Helpdesk9 Posted September 19, 2017 at 03:31 AM Share Posted September 19, 2017 at 03:31 AM 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 More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:13 PM Share Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:13 PM 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 TapatalkI'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 More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:18 PM Share Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:18 PM And so, without saying as much the judge has upheld a total carry ban for residents of 45 states while in Illinois. This shouldn't even be a close call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 20, 2017 at 07:37 AM Share Posted September 20, 2017 at 07:37 AM Disappointing news... Judge Myerscough ruled in favor of the defendants. Bummer. 61 - SJ Opinion of 091817.pdfThe attachment won't work anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted September 20, 2017 at 10:55 AM Share Posted September 20, 2017 at 10:55 AM Disappointing news... Judge Myerscough ruled in favor of the defendants. Bummer. 61 - SJ Opinion of 091817.pdfThe attachment won't work anymore Opens for me just fine. Perhaps your Adobe Reader needs updating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 20, 2017 at 01:00 PM Share Posted September 20, 2017 at 01:00 PM You may be right, I can open from my phone but not laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 20, 2017 at 09:14 PM Share Posted September 20, 2017 at 09:14 PM Please tell me this POS opinion will be appealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 27, 2017 at 05:21 PM Share Posted September 27, 2017 at 05:21 PM 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 More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:39 AM Share Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:39 AM 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 More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:08 PM Share Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:08 PM Thankful today for a system and supporting organiaztions such as the 2nd Amendment Foundation and Illinois Carry that allow us to continue to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 31, 2017 at 05:53 PM Share Posted October 31, 2017 at 05:53 PM Barrett needs to be confirmed, soon. Brennan as well. Sen McConnell has readied Senate confirmation for Amy Barrett (7th Circuit). http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/29/mcconnell-readies-senate-for-confirmation-votes-on-4-appeals-judgeships/amp/ Edit: The vote occurred today, and she was confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM Share Posted November 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 1, 2017 at 03:38 PM Share Posted November 1, 2017 at 03:38 PM 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 TapatalkFinally! Now hopefully we'll be able to hold the gun control movement accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted November 1, 2017 at 10:32 PM Share Posted November 1, 2017 at 10:32 PM Any way Highland Park can be re-argued?.... (yeah, I know...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 2, 2017 at 12:17 PM Share Posted November 2, 2017 at 12:17 PM 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 More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 2, 2017 at 02:14 PM Share Posted November 2, 2017 at 02:14 PM 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 TapatalkOne 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 More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 2, 2017 at 04:29 PM Share Posted November 2, 2017 at 04:29 PM 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 More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 2, 2017 at 06:58 PM Share Posted November 2, 2017 at 06:58 PM 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 TapatalkBut 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 7, 2017 at 02:19 PM Share Posted November 7, 2017 at 02:19 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted November 8, 2017 at 08:09 AM Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 08:09 AM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 8, 2017 at 10:27 AM Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 10:27 AM 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 More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted November 8, 2017 at 01:12 PM Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 01:12 PM Thanks for posting this Colonel. After reading the brief, (only the first 70 pages or so), I cannot understand how any judge could say no to the request, but I'm just a poor uneducated former banker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 8, 2017 at 01:54 PM Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 01:54 PM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 8, 2017 at 02:29 PM Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 02:29 PM Update on the timeline moving forward: The court has ordered the Appellees' (defendants') brief to be filed by Dec 7 and the Appellants' (plaintiffs') reply brief, if any, to be filed by Dec 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 8, 2017 at 04:27 PM Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 04:27 PM The case should be so simple. Residents of 45 states are banned from carry in IL period.while the stuff about the surveys and all show an arbitrary system, it just shouldn't be necessary. What needs to be spelled out is except for very few rights like voting,a state cannot with hold those rights from non residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 10, 2017 at 05:18 AM Share Posted November 10, 2017 at 05:18 AM Have fun arguing against thatThe sad reality is that they don't have to. The courts will almost always just side with the state by default, because guns are scary. Hopefully it won't fly this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 1, 2017 at 01:25 AM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 01:25 AM No surprise... the state asked for an extension to file their brief. The court granted one. The appellees’ brief is now due Jan 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:15 PM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:15 PM thanks, kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted January 3, 2018 at 02:04 AM Share Posted January 3, 2018 at 02:04 AM Not surprisingly, Madigan et al filed another extension request. The court approved it. The appellees’ response is now due Feb 7, and the plaintiffs’ reply is due Feb 21. Rationale given for the extension request is, simply put, “...too busy with other cases.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted January 3, 2018 at 03:01 AM Share Posted January 3, 2018 at 03:01 AM 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.