Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Does anyone have the street address of the court where oral arguements will be made? I see 600 E. Monroe Street in google maps. Is this correct? I haven't been to the Capitol since I was a kid but am seriously thinking of driving down (3+ hours) for this one.

 

 

 

There is a parking garage at the corner of 7th and Monroe, almost right across the street from the courthouse. I think parking costs $7.50 for the day? Not sure, it's been awhile since we were there last. There is also a public parking lot on the corner of 8th and Adams St., parking fee isn't very much and is only about 2 1/2 blocks from the courthouse.

 

 

 

$7.50? It was $35 when I parked in the Loop for the Appeals court. The difference will pay for my gas there and back.

There's a parking garage on Washington between 3rd and 4th that is $5 all day, if you don't mind walking a few blocks.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send another appeal up to CA7. Hopefully Amy "The Dogma Lies Within Her" Barrett will be Circuit Judge Barrett by the time the appeal is filed. With Posner gone and Williams taking senior status, it's gonna be VERY interesting. Even more interesting if Brennan is somehow seated in time to be drawn to hear the appeal.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I'm thinking they'll have the original panel to hear this appeal, with Posner out of course. Even if they lose again, I think en banc is a possibility, especially if the Trump nominees get confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please tell me this POS opinion will be appealed?

 

Today's docket entry:

 

Docket Text: NOTICE OF APPEAL as to [61] Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order Dismissing Case by Kevin W. Culp, Marlow Davis, Paul Heslin, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, John S. Koller, Marlin Mangels, Freddie Reed-Davis, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Steve Stevenson, Jeanelle Westrom, Douglas W. Zylstra. (Sigale, David)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back up the flagpole. Please post the appellate brief when you get it. I didn't see this coming from Myerscough. Maybe she's more emboldened after Posner retired. Seeing as how the only two judges om record supporting the 2A are Manion and Flaum. Well, I presume Flaum is on board because of his signing onto the majority opinion in Moore and Manion's dissent in Friedman. Barrett needs to be confirmed, soon. Brennan as well.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Great news. We have another not-an-activist originalist on CA7. Now to nominee Brennan, and two more nominees that have yet to be named.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Finally! Now hopefully we'll be able to hold the gun control movement accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any way Highland Park can be re-argued?.... (yeah, I know...)
That would be nice but I'm hopeful that SCOTUS will take Kolbe. Just pulled the orders list from 10/30 for the conference on the 27th. Cert was denied in Robinson. Now they don't wanna touch the Exclusionary Rule and Automobile Exception. Or disturb Terry.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Any way Highland Park can be re-argued?.... (yeah, I know...)

That would be nice but I'm hopeful that SCOTUS will take Kolbe. Just pulled the orders list from 10/30 for the conference on the 27th. Cert was denied in Robinson. Now they don't wanna touch the Exclusionary Rule and Automobile Exception. Or disturb Terry.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

One theory I have is maybe they'll wait on taking Kolbe until Kennedy retires. Supposedly Kennedy never hired any law clerks for this term, can anyone confirm that? If so, that might suggest imminent retirement.

 

My concern with Kolbe is that it doesn't appear to address the issue of magazines, only the weapons themselves, and also doesn't appear to address the issue of scrutiny. If we could only get them to address scrutiny, we could much more effectively overturn all sorts of restrictions and laws. Not sure why they never fully addressed the issue to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the three-judge panel addressed scrutiny. Then the en banc panel said "screw that" and went back to the two-step, intermediate scrutiny, ignored...everything. Petitioners not arguing that in the cert petition is...meh. The en banc panel said weapons of war CAN be banned. Miller said weapons of war CANNOT be banned. They're at odds with 88 years of precedent. In US v. Staples, Thomas said "assault weapons" is a concocted term that has no meaning. Magazines lump in with the firearms themselves since all semi-autos are useless without mags or clips. All mags are useless without a companion firearm.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the three-judge panel addressed scrutiny. Then the en banc panel said "screw that" and went back to the two-step, intermediate scrutiny, ignored...everything. Petitioners not arguing that in the cert petition is...meh. The en banc panel said weapons of war CAN be banned. Miller said weapons of war CANNOT be banned. They're at odds with 88 years of precedent. In US v. Staples, Thomas said "assault weapons" is a concocted term that has no meaning. Magazines lump in with the firearms themselves since all semi-autos are useless without mags or clips. All mags are useless without a companion firearm.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

But we need the court to explicitly state such. The gun control movement thrives on finding exceptions and exploiting them. If they don't explicitly address magazines alongside "assault weapons," then the gun control movement will drop the "assault weapons" issue and focus entirely on banning magazines because "the court never said we couldn't!"

 

It's the same reason why I'm upset that Heller never addressed gun registration. It was a mistake for him to claim that he didn't have a problem with registering his guns; he should've disputed that alongside everything else. By not addressing the issue, the court gave enough benefit of the doubt to the concept that the gun control movement can now claim that because it wasn't explicitly banned, they can freely pursue registration laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plaintiffs' brief to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was filed yesterday. This forum can't accommodate a file of this size, so I've hosted it here:

 

http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/17-2998-Appellants-Brief.pdf

 

 

 

Unholy . . . that thing is 465 pages long! That is some serious post-BBQ overeating toilet reading!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The plaintiffs' brief to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was filed yesterday. This forum can't accommodate a file of this size, so I've hosted it here:

 

http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/17-2998-Appellants-Brief.pdf

 

Unholy . . . that thing is 465 pages long! That is some serious post-BBQ overeating toilet reading!

That’s a unique way to put it! ;)

 

Most of it is appendices. The argument itself is much shorter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigale lays it out in plain English.

 

"It was determined, for purposes of obtaining a preliminary injunction against the ban, that Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and no adequate remedy at law. The only factor in which the Courts have ruled against Plaintiffs was the balance of harm/public interest element. Nothing on Defendants’ end has changed. They still have no evidence that allowing non-resident CCL holders to file CCL applications in Illinois would cause any harm, or that allowing non-resident CCL applications has caused harm anywhere else. Defendants cannot even argue that CCL reciprocity has caused a problem in any other state. The Defendants have nothing factual to support their discriminatory restriction.

 

In contrast, Plaintiffs show that CCL permit-holders are lawabiding and commit less crime than the general population, which explains why Defendants cannot show that any harm would result from enjoining the ban. Defendants likewise cannot show any resulting harm from allowing non-resident CCL-holders to possess firearms in public while in their cars on Illinois roads, on hunting grounds, firing ranges and sport-shooting locations, and on Illinois residents’ private property. The State allows all this yet denies the ability to apply for an actual CCL, which would ensure training, registration into Illinois’s CCL system, and compliance with

all of Illinois’s CCL requirements."

 

Have fun arguing against that.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

This is ridiculous. In what other occupation or position of responsibility would you be afforded repeated delays simply because you believed yourself overworked? I know that throughout my career, failure to meet deadlines would have resulted in my dismissal. And then the only thing at stake (besides reputation) was money, while in this case there are lives that hang in the balance. I know of at least one Illinois resident that is alive today because he used his legally carried firearm in Indiana to defend himself against an armed attack. God have mercy on Lisa Madigan, Leo Schmitz, and Jessica Trame should I or anyone else that frequents Illinois for work, school or tourism die because of their intransigence over allowing honest citizens of other states the right to bear arms.

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...