Jump to content

Moore vs IL Attorney General


Recommended Posts

What I think the Moore case has going for it is that Mr. Moore was trusted by the State of Illinois to be equiped with a firearm. As a corrections officer it's reasonble to think that he created enemies in the inmate population, and therefor may be at risk of retaliation. Just because he switches from a state job to a private firm shouldn't cause his ability to carry a firearm disappear.

 

I do not believe Illinois Corrections officers are allowed to carry off duty.

 

I didn't realize this until my son got his job, federal correction officers can carry off duty.

 

That is interesting. So a corrections officer at Marion Federarl Penitentiary, which is now minimum security, can carry off duty because he is a federal employee. But a corrections officer at Tamms, which is maximum security, can't because he is a state employee.

 

Sounds screwed up to me. At Marion inmates are allowed to sign out and go to Carbondale hospital without being accompanied by a corrections officer. Maybe not all of them, not sure on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

This is a manifestation of Illinois' overall hostility toward firearm ownership. Not long ago, I had a phone call from a former IL parole officer who is being told he will not be issued state documents that would let him qualify under LEOSA. The state says his service wasn't appropriate -- even though he had all the LEOSA-required job components like arrest and detention power, worked directly with dangerous offenders, and was weapons-qualified while he was in state employment.

 

It's not just Chicago -- the entire upper state bureaucracy is tilted against even its own law enforcement officers being able to exercise a Constitutional right. Much less law-abiding citizens.

 

As an aside, and as a historical matter (speaking as a former BOP employee), at a national level the BOP also was hostile toward staff carrying firearms for many years. Some local facilities were supportive, but for decades the Director was not. Thankfully, the agency pretty much lost any leverage on this point when LEOSA passed.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it did not. 1-2 years of lack of application of 2A as an individual right in Heller (if not for Seegars, Heller would have been Parker at SCOTUS) killed people in DC, killed people in Chicago. It did NOT work out for them at all. Family members are without their mothers or fathers, sons & daughters, all because of a home invasion they may have been able to stop if they had a handgun in their person or near them rather than a shotgun locked in a safe...

 

ILA must admit their institutional failures in litigation (rather than spend 300-400K a month in ineffective litigating being directed by a non-lawyers) and bow out, or otherwise transfer the 400K/month to a more effective and more legally minded group of controllers, such as the General Counsel's Office or the CRDF, or just let SAF do it's work.

 

ILA needs to stop meddling in things that they have no institutional competence in, at all.

 

Gray, I do not disagree with you in regards as to how the NRA attempted to sabotage Heller. I have hinted as much, but was trying not to stir the proverbial pot. My statement that 'it all worked out in the end' was a reference to the eventual decision. I get it, your p***** off with the NRA, I was too, but what are you aiming to accomplish with riling people up?

 

The NRA is very good at working elections and lobbying for pro gun legislation, which compliments SAF litigation. I agree that a more cordial arrangement and coordinated effort would lead to a more effective outcome. This feud is just silly and has the two big dogs in the room acting like children fighting over a toy.

 

What I'm aiming to accomplish is to get the Institute for LEGISLATIVE Action out of the LITIGATION arena. Someone here asked why Shepard wasn't getting as much attention as Moore. I advised that's because the cases were needlessly separated & for whatever reason, Shepard was being developed separately & apart from ISRA's partners in litigation on two different SUCCESSFUL cases (Ezell & McDonald). Also, Charles Cooper has not argued a 2A case in front of the Supreme Court. Alan Gura has. Why use Cooper?

 

The question I'm asking is WHY this occurred. I can make inferences on the basis of my knowledge of past history between Gura & NRA-ILA (who heavily promoted the Shepard case).

 

It is ILA who has a history of seriously interfering with Gura's litigations (Moore may have been first represented by David Jensen, but Gura was supervising him & Gura is the chief litigation counsel for SAF & it is well known he would be arguing at the 7th Circuit). It was ILA who filed a case against Chicago when there was already in knowledge that litigation would be filed by SAF against Chicago, making it unnecessarily duplicative (the filings against the bedroom villages around Chicago were OK, they took down handgun bans in those jurisdictions quickly). It is ILA who continually interfered with McDonald and stabbed Gura in the back during the Supreme Court stage by filing an inference that Gura was not prepared or willing to argue due process (i.e. after it was discussed who would argue what in briefings papers ahead of time, that NRA would argue mostly due process in briefings. This is confirmed in a SCOTUS filing in opposition to dividing Gura's argument time). First Seegars, then NRA v. Chicago, and now apparently Shepard.

 

What I'm aiming to accomplish is to shine a light on ILA's bad behavior in litigation, and encourage members of the NRA (which I am a member and will continue to be a member) to think about contacting ILA to get them out of it, and if they continually refuse to do so, seek a bylaws change during an annual meeting if necessary. Political operators such as Chris Cox have no business directing litigation, at all, especially since there is already an existing 501©(3) within the NRA umbrella who can do the litigation (specifically the NRA-CRDF) or the General Counsel's Office.

 

Your analogy about dogs is inapt. It's not two dogs fighting over a toy. It's the younger dog being able to hold a toy in their mouths and get to a finish line faster for the benefit of all, and the older dog is jealous of the attention it would give the younger dog, so the older dog attacks the younger dog in the track and tries to take the toy away from him, despite the fact that the older dog is slower & less likely to be able to keep it in their muzzle without having to pick it up over and over again, slowing them down to finish the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The northern section of the state sure is hostile, lets not forget this gem.... http://northbrook.pa...rols-mall-store

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Ah yes, ritzy Northbrook Court...where thieves steal holiday gifts out of car trunks (Mercedes, Lexus, etc) and at times were bold enough to steal diamond jewelry from shoppers in the parking lots. But the North Shore is a "modern society" where no one has the need to defend themselves with any kind of weapon. The criminals already know they won't face armed resistance from security staff either. On the North Shore, it's all about preserving the illusion of a perfect la-la-la-la-la crime-free society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The corrections officer situation is tricky and I don't remember all of the rules governing it, I'm guessing that Cook County Jail doesn't allow it's officers to carry off duty - however it is subject to department rule. There may be some departments that allow it, some departments that don't.

 

I also thought there was something where they were allowed to carry while on their way to work ???

 

My point though was it seems rather ARBITRARY that the state of Illinois would trust a corrections officer to carry, but when that officer moves from a government job to a civilian corrections employee working for a private firm, all of a sudden - he can't be trusted to carry a firearm ?

 

Count...you may be thinking of the restrictions placed on armed security officers in IL......they are permitted to carry their weapons while on duty and ONE HOUR while traveling to and from place of employment........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The corrections officer situation is tricky and I don't remember all of the rules governing it, I'm guessing that Cook County Jail doesn't allow it's officers to carry off duty - however it is subject to department rule. There may be some departments that allow it, some departments that don't.

 

there was a huge scandal that many of you may have forgotten about back in the late 70s regarding CC corrections officers. the practice at the time was to deputize ALL of the COs, thus allowing them to carry off duty. this included hundreds, or perhaps thousands of part time employees (the records were pretty murky), a number of whom had some "interesting" histories, and some who it appeared never actually worked, even though they were carried as PT employees on the books. I think the response of the sheriff to the mess was to get rid of the PT employees across the board. I don't recall if they undeputized the FT COs or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The corrections officer situation is tricky and I don't remember all of the rules governing it, I'm guessing that Cook County Jail doesn't allow it's officers to carry off duty - however it is subject to department rule. There may be some departments that allow it, some departments that don't.

 

there was a huge scandal that many of you may have forgotten about back in the late 70s regarding CC corrections officers. the practice at the time was to deputize ALL of the COs, thus allowing them to carry off duty. this included hundreds, or perhaps thousands of part time employees (the records were pretty murky), a number of whom had some "interesting" histories, and some who it appeared never actually worked, even though they were carried as PT employees on the books. I think the response of the sheriff to the mess was to get rid of the PT employees across the board. I don't recall if they undeputized the FT COs or not.

 

Deputy Walter Payton among others if I remember correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The corrections officer situation is tricky and I don't remember all of the rules governing it, I'm guessing that Cook County Jail doesn't allow it's officers to carry off duty - however it is subject to department rule. There may be some departments that allow it, some departments that don't.

 

there was a huge scandal that many of you may have forgotten about back in the late 70s regarding CC corrections officers. the practice at the time was to deputize ALL of the COs, thus allowing them to carry off duty. this included hundreds, or perhaps thousands of part time employees (the records were pretty murky), a number of whom had some "interesting" histories, and some who it appeared never actually worked, even though they were carried as PT employees on the books. I think the response of the sheriff to the mess was to get rid of the PT employees across the board. I don't recall if they undeputized the FT COs or not.

 

Deputy Walter Payton among others if I remember correctly.

 

The Chicago Bears Walter Payton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the discussion of whether corrections officers are "allowed" to carry off-duty (which is worthy of a separate thread that disinterested people can ignore), these past few days have seen some pretty interesting discussion regarding second amendment litigation. Gray, your perspective is illuminating and important, and your sharing of information on the litigation front is really appreciated. I just trust this stuff can be discussed without denigration into name-calling and ad hominem, whether they be individuals at ILA or others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cook County Jailers, if I remember correctly, can carry to and from work, but I do not know about off duty. IDOC parole agents are not allowed to CC off duty without paying an additional $75-$100 annually and a mandatory re-qualification.

 

Cook County Jailers are Cook County Sheriffs, I know quite a few that work at Hotel California. So they can carry anytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the SAF, NRA, and ISRA, have all done well on the legal front. Despite any intermural squabbles, all have served gun owners well in this area. It doesn't really matter who is best in this arena.

 

My only real complaint is the strategy to stop any effort to push open or container carry now, because their belief that these would somehow adversely affect the Shepard case.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been thinking about this cockeyed state for the past several months. It does not matter what the gun rights people do, Illinois still ignores the peoples Constitutional rights in regard to self protection away from their homes. That would be ok if the only place the people would be harmed was in their homes. Yet, we all know that this is not going to be the case. Since the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago ignore the citizens Constitutional rights, I think it is only fair that the citizens of Illinois Ignore the fact that their state government is against their citizens right to self defense by carrying a firearm.

 

Chicago has made it plain that they do not care what the rest of the state does as long as it does not effect Chicago. This is fine so why does everything that Chicago do effect the rest of the state? If Chicago does not want it's citizens to carry guns so be it, just leave the rest of the state alone so we may enjoy our Constitutional and GOD given rights. Time for the people of Illinois to ignore Chicago, Springfield, Madigan, Emanuel and live for and by the Constitution. That document has worked so well for so long Why try to do away with it? So many soldiers have given their lives for it's beliefs and protection only to see it slip away be these so called Politicians and law makers. The Constitution is the law of the land, the4 rest is just garbage. Time to take out the trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the discussion of whether corrections officers are "allowed" to carry off-duty (which is worthy of a separate thread that disinterested people can ignore), these past few days have seen some pretty interesting discussion regarding second amendment litigation. Gray, your perspective is illuminating and important, and your sharing of information on the litigation front is really appreciated. I just trust this stuff can be discussed without denigration into name-calling and ad hominem, whether they be individuals at ILA or others.

 

Which I did not do. I made the point that the ILA is institutionally incompetent at running litigation, and that ILA running most of NRA's litigation (versus NRA-CRDF or the General Counsel's Office) causes many of the issues & problems with not playing well with others.

 

McDonald also brought up issues as well. Mr. Gura preserved two arguments for the case: substantive due process (SDP) & privileges/immunities (PI). P&I (which was an attempt to overturn Slaughterhouse) was needed because definitely one Justice (Thomas) and possibly two Justices on our side (Thomas & Scalia) would require that the argument be brought up for textualist reasons. Though in the end Thomas was the only one to use the P&I argument, it was critically important that P&I be part of the argument, as Thomas, given a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Carheart, would not entertain any mode of argument that wasn't brought up from the time of lawsuit filing up until SCOTUS, un-abandoned.

 

Simply put, without P&I, Thomas would not have joined us, regardless of how good the SDP argument was, NRA-ILA protestations notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The soup may not be done, but that "in the wild" copy of the ruling is certainly stirring the pot.

 

Please do elaborate on this "in the wild" thing. Has something leaked and if so, what?

 

I'm not putting any hope on any document in this case that isn't released officially. When it comes out, it comes out, nothing matters until then.

 

Let's just go with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
When I was at the Moore/ Shepard v Madigan Hearing, there was a Legal Motion that was heard before our Case. It involved a White Supremist that posted threatening messages on a blog. On the Radio today it was announced that the 7th district Court of Appeals has made a decision in that Case. The point is, that Case was heard on the same day as our Case and it has been decided... perhaps Moore v Madigan is next!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is alot of talk about Posner and the Scalia conflict, in another Post. I know a Lady that work's at the 7th District Court of Appeals. She has worked there for over 14 years as an Attorney. She knows the Judge's very well and told me that Posner is regarded as the most knowledgable Judge and is considered a God at the 7th. The Decision of this case will be given soon and will be in our favor, IMHO.
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...