Molly B. Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:10 AM Share Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:10 AM The attorneys for the plaintiffs in Moore vs Madigan wasted no time in filing an appeal. We move on to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which gave us Ezell vs Chicago. . . Moore vs Madigan Notice of Appeal.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:33 AM Share Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:33 AM CHARGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted February 4, 2012 at 05:21 AM Share Posted February 4, 2012 at 05:21 AM Huzzah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted February 4, 2012 at 01:28 PM Share Posted February 4, 2012 at 01:28 PM Good to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:54 PM Share Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:54 PM Good, wasting no time glad to see he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 4, 2012 at 05:56 PM Share Posted February 4, 2012 at 05:56 PM I suspect he wrote the appeal at the same time he penned his opening argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted February 4, 2012 at 06:44 PM Share Posted February 4, 2012 at 06:44 PM Onward and Upward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:37 PM Share Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:37 PM At least we believe in speedy trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illhunter Posted February 7, 2012 at 02:45 PM Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 02:45 PM abolt243 Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:56 PM I suspect he wrote the appeal at the same time he penned his opening argument. The ink wasn't dry on the decision, the course had been set, the strategy plotted, the tactics rehearsed, the intent clear and the forces determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted February 7, 2012 at 03:23 PM Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 03:23 PM It's very simple logic. It's been established that keeping and bearing arms does pertain to the individual. There is no restriction in the wording to indicate that the place or time can be limited. To deny this claim is intellectual suicide. Do we have a conflict between courts? The only way I see them getting around this is to not hear the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbaltzx Posted March 7, 2012 at 05:56 AM Share Posted March 7, 2012 at 05:56 AM Opening brief filed: Post 110Moore v Madigan CCA7 Opening Brief.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM Has anybody seen anything regarding the Reply Brief due today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbaltzx Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:10 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:10 AM Has anybody seen anything regarding the Reply Brief due today? Check post 160 on the mdshooters thread. They have the appellee response brief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:31 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:31 AM See if this link works. If not ... can I post attachments? http://www.mdshooter...60&d=1337827643 Edited to add: Attached is the file mentioned in the MD shooters forum.36-Shepard Appellee Response Brief.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:35 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:35 AM Well that's strange. The file is named "Appellee Response Brief" but it appears to be the appellant's brief! (that is, the good guy's brief). But it's only for Shepard ... no Moore. I presume the SAF may file a separate brief on behalf of Moore, given the two cases have been consolidated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:35 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 03:35 AM See if this link works. If not ... can I post attachments? http://www.mdshooter...60&d=1337827643 Requires registration and log in. Yes, attachments are active. Post away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbaltzx Posted May 24, 2012 at 04:38 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 04:38 AM Well that's strange. The file is named "Appellee Response Brief" but it appears to be the appellant's brief! (that is, the good guy's brief). But it's only for Shepard ... no Moore. I presume the SAF may file a separate brief on behalf of Moore, given the two cases have been consolidated.Thanks for posting the actual file. For some reason I could not get the pdf to upload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM Just finished reading the Reply Brief in Shepard...good stuff. The SAF Reply Brief in Moore was just posted at MdShooter by Krucam.Moore CA7 Appellant Reply Brief.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM Thanks for the other brief, 05FLHT. In my view, Illinois/Madigan made a valliant effort to turn stones into soup, and working with what they had, wrote a brief as pursuasive as they could muster. But they didn't have much. What they had was a selective interpretation of the Statute of Northampton (which the Sheperd brief demolishes), a disingenuous reading of "dangerous and unusual" (which the Moore brief demolishes), old, stale pre-Heller collective rights arguments (which Heller demolished), and a little bit of "oh my god, guns are bad mmkay" arm-waving by biased policy wonks at gun control groups (which courts considering constitutional protections largely or entirely ignore). These arguments ... our arguments ... for the right to bear arms are a winner. Whether the 7th circuit agrees, or whether it will take the Supreme Court, the outcome is clear in my mind. Keep means to own, or possess, or store in one's home. Bear means to carry around with you (largely outside the home). These rights, to keep and bear arms, all facilitate the core purpose of the rights ... self defense, in nearly all places one has the right to be (excepting of course truly "sensitive places"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM Just finished reading the Reply Brief in Moore. Both briefs are hard hitting and do a VERY good job of picking the State and Amici apart. I foresee fun times ahead. It's now just a hop, skip, and a jump to orals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM These arguments ... our arguments ... for the right to bear arms are a winner. Whether the 7th circuit agrees, or whether it will take the Supreme Court, the outcome is clear in my mind. Keep means to own, or possess, or store in one's home. Bear means to carry around with you (largely outside the home). These rights, to keep and bear arms, all facilitate the core purpose of the rights ... self defense, in nearly all places one has the right to be (excepting of course truly "sensitive places"). The 7th chose to step clear in front of this one. It seams they WANT to make a decision NOW and, based on the Briefs, I can't fathom the State having a snowballs chance in heck. My hopes are very high right now for an epic smack down. Props to the NRA & SAF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM Should the State decide, as a policy matter, that the way it wouldprefer to regulate the carrying of firearms is by allowing open publiccarry, then that would remove the complete prohibition on publiccarrying now in place. Plaintiffs suspect the State and Defendantswould not wish to implement such a policy choice, and do not wish anopen carry environment, but the purpose of this lawsuit is to endunconstitutional conduct, not to tell the State how to regulate. In themeantime, this Court should not be swayed by Defendants’ and amici’srepeated assertions that this case is about concealed carry, because it isnot. The Second Amendment secures a right to carry firearms.Defendants ban this activity completely, and that is not constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM The 7th chose to step clear in front of this one. It seams they WANT to make a decision NOW ... Yes, good point. I do agree with your assessment on this matter! Reading the arguments in these briefs leads my mind to wonder ... I wonder if we will soon see movement on the pending right to carry bills (motivation coming as much from those historically opposed to such a bill as from those historically in support of such a bill). Part of me hopes we can get a ruling out of the 7th before that happens. I suspect the antis are wetting their pants, and considering plans B, C, and D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM However, D.C.’s assertion that the purpose of the Second Amendmentwas to protect the militia is the same argument the Supreme Courtrejected in Heller. The Supreme Court rejected the argument again inMcDonald, when the City of Chicago attempted to rehash it. It is trulydisingenuous for the District of Columbia to keep trotting the argumentout to the lower Courts as if Heller’s holding of an individual SecondAmendment right had not happened (D.C. Amicus Brief at 8). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 24, 2012 at 12:06 PM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 12:06 PM I suspect this is Gura's brief ... and I love the way he writes! The proposal of a “reasonable regulation” test (Defendants’ Br. at 40,Brady Center Brief at 4; D.C. Brief at 13) has been rejected by thisCourt twice: in both Skoien and Ezell. If this proposal sounds familiar,that is because the identical argument was just presented to this Court,sitting en banc. See Brief of Brady Center, as Amicus Curiae, UnitedStates v. Skoien, No. 08-3770. It was also the backbone of Defendant’sarguments in Ezell. The third time is not the charm. See also Heller v.District of Columbia, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130, at *27-*28 (D.C.Cir. Oct. 4, 2011) (“[t]he District . . . argues we should adopt a“reasonable regulation test.” . . . Heller clearly does reject any kindof ‘rational basis’ or reasonableness test. . .”) (emphasis added). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted May 24, 2012 at 01:39 PM Share Posted May 24, 2012 at 01:39 PM The third time is not the charm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.