Jump to content


Photo

Culp vs Madigan - Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Non-Residents


  • Please log in to reply
789 replies to this topic

#541 Joebillybob

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 13

Posted 25 September 2016 - 02:12 AM

...Culp is a concealed carry case...

It's primarily a 14th amendment and Article IV/Section 2 case--nonresidents treated differently than residents. CC happens to be the manner Illinois implemented RKBA outside the home, therefore Culp is written in that context.
But this has all been said and refuted both ways several times in this thread. Let's please just quit trying to convince each other on this point. We are getting absolutely nowhere. It's time to move on. We shall soon find out if this point is important to the court. Until then, we're just spinning our wheels.
I thought about posting that "dead horse" meme, but honestly, I hate memes. :)

Like this one?
https://www.google.c...sgR_nzFwRxu68M:

#542 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 25 September 2016 - 04:48 AM


Like this one?

https://www.google.c...sgR_nzFwRxu68M:


That would qualify!
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#543 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:24 PM

Denial of preliminary injunction affirmed with Manion dissenting, Posner delivering the opinion of the court. I just pulled it from my RSS feed, haven't had time to read much but it's loaded with crap about mental health and Posner/Bauer basically taking ISP at its word (when no one should take ISP at its word). "So the Illinois law regulating the concealed-carry rights of nonresidents is imperfect. But we cannot say that it is unreasonable, so imperfect as to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Cf. Moore v. Madigan, supra, at 940. The critical problem presented by the plaintiffsâ demandâfor which they offer no solutionâis verification. A nonresidentâs application for an Illinois concealed-carry license cannot be taken at face value. The assertions in it must be verified. And Illinois needs to receive reliable updates in order to confirm that license-holders remain qualified during the five-year term of the license. Yet its ability to verify is extremely limited unless the nonresident lives in one of the four states that have concealed-carry laws similar to Illinoisâ law. A trial in this case may cast the facts in a different light, but the plaintiffs have not made a case for a preliminary injunction." Posner must have missed the part where IL can't verify information from substantially similar states, as they have no mechanism for such verification. The states which do, are not "substantially similar." Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 20 October 2016 - 05:26 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#544 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:44 PM

Oh rats.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#545 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:51 PM

The decision is attached below.

I would assume it goes back to District Court for a full trial...

Attached File  Preliminary Injunction - Decision.pdf   306.48KB   131 downloads

Edited by kwc, 20 October 2016 - 06:28 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#546 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 20 October 2016 - 05:54 PM

Damn! Not getting it before Guam. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#547 oohrah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 236 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 15

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:13 PM

To say I am disappointed in their short-sightedness is an understatement.  I'm staying home.


USMC, Retired
Waco, Texas
Texas LTC
Illinois CCL
SASS 105352

#548 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:20 PM

To say I am disappointed in their short-sightedness is an understatement.  I'm staying home.


If it's any consolation, TX answered "yes" to all questions on the latest (Oct 2015) survey sent by the ISP. If the ISP's review of TX statutes confirms the responses, TX could become an approved state.

On the other hand, the ISP has been sitting on these surveys now for over a year, so don't hold your breath.

Edited by kwc, 20 October 2016 - 06:47 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#549 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 20 October 2016 - 08:04 PM

Amusing.  The decision didn't even turn on concealed carry.  Posner would have issued the same decision regardless.

 

And yes, the dissent is correct.  The Plaintiffs will lose their next appeal as well.

 

punt_gun.jpg



#550 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 20 October 2016 - 08:14 PM

Amusing.  The decision didn't even turn on concealed carry.  Posner would have issued the same decision regardless.
 
And yes, the dissent is correct.  The Plaintiffs will lose their next appeal as well.


Yes, how amusing. Please forgive me for withholding my laughter.

If Illinois had a scheme to license OPEN carry, and it imposed the same restrictions, Posner would have written the same opinion. Posner and Manion refer to concealed carry as a right throughout both the opinion and the dissent, so they don't appear to be distinguishing between the two.

Edited by kwc, 20 October 2016 - 08:41 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#551 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 20 October 2016 - 09:11 PM

I'm no expert, but I could point out the flaws in Posner's opinion. First, Illinois says they can't afford to obtain all the records needed to verify the applicant meets all requirements in 430 ILCS 66/25. Why, then, do non-residents have to pay an additional $150 more than what residents pay? Imo, the state flat out lied under oath. Second, nobody from the state, nor plaintiff's counsel, has sought professional opinions on the matter of voluntary mental health reporting. And, regardless of whether it's voluntary or involuntary, the HIPAA waiver everybody has to sign allows the state to obtain those records. And, not a single mention about adjudication of mental illness via 18 USC 922, which automatically disqualifies anybody in the country from obtaining a concealed firearm permit, yet alone a firearm. Third, concerning state surveys, nobody has defined the regularity of frequency. How often are the surveys sent out? Fourth, Harm? How about finding a story, like mine from May 2015, where the innocent person isn't as fortunate. If only they were able to defend themselves.... Last, and I know some of said this is a weak argument but I disagree, while Illinois declares 4 states to be substantially similar, those same states don't define Illinois is substantially similar. Case in point, Virginia, a substantially similar state, earlier this year, was on the fringe of terminating recognition/reciprocity agreements with the majority of 30 states it has agreements with. The only ones it was going to keep agreements with were ones deemed to be more restrictive than Virginia. None of those states are defined as substantially similar by Illinois. The question has to be asked before the courts while pointing out ISP's material failures in obtaining actual information on mental health and the fallacy of expenditures. Worded the correct way at the right time, at least an eyebrow could be raised. I also think ATF Rule 80-26 could be thrown in to point out how anybody else who lives in Illinois for an extended amount of time should be treated the same as a resident. I think Manion, nailed it, but even his opinion lacked what I said above. :flamesuit_on:

Edited by domin8, 20 October 2016 - 09:13 PM.

Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#552 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 20 October 2016 - 10:16 PM

Just came across something that made me jump back on here. It pertains to Virginia being substantially similar, and how ambiguous the ISP survey was. I came across it because I'm currently going through the process of renewing my Virginia conceal carry permit. The only time Virginia prohibits people from obtaining a permit for voluntary reporting of mental health issues is when the person is admitted to a mental health detention center. Otherwise, there is no prohibition for a permit for voluntary reporting. Now, if the question inquired about a voluntary admission into a mental health facility, how would that change the answer? This could possibly be the gateway to a legislative fix for the law.

Edited by domin8, 20 October 2016 - 10:17 PM.

Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#553 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 October 2016 - 08:35 AM

My point exactly. If they truly wanted to issue licenses to non-residents, they would actually bother to "verify" whether another state has "substantially similar" mental health reporting requirements. California does. Florida does (Baker Act). Texas....no one knows how they get access to medical records residing out-of-state, but they do, and they have a massive list of mental health disqualifiers such as bipolar, borderline personality disorder, other so-called "Cluster B" personality disorders (I'm well-read on the topic as my ex was diagnosed with half of the disqualifiers listed by Texas). I believe Georgia or Alabama has similar reporting requirements. The methodology used by ISP to determine "substantially similar" states is...so deeply flawed that it is meaningless. Trial will be fun. As far as legislative fixes go, we've had the FOID Card Act for what? Like 50 years? We all know how flawed that Act is, yet they never fix it. Provisions such as ISP shall issue or deny a FOID within 30 days ofrl receipt of application is routinely ignored as there is no statutory penalty for ignoring that portion of the statute. The FCCA....well, look at all of the backlogs with CCLRB despite all of the verbiage stating that the LE objection must be sustained or overruled within a specified period of time, that is ignored as there is no statutory penalty for ISP disobeying that portion of the FCCA. Around, around we go. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#554 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 31 October 2016 - 02:45 PM

Today's article in "Conservative Review" on this decision:

 

https://www.conserva...mendment-rights


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#555 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 01 November 2016 - 08:22 AM

Is the standard supposed to be rational basis? Because that's exactly what it was. Posner can probably now be safely counted as an anti vote.

#556 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,470 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 01 November 2016 - 09:51 AM

Is the standard supposed to be rational basis? Because that's exactly what it was. Posner can probably now be safely counted as an anti vote.

No, the Heller decision specifies that Rational Basis is not allowed for 2A civil rights.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#557 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 01 November 2016 - 12:12 PM

Only reason I ask was that this hasn't gone to trial and I know in order to succeed you need a stronger showing than if you already went to a full trial.
But I didn't think it required THAT much of a stronger showing where rational basis was used.

#558 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 01 November 2016 - 05:01 PM

One has to wonder where the line is drawn between "intermediate scrutiny" and "rational basis." Certainly Judge Manion believes strict- or near-strict scrutiny should have been used in this decision.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#559 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 01 November 2016 - 05:53 PM

It's become somewhat common to claim that intermediate scrutiny is used but to actually apply rational basis or sometimes something even more lightweight that rational basis. If I was cynical, I'd say it was because if they called what they were doing by its proper name, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to take the case and overturn the decision, and that they don't want to make things that easy for the Court.


Ad utrumque paratus


#560 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 18 November 2016 - 06:57 PM

It's back to the Central District Court of Illinois now. The court lifted the stay and wants Dispositive Motions by December 28. Bench trial is scheduled for May 23, 2017.

Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: In light of the Seventh Circuit's issuance of the mandate, the stay in this case is lifted. The Court hereby amends the March 26, 2015 Scheduling Order as follows: Dispositive Motions due by December 28, 2016; Final Pretrial Conference set for May 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.; Bench Trial set for May 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/16/2016. (GL, ilcd)


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#561 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 December 2016 - 10:28 AM

We'll have national reciprocity by the time this goes to trial. Never mind by the time a judgment is rendered. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#562 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 21 December 2016 - 09:44 AM

We'll have national reciprocity by the time this goes to trial. Never mind by the time a judgment is rendered. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

If a national reciprocity bill gets past a filibuster, it will be tied up in the courts for years.  I don't think we'll be carrying in all 50 states anytime soon.  Illinois will probably be one of the states to object to such a bill, so the need to continue pressing forward with the subject lawsuit remains an important step.


Edited by kwc, 21 December 2016 - 09:46 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#563 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,431 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 21 December 2016 - 09:32 PM

How would it be tied up in the courts?
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#564 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,408 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 21 December 2016 - 09:37 PM

Just my opinion--but all it would take is for a handful of states to file for a preliminary injunction against implementation of a reciprocity law, and a liberal court (the 9th Circus comes to mind) to issue one.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#565 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 21 December 2016 - 10:53 PM

A lot of these states realize that a Trump presidency could potentially spell the end of the gun control movement, so they're gonna fight as hard as they can to preserve their gun control laws.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#566 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 December 2016 - 08:42 AM

It would be tied up in courts due to the 10th Amendment. And states will have an excellent argument. The federal government doesn't retain any jurisdiction to regulate carriage of firearms so that's a bit of a problem. It will be tough for the federal government to argue it has the power to regulate carriage when it has punted that to the states for the entire history of the U.S. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#567 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,433 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 22 December 2016 - 09:41 AM

Just my opinion--but all it would take is for a handful of states to file for a preliminary injunction against implementation of a reciprocity law, and a liberal court (the 9th Circus comes to mind) to issue one.

I am of the same opinion.


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#568 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,919 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 22 December 2016 - 11:50 AM

It would be tied up in courts due to the 10th Amendment. And states will have an excellent argument. The federal government doesn't retain any jurisdiction to regulate carriage of firearms so that's a bit of a problem. It will be tough for the federal government to argue it has the power to regulate carriage when it has punted that to the states for the entire history of the U.S. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Does not the 2nd and 14th amendments fortified via Heller & McDonald preclude a 10th amendment claim? A national law that protects persons exercising a fundamental right from prosecution by state actors does not seem to me as violative of the 10th amendment.  


Edited by lockman, 22 December 2016 - 11:51 AM.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#569 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,470 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 22 December 2016 - 12:17 PM

States will bluster but they will not fight it, as doing so would put LEOSA in jeopardy also, and they'd have to face the wrath of their public safety unions over that.

Consider that LEOSA is more than just interstate recognition, in some places that's all that off-duty LEOs have to give them carry. Those guys are not going to give that up.

As I've said before, this is not new ground to tread. It's already been done and in place for over a decade.

Edited by Gamma, 22 December 2016 - 12:20 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#570 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 December 2016 - 01:07 PM


It would be tied up in courts due to the 10th Amendment. And states will have an excellent argument. The federal government doesn't retain any jurisdiction to regulate carriage of firearms so that's a bit of a problem. It will be tough for the federal government to argue it has the power to regulate carriage when it has punted that to the states for the entire history of the U.S. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


 
Does not the 2nd and 14th amendments fortified via Heller & McDonald preclude a 10th amendment claim? A national law that protects persons exercising a fundamental right from prosecution by state actors does not seem to me as violative of the 10th amendment.  

That had slipped my mind. Once McDonald was decided, the 2A incorporated into the 14th Amendment, the states lost a ton of power to regulate above and beyond federal regulation. Doesn't mean they don't do it, just that they can be placed in check by the feds if they so choose. In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment binds the states as well as the federal government. Contrast that with Baltimore v. Maryland (1833) in which SCOTUS held the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, they were the domain of the federal government (thus allowing states to trample on the rights of slaves, anyone they so choose with no remedy for such infringement). FOPA used the Commerce Clause to skirt the 10A but we all know how much anti-gun states like NJ, NY, MD, respect FOPA (not in the slightest). That being said, a law could be enacted using the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users