? The state, possibly, could then criminalize violating the bar's (posted) ban, just like the state criminalizes many behaviors between individuals and businesses (criminal trespass, vandalism).

Similarly, gov'ts can ban from gov't schools, but may not from private, but can criminalize those who carry in private schools that choose to ban. Private schools that ban, if they want, could make exceptions for teachers/staff/parents/custodians who has restraining order against someone.

* If we eventually get a true 2nd A RKBA again (aka unlicensed loaded carry), I could see states allowing only OC w/o a license and banning CC w/o a license. We'll be back in the 1800s again, but w/the option of licensed CCing.

* ~19:30 Posner posed a difficult and insightful Q when asking whether the state has more power to ban/regulate (my words) CC or OC....

* Several places the panel (or maybe it was just Posner) brings up how out of step IL is w/the rest of the country. ~32:45 the Assist AG said, "The NRA, as they trumpet on their website, has convinced 31 states since 1987 to adopt Right-to-Carry laws." Seems like the NRA, and I guess that's the NRA-ILA in particular, might deserves some credit from our side.... Just sayin'

* ~35:45 I laughed when Posner chides the AAG by saying that WY wasn't part of the US at the time of ratifying the BoR, and then, if you listen carefully, Posner says something like "or looking to France" [to interpret the 2nd A] :p -- Oooh, liberal SCOTUS justices smack down! I LOVE it! A justice after my own heart! :D

A split between/among circuits is the route to SCOTUS review. A split among circuits re. exercising a "fundamental right" in public... I can't see how SCOTUS can avoid granting cert if this appeal goes our way (decision by Aug 8th acc to Gray on IllinoisCarry). I am optimistic for July 2013!

Funtimes
06-09-2012, 12:21 AM
That one sounded really good lol.

Chicago
06-09-2012, 5:25 AM
... I did not take great comfort from the oral arguments. ... the court might allow a rather restrictive "Good Cause" provision encoded by a legislature. ...

Recall that, in his Order disposing of Woollard v. Sheridan just three month ago, the second circuit's Judge Legg found: "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."

OleCuss
06-09-2012, 5:52 AM
Thank you.

Paladin
08-02-2012, 7:51 PM
* Gura was floundering from about 10 - 13 min in re "concealed weapons" at the time of the drafting of the 2nd A, as did Cooper later. (Related, but OT Q: Does anyone know when holsters for HGNs became common?)

Gura could have said knives were common back then and were readily concealed. Maybe he didn't think of it or maybe he didn't want to go there. Either way, the panel pretty much dismissed him when he kept bringing up fact-based criteria. Why not just say state and local gov'ts can ban drinking while carrying, but can't ban mere carrying in bars, but owners of bars can ban carry if they want??? The state, possibly, could then criminalize violating the bar's (posted) ban, just like the state criminalizes many behaviors between individuals and businesses (criminal trespass, vandalism).

Similarly, gov'ts can ban from gov't schools, but may not from private, but can criminalize those who carry in private schools that choose to ban. Private schools that ban, if they want, could make exceptions for teachers/staff/parents/custodians who has restraining order against someone.

* If we eventually get a true 2nd A RKBA again (aka unlicensed loaded carry), I could see states allowing only OC w/o a license and banning CC w/o a license. We'll be back in the 1800s again, but w/the option of licensed CCing.

* ~19:30 Posner posed a difficult and insightful Q when asking whether the state has more power to ban/regulate (my words) CC or OC....

* Several places the panel (or maybe it was just Posner) brings up how out of step IL is w/the rest of the country. ~32:45 the Assist AG said, "The NRA, as they trumpet on their website, has convinced 31 states since 1987 to adopt Right-to-Carry laws." Seems like the NRA, and I guess that's the NRA-ILA in particular, might deserves some credit from our side.... Just sayin'

* ~35:45 I laughed when Posner chides the AAG by saying that WY wasn't part of the US at the time of ratifying the BoR, and then, if you listen carefully, Posner says something like "or looking to France" [to interpret the 2nd A] :p -- Oooh, liberal SCOTUS justices smack down! I LOVE it! A justice after my own heart! :D

A split between/among circuits is the route to SCOTUS review. A split among circuits re. exercising a "fundamental right" in public... I can't see how SCOTUS can avoid granting cert if this appeal goes our way (decision by Aug 8th acc to Gray on IllinoisCarry). I am optimistic for July 2013!Gray, still think we'll get a decision by Aug 8?

Gray Peterson
08-02-2012, 8:05 PM
Gray, still think we'll get a decision by Aug 8?

Yes, given the acceleration by Chief Judge Easterbrook when he denied the extension by the state and scheduled it for Early June for quick decision.

Paladin
08-08-2012, 4:10 PM
Yes, given the acceleration by Chief Judge Easterbrook when he denied the extension by the state and scheduled it for Early June for quick decision.

Gray, any news?

If not, was the Aug 8th date something you just guessed, or was there a deadline of some sort?

Gray Peterson
08-08-2012, 4:10 PM
Gray, any news?

If not, was the Aug 8th date something you just guessed, or was there a deadline of some sort?

Guessed.

Al Norris
08-08-2012, 6:41 PM
Today, Aug 8th, was the end of the session. Gray wasn't the only one that thought there was a good possibility that the decision would be released today.

yellowfin
08-08-2012, 7:24 PM
When is the next possible date?

Al Norris
08-08-2012, 9:44 PM
When is the next possible date?

Before the decision in Woollard. ;)

krucam
08-09-2012, 2:43 AM
When is the next possible date?

Before the decision in Woollard. ;)

After the Labor Day weekend is when they (CA7) return from break....it is a rather short hiatus.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/argcalendar.pdf

Yeah, hopefully before Woollard decision....mebbee before the Woollard arguments in Oct??

That said, I'm done speculating.... :D

krucam
08-09-2012, 7:26 AM
CA7 Opinions are still being published today, 8/9/12. This includes 2 civil cases.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=opinion

Case # Caption Case Type Uploaded Description Judge

11-3905 First Premier Capita v. Republic Ba bankruptcy dc 08/09/2012 Opinion CUDAHY

11-3227 Dan Richards v. Michael Mitcheff prisoner 08/09/2012 Opinion EASTERBROOK

11-2318 Jeff Pagel v. TIN Incorporated civil 08/09/2012 Opinion KANNE

11-2238 Donna Nicholson v. Pulte Homes Corp civil 08/09/2012 Opinion SYKES

10-3787 Frederick Grede v. Bank of New York bankruptcy dc 08/09/2012 Opinion TINDER

press1280
08-09-2012, 1:57 PM
I'm not so sure the court is actually "off" until September, possibly just no oral arguments until September.

nicki
08-09-2012, 2:38 PM
I love what Alan Gura has done for us so far and I look forward to the good things he will do in the future.

That being said, the guns where alcohol is being sold will always come up, that was a painful part of the dialogue.

I just wished he said something like most states have laws that are from zero tolerance to .08 BAC that ban carrying a firearm, similar to driving.

Places with bars are private establishments that can post no gun signs and states could pass laws to enhance their property rights

The reality is we don't have a nationwide problem of drunk CCW holders, now if we could get driver's to match CCW holders behavior with drinking, we would effectively eliminate DUI in this country.

As far as the schools, employers have a right to have a no weapons policy at work. Generally the penalty for violation of the policy is termination.

That would have done the teacher question he got stuck on.

Of course it is easy for us to play monday morning quarterback. Few of us would get through these orals without stumbling on questions from the judges.

Nicki

im2ninja4u
08-09-2012, 3:09 PM
Michael Moore?! :eek: :D

I had the same reaction when I read that name!

Al Norris
08-20-2012, 5:13 AM
While we are awaiting a decision in the Moore/Shepard case, we have this:

Blockbuster announcement: McLean Co. State’s Attorney says “No charges for FOID holders merely exercising 2nd Amendment rights” (http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=881)

Bloomington, IL (Guns Save Life) – McLean County State’s Attorney Ron Dozier is set to announce publicly today, Monday, August 2o, to the media and residents of McLean County, Illinois, his decision not to prosecute Firearm Owner Identification Card holders who are arrested for merely possessing a concealed weapon in violation of Illinois’ prohibition...

Then there is this from Edwards County, IL: Valentine on record opposing prosections in conflict with Second Amendment (http://www.navigatorjournal.com/articles/2012/08/18/news/doc5030633251c14224399631.txt)

It appears the walls are crumbling.