Jump to content


Photo

Highland park suit


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1262 replies to this topic

#61 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:18 PM

What is the irreparable injury cited?


Denial of constitutional rights.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#62 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:20 PM

Didn't work for us to get an injunction in Moore/Shepard. Why would it be persuasive here?
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#63 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,690 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:21 PM

What is the irreparable injury cited?


Denial of 2A rights most likely.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#64 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:35 PM

Again, if the 7th says they recognize the unconstitutional denial of rights and lets it continue over 12 months I don't know that this court is gonna give an injunction.

Might as well ask though.
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#65 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:48 PM

Again, if the 7th says they recognize the unconstitutional denial of rights and lets it continue over 12 months I don't know that this court is gonna give an injunction.

Might as well ask though.


It's a 50/50 shot, there's federal case law saying AWB is constitutional and there's state law that leaves it open for an issue of fact. In Moore there wasn't any recent case law finding 2A applied beyond the home, in fact there was a lot of bad State law to overcome in Moore.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#66 mrpapageorgio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:52 PM

Motion for a preliminary injunction filed today, Merry Christmas, Highland Park! Motion, the memorandum in support, and exhibits.

The Motion itself:


Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Prelimary Inunction plus Exhibits 2-6 (Exhibit 1 is the ordinance and Ex. 7 is Kleck's affidavit, which is available elsehwhere)



Exhibit 4 (Curcuruto Affidavit/Declaration) - Too big - See Here



Some interesting excerpts from the memorandum in support of the motion blah blah

"In Wilson v. County of Cook, 2012 IL 112026, 968 N.E.2d 641 (Il. 2012), the Illinois Supreme Court applied the Heller and McDonald decisions and reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a Second Amendment challenge to an 'assault weapons' ordinance nearly identical to the Highland Park ban. The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, including an 'empirical inquiry' into whether the ordinance prohibited ownership of firearms that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and fall outside the scope of the dangers sought to be protected under the ordinance.

(While addressing the two-pronged approach used to determine the constitutionality of a gun control statute, the brief points out that rational basis is NOT the standard)
"The Court in Heller and McDonald did not articulate what standard of review should be applied to government actions infringing on Second Amendment rights, but it rejected rational basis review."

I LOVE THIS!

"When the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims are reached in this case, the Ordinance should be found categorically unconstitutional because it prohibits activity firmly within the Second Amendment right. The evidence will establish that the Ordinance bans possession of a large category of firearms and magazines that are owned and used by millions of law-abiding citizens in the United States for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. But regardless of whether the Ordinance is found categorically unconstitutional or analyzed under the strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny test, Defendant should be preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the Ordinance because Plaintiffs can demonstrate (a) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claim; ( :cool: there is no adequate remedy at law; and © irreparable injury. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm’r of Indiana State Dep’t of Public Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). And no harm will be imposed on Defendant should it be preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the ordinance. Id.; see also ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 590-91 (7th Cir. 2012) (the public interest is not harmed by preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of a statute that is probably unconstitutional). In contrast, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights will remain violated if the injunction is not granted."

Forcing their hand when it comes to both abortions and eavesdropping hahaha


Skinny, did HP make this a federal case (literally) or are they just simply changing the venue to have a federal judge hear a state case? I remember the professor in one of my business law classes lecturing about this maneuver; particularly used if you're trying to improve your odds on getting a jury pool that's more in your favor, or at least not as biased against you (and why it's difficult to be a federal judge since there's a lot of different laws you may have to research).

Edited by mrpapageorgio, 24 December 2013 - 01:56 PM.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer


#67 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,399 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:52 PM

I'm pleased that Bucklo is no longer presiding over this case. Holderman is a much more experienced judge (hes not overturned by CA7 once a year) while Bucklo is the female equivalent of Judge Shadur sans the work ethic and intelligence. Just the arrogance.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#68 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,434 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:12 PM

From exhibit 4:

In 2012 alone, nearly 1 million of these [AR-type and AK-type] rifles were manufactured and imported for sale. By way of comparison, in 2012, the number of modern sporting rifles manufactured in or imported to the U.S. was more than double the number of the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States, the Ford F-150. (434,585 sold).


:laugh:

Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#69 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,434 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:30 PM

There is a ton of interesting data in Exhibit 4. It is indisputable that the rifles are commonly owned.

I'm going to take a wild guess on an over/under - preliminary injunction is denied, and case takes three years.

Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#70 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:48 PM

From exhibit 4:

In 2012 alone, nearly 1 million of these [AR-type and AK-type] rifles were manufactured and imported for sale. By way of comparison, in 2012, the number of modern sporting rifles manufactured in or imported to the U.S. was more than double the number of the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States, the Ford F-150. (434,585 sold).


:laugh:


While entertaining, it's a red herring. It would be relevant if you compared total guns sold to total cars sold and then compared the percentage of AR to Ford F-150s sold. But... This is how lawyers get paid...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#71 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,610 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 24 December 2013 - 06:13 PM

What is the irreparable injury cited?

the police that confiscate the firearms will likely destroy all the firearms they aquire long before the case is resolved.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#72 DoktorPaimon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 25 December 2013 - 10:02 AM

From exhibit 4:

In 2012 alone, nearly 1 million of these [AR-type and AK-type] rifles were manufactured and imported for sale. By way of comparison, in 2012, the number of modern sporting rifles manufactured in or imported to the U.S. was more than double the number of the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States, the Ford F-150. (434,585 sold).


:laugh:


While entertaining, it's a red herring. It would be relevant if you compared total guns sold to total cars sold and then compared the percentage of AR to Ford F-150s sold. But... This is how lawyers get paid...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


I think its a fair comparison because it gives a clear point of comparison. If you imagine how often you see an F-150 on the street in a given day you have a sense of how common a vehicle it is. Knowing that twice as many ARs were sold in 2012 as F-150s lets you imagine that, on your morning commute, for every F-150 you see there are two people driving around with an AR at home.

#73 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,399 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 25 December 2013 - 11:36 AM

Skinny, did HP make this a federal case (literally) or are they just simply changing the venue to have a federal judge hear a state case? I remember the professor in one of my business law classes lecturing about this maneuver; particularly used if you're trying to improve your odds on getting a jury pool that's more in your favor, or at least not as biased against you (and why it's difficult to be a federal judge since there's a lot of different laws you may have to research).


This is literally a federal case now, removal to federal court makes it a federal case even though it always has been one since, although it may challenge an ordinance, it challenges it on grounds that it violates the federal constitution thus making it a "federal case." Removal is basically forum shopping, they knew what they were in for in the Second District, so they removed it to the Northern District of Illinois since drawing a friendly judge is more likely in federal court than in the state venue. It's difficult being a federal judge because of the caseload, which necessitates research, which consumes time, so they farm it out to their clerks and the Magistrate Judges handle discovery, pre-trial matters, etc. State judges don't have this luxury so they have to actually read all of the briefs filed, etc. I've never heard about using removal being used to get a favorable pool of jurors. I know it's used to get cases out of state courts like in Madison and St. Clair Counties where the corruption is just nuts, same with Cook.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#74 mrpapageorgio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 25 December 2013 - 02:59 PM

Skinny, did HP make this a federal case (literally) or are they just simply changing the venue to have a federal judge hear a state case? I remember the professor in one of my business law classes lecturing about this maneuver; particularly used if you're trying to improve your odds on getting a jury pool that's more in your favor, or at least not as biased against you (and why it's difficult to be a federal judge since there's a lot of different laws you may have to research).


This is literally a federal case now, removal to federal court makes it a federal case even though it always has been one since, although it may challenge an ordinance, it challenges it on grounds that it violates the federal constitution thus making it a "federal case." Removal is basically forum shopping, they knew what they were in for in the Second District, so they removed it to the Northern District of Illinois since drawing a friendly judge is more likely in federal court than in the state venue. It's difficult being a federal judge because of the caseload, which necessitates research, which consumes time, so they farm it out to their clerks and the Magistrate Judges handle discovery, pre-trial matters, etc. State judges don't have this luxury so they have to actually read all of the briefs filed, etc. I've never heard about using removal being used to get a favorable pool of jurors. I know it's used to get cases out of state courts like in Madison and St. Clair Counties where the corruption is just nuts, same with Cook.


It was a lecture when talking about the court system early in the semester, I'll have to find my notes, but basically there is a maneuver you can have a federal judge request to oversee a state case. IIRC it's hard to get, but one of the common reasons to attempt it is to expand the jury pool (i.e. Filing in the Cook County court guarantees a Cook County jury pool where the Federal northern district may have people outside of it) if you fear that specific jury pool might not benefit you as well as an expanded one.

Edited by mrpapageorgio, 25 December 2013 - 03:00 PM.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer


#75 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,399 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 11:05 AM

In that respect, yes. Removal does broaden the pool of potential jurors, including those who reside in Cook County. Being the largest county in terms of population, it's all but certain that there will be jurors from Cook. Assuming it goes to trial....and that it's a jury trial. Bench trials are much more common, as this is a constitutional issue and putting a constitutional question to a jury ("common folk") isn't desirable for either party involved in litigation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Edited by skinnyb82, 26 December 2013 - 11:29 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#76 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 26 December 2013 - 12:19 PM

In that respect, yes. Removal does broaden the pool of potential jurors, including those who reside in Cook County. Being the largest county in terms of population, it's all but certain that there will be jurors from Cook. Assuming it goes to trial....and that it's a jury trial. Bench trials are much more common, as this is a constitutional issue and putting a constitutional question to a jury ("common folk") isn't desirable for either party involved in litigation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2


there are no jurors involved in this kind of case.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#77 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,399 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 12:46 PM

I remembered that after I drank a pot of coffee heh. It'd be insane to allow jurors to determine the constitutionality of a law. This is judge/forum shopping, HP didn't like what they got in state court so the removal allows them to get a second shot at a more favorable judge. It's also perceived that federal judges are "defendant friendly" and state judges are "plaintiff friendly" with regard to civil suits.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#78 mrpapageorgio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 26 December 2013 - 03:58 PM

In that respect, yes. Removal does broaden the pool of potential jurors, including those who reside in Cook County. Being the largest county in terms of population, it's all but certain that there will be jurors from Cook. Assuming it goes to trial....and that it's a jury trial. Bench trials are much more common, as this is a constitutional issue and putting a constitutional question to a jury ("common folk") isn't desirable for either party involved in litigation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2


there are no jurors involved in this kind of case.


There are no jurors, we're just discussing why they moved it from state to federal court. I brought up a question if it was just a federal judge presiding a state case or it was now a federal case and I was giving an example of why the former would commonly happen.

Edited by mrpapageorgio, 26 December 2013 - 03:59 PM.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer


#79 domin8

    Member

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

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:07 AM

Elrod is slimy and shady. Anybody who has been face-to-face with him can tell. He has an agenda. I think he's the one pushing the agenda in Highland Park. Just watch the video of the Highland Park City Council Meeting in mid-October where Todd spoke. Elrod is clearly presenting lies to the council and Mayor.
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

#80 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 31 December 2013 - 07:03 AM

Judge Holderman's calendar for Tuesday 1/7 (http://www.ilnd.usco...7.htm#Holderman) lists a "Notice of Motion" for Friedman v. City of Highland Park.

Edited by Hapless, 31 December 2013 - 07:06 AM.

Ad utrumque paratus


#81 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,399 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 January 2014 - 05:16 PM

The case was reassigned to Judge Darrah pursuant to 28 USC § 294(B) (See 28 USC § 371 defining "senior"). He's a Clinton nominee. So far, and this case is how many days old (?), they've gone through one state judge and three (all three with senior status). Senior Judges don't actually occupy a seat on the bench, so they can work as long as they feel like it, while a sitting President can appoint another judge to fill the seat "vacated" by the judge who obtains senior status. It's actually been argued that it's unconstitutional....and I completely agree, but I digress.

Wonderful review of him (made by an attorney):
"Terrible hair-trigger temper; does not really listen. Misunderstands or misstates litigants' arguments. Ducks issues he does not want to decide. One of the worst federal judges I have appeared before in 40+ years - even when he ruled for me because he got angry with the other side. He rules against whomever he is angry with on that day. Flat-out ignored direct 7th Circuit precedent and 3 decades of consistent US Supreme Court decisions -- without even a comment. Scary and unpredictable."

Even the positive reviews state that he's...an angry guy and a wild card who, according to the above, flips off the Seventh Circuit and SCOTUS. Sounds like Judges Shadur and Bucklo.

Presentment of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is on January 8 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1203. So, if anyone wants to go, based on what I've read about Judge Darrah it could be quite a show. Even worse than Posner going ape on Thompson.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#82 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 02 January 2014 - 05:40 PM

I know nothing about Judge Darrah, having never had a case in front of him. However, I would take internet reviews with a giant grain of salt. I have run across many attorneys who are sore losers and refuse to acknowledge the poor facts in their case or their own poor performance for the unfavorable result they achieved, and instead, blame the judge. Normally, the only people that take the time to fill out these types of reviews are people with very strong feelings and/or are disgruntled in some fashion.

Of course, having said that, Judge Darrah could very well live up to the negative picture painted by the reviewer you quote.

#83 domin8

    Member

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

Posted 02 January 2014 - 10:00 PM

Put me on record as saying, I smell an appeal coming, and it won't be Highland Park filing it. Something just smells like political activism from the bench is coming.


Edited by domin8, 08 January 2014 - 09:38 AM.

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

#84 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:27 AM

Presentment of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is on January 8 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1203. So, if anyone wants to go, based on what I've read about Judge Darrah it could be quite a show. Even worse than Posner going ape on Thompson.

Anyone watching the show?

Ad utrumque paratus


#85 domin8

    Member

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

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:34 AM

Is there a way to watch the show from work?
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

#86 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,399 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:32 AM

Nope. Any sort of A/V device capable of recording sound and/or video is banned in the courtrooms as per Circuit Rules. They have/had a pilot program allowing cameras during civil proceedings, dunno what happened with that since the Local Rules in ILCD are preempted by Circuit Rules.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#87 domin8

    Member

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

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:08 AM

Just wondering. Courts operate differently all over the country on whether or not we it will be viewable outside the courtroom.
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

#88 TheQ

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 13

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:49 AM

do we know the outcome?

#89 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,434 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:42 PM

Arrrrg now I'm wishing I would have went to this.

:geek:

Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#90 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,665 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:46 PM

the judge moved along lines we asked for and gave Highland Park 30 days for a reply. They wanted 60 and it sounds like the Judge wasn't buying it.

We will then have like 14 to reply and be back in court on 3/4/14. We think they are going to want to do some discovery, and expect them to try that to draw this out.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.