Jump to content

Moore vs IL Attorney General

Molly B.

By Molly B.
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

Recommended Posts

mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted

the first one looks alomst like a cut and paste of Shepard, just tweeked a bit and reordered.

Except in Shepard they deny there is any ban at all, yet in Moore they admit it (quotes from the Memorandum):

 

 

This long-established tradition of banning concealed weapons is alone fatal to

plaintiffs' challenge to Illinois' concealed carry ban. Because concealed weapons bans

were never thought to infringe the right to bear arms, there is no right to carry concealed

weapons within the Second Amendment's scope, and those portions of the challenged

laws relating to concealed weapons are constitutional.

 

 

 

 

The Court should apply intermediate scrutiny here; the Supreme Court has never

held that there is a "core" Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public for personal

self-defense, nor does American or English history suggest such a "core" right. Under

intermediate scrutiny, the concealed and open carry bans are constitutional, for they are

substantially related to the important governmental objective of preventing armed violence.

 

(emphasis added)

 

 

 

EDIT: In this regard they argue against their own response in Moore which also denies a complete carry ban.

05FLHT Member

05FLHT

Posted
Posted

I just skimmed part of it, but again the State is misquoting Heller. From the States response -

 

The Court carefully limited this holding, cautioning that the Second Amendment does not “protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation,”

 

What the court actually said in Heller -

 

putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran- tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

 

I can't wait for the inevitable Gura backhand.

stm Member

stm

Posted
Posted

I just skimmed part of it, but again the State is misquoting Heller. From the States response -

 

The Court carefully limited this holding, cautioning that the Second Amendment does not “protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation,”

 

What the court actually said in Heller -

 

putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran- tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

 

I can't wait for the inevitable Gura backhand.

 

Actually, I think they were taking this part of Heller out of context:

 

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendments right of free speech was not . . . . Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

SCOTUS wasn't saying that there was no right to carry, as the defendants imply. SCOTUS is saying the right isn't absolute, just like the right to free speech isn't absolute.

samy12386 Member

samy12386

Posted
Posted
Sorry if this has been asked/answered already I checked and couldn't find much. Has any of this led to discussion of open carry? That's a big argument of the antis is they won't "know" who's packing since as we all know criminals all wear signs. Just wondering?
mstrat Member

mstrat

Posted
Posted

Sorry if this has been asked/answered already I checked and couldn't find much. Has any of this led to discussion of open carry? That's a big argument of the antis is they won't "know" who's packing since as we all know criminals all wear signs. Just wondering?

 

I can't directly answer your question - but here's my two cents on the matter: If this were a debate in the legislature we'd probably want some responses prepared for those silly arguments. But for the court cases, it doesn't matter. What's at issue is IL's complete ban on carry. As far as I understand and recall, neither of these cases (Moore, Shepherd) are asking for concealed carry. Rather, they're simply asking the court to recognize that a complete ban is unconstitutional.

lockman Member

lockman

Posted
Posted

how much weight does the dicta carry?

Also how important is the concurring judges opinions?

 

Specific evidence, reasoning and supporting precedent contained in the decision that explain or justify the finding are not concidered dicta.

 

Dicta: "Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent." Or, "The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge's editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory."

xbaltzx Member

xbaltzx

Posted
Posted

Notice from SAF attorney David Jensen:

 

Hearing on Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction set for August 4, 2011, at 10 AM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough.

 

Will any forum members be present for the hearing today? What's the expected timeline for the judge to decide after the hearing?

TyGuy Member

TyGuy

Posted
Posted
Is this the correct thread to look for updates when they become available, or should I look elsewhere? I realize that it's only been a little over and hour, and it might take quite some time, but I want to make sure that I am in the right place. Thanks.
TyGuy Member

TyGuy

Posted
Posted

The Fantastic Five? That sounds like a super hero group.

 

Five ordinary citizens confronted with the worst gun control laws in the nation have been transformed by their fervor for the rights of man. They now fight for the rights of all in Illinois. They are The Fantastic Five!

 

*theme music breaks in*

 

I kid, but it is pretty amazing that ordinary people can have such a large influence. Go get em!

stm Member

stm

Posted
Posted
Has anyone heard an update from the Fab Five yet? I'm trying to be patient, and my expectations are low. But I can't help but thinking about the possibilities today.
Molly B. Member

Molly B.

Posted
  • Author
Posted
A quick update, Don Gwinn will be along with a more detailed report. Things went well. No decision but judge said she would try to have one rather quickly -would probably not be tomorrow.
05FLHT Member

05FLHT

Posted
Posted

The QC Times is reporting the State argued Plaintiff's have no standing because there has been no claim of individual harm and that granting the PI would allow people to carry firearms with little regulation...

 

http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_3114c446-bec3-11e0-bdc5-001cc4c002e0.html

 

Funny, if true, that the State does not understand irreparable harm, and also that it is was the Governor and the ILGA that supported a complete ban vs regulation.

 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

abolt243 Member

abolt243

Posted
Posted

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

billzfx4 Member

billzfx4

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Too friggin' bad...They had their chance.

pyre400 Member

pyre400

Posted
Posted

A quick update, Don Gwinn will be along with a more detailed report. Things went well. No decision but judge said she would try to have one rather quickly -would probably not be tomorrow.

 

 

OK,

 

Here's a brief rundown on the happenings in court today.

...

 

Awesome! Thank you for the updates!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...