Jump to content

Shepard v. Madigan


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

This is awesome!!!

 

The last 72 hours have been awesome for gun rights in IL!!

 

AB

Yes they have! I've been in a bad mood for several weeks, but this kind of news makes this old grouch want to take the wife out for supper and celebrate. There just might be a light at the end of the tunnel afterall!

I know what you mean! This is awesome!

The argument in this injunction is really thought out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read again the whole memorandum. If you all want a succinct but still detailed history of what has brought us to this place, please read the memorandum. It is quite an educational document, showing both the history of our pre-existing right to carry, as well as the history of carry restrictions and bans (which they beautifully reveal as having racist roots), and then tying it all together near the end by showing that Chicago's ban is more severe than the one struck down in Heller. Also beautifully done is the description of Mary Shepard's struggles and her need AND right to carry a gun for self-protection (which is the root of the memorandum for the injunction). Well done!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the memo in the SAF suit was a little more elegant and emotionally moving, this memo supporting the NRA/ISRA's motion is probably more likely to influence a judge's thought process. Very well thought-out arguments with very thorough documentation. I loved that they used the CDC's research to support the Right-to-Carry!

 

Great job!

 

-- Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a Judge scrapped the UUW statute, they most likely woul dissue a stay to give the legislature a chance to act, that just tossing the hwole thing out the window with no ability for SAs to charge nar-do-wells with a violation, will not work.

 

It's just not practical. But the Oh **** factor to the SAs and miz Alverez would be a sight to see as anyone not a felon, or prohibted by class under state and federal law would have to have their case continued until the legislature sorted out what the end game was.

 

BTW, I hate to say it, but under Ezell, it looks that the FOID card is constitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FOID card is an unnecessary waste of resources in a state like Illinois that's broke...

 

 

Agreed but that does not make it unconstitutional. I am more offended by the waiting period. It seems more easily challenged than the FOID card, especially given the long delay before one can even get a FOID card. What useful purpose can possibly be served by making someone wait 3 extra days to acquire a handgun after the state makes you wait an indeterminate amount of time first that has historically been anywhere from 2 weeks to as long as 6 months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good read. I think the state's reaction will be to dig the hole deeper, as Todd alluded to. This state has no shortage of stupidity at the highest levels.

 

After reading the filing, I think it's worth noting the various state's experiences... Most states are moving to a less restrictive form of carry, and none are trying to do away with their CCW laws. That alone speaks volumes to the effectiveness of CCW, and the overall "public interest" argument that Illinois will have to defend, if it wants to keep its CCW ban in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most states are moving to a less restrictive form of carry, and none are trying to do away with their CCW laws. That alone speaks volumes to the effectiveness of CCW, and the overall "public interest" argument that Illinois will have to defend, if it wants to keep its CCW ban in place.

 

 

I don't know about the level of effectiveness, or what you mean by that, but there is a very solid bloc of voters that wants improvement in the carry laws (at least as they see it) and it is very hard for the politicians to go against that.

 

Given that the rivers of blood argument turned out to be a bust for them, the only legitimate argument the antis had against carry has long since gone away.

 

This is the US of A. Voters expect to be able to do as we please without government interference in our lives. We often want government to interfere in other people's lives, but not our own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the whole thing earlier this morning. I'm really curious as to what the state will come up with in it's response documents, whatever those are called. To whomever, please post them when you can.

 

Also these current cases and lawsuits have me really excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the court's electronic notice that the Defendants will have until 7/22/11 to file their Answer or other response. Please also note that the Court has stated no further extensions will be allowed absent extraordinary circumstances.

We are still attempting to find out if we have an expedited hearing date, etc., on the Motion for PI. We will keep you posted as soon as we find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a Judge scrapped the UUW statute, they most likely woul dissue a stay to give the legislature a chance to act, that just tossing the hwole thing out the window with no ability for SAs to charge nar-do-wells with a violation, will not work.

 

It's just not practical. But the Oh **** factor to the SAs and miz Alverez would be a sight to see as anyone not a felon, or prohibted by class under state and federal law would have to have their case continued until the legislature sorted out what the end game was.

 

BTW, I hate to say it, but under Ezell, it looks that the FOID card is constitutional.

 

Of course us common folk realize that even if they strike it down and the legislature does not have time to act before us common folk start packin'; murder will still be murder, and all the other felonies will still be felonies, except the ones making the exercise of your fundamental right felonious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the court's electronic notice that the Defendants will have until 7/22/11 to file their Answer or other response. Please also note that the Court has stated no further extensions will be allowed absent extraordinary circumstances.

We are still attempting to find out if we have an expedited hearing date, etc., on the Motion for PI. We will keep you posted as soon as we find out.

Looking at the long game, if Illinois drags its feet and UUW/AUUW is found to be unconstitutional, couldn't people convicted of UUW/AUUW have their convictions vacated or overturned? Assuming it was a law-abiding FOID holder who didn't have any other legal complications? That alone should motivate the ILGA to move swiftly before that a ruling on constitutionality is issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the City's concern about a “regulatory vacuum” between the issuance of the preliminary injunction and the promulgation of firing‐range zoning and safety reg‐ ulations, we note that it faced a similar dilemma after the Supreme Court decided McDonald. The sky did not fall.

 

It might be wishful thinking but to me it sounds like the 7th would be against a stay that continued irreparable harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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