Jump to content


Photo

Samuel v. Trame - Military Non-Resident Lawsuit


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#1 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 30 July 2015 - 02:23 PM

A new case has been filed in U.S. District Court, Southern Illinois District, in an effort to remedy this state's unconstitutional discrimination against military non-residents obtaining a concealed carry license.  This is the second Federal lawsuit in Illinois involving non-residents; the first also includes a military plaintiff (see Culp v. Madigan).

 

Ella Samuel, a resident of Montana who is assigned on active duty orders to Scott AFB near Belleville, Illinois, filed suit on July 20, 2015 against Jessica Trame, the Director of the Firearms Services Bureau.  Initial response to the compliant was due by July 27, but an extension allows until August 3.  Samuel is represented by Thomas Maag of Wood River, IL.

 

The original complaint (attached) was filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court early in June 2015 and was just moved to the U.S. District Court.

 

The case number is 3:15-cv-00780-NJR-SCW.

Attached Files


Edited by kwc, 30 July 2015 - 03:39 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#2 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,190 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 30 July 2015 - 02:27 PM

Thanks KWC. Now we have a lawsuit and legislation to get something to remedy this situation. Let's hit it on all fronts.

http://www.ilga.gov/...sionID=88&GA=99

http://www.ilga.gov/...sionID=88&GA=99

Edited by spec5, 30 July 2015 - 02:28 PM.

NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#3 DoverGunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 13

Posted 30 July 2015 - 05:32 PM

Maag is a quite capable Lawyer/Liar
It makes me wonder why he took the case as I do not see it as a money maker for him

#4 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 30 July 2015 - 05:51 PM

Good to hear.
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

NRA Life Member
ISRA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)

#5 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 30 July 2015 - 07:27 PM

Hope for a good outcome!



#6 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 31 July 2015 - 05:16 AM

Thanks KWC. Now we have a lawsuit and legislation to get something to remedy this situation. Let's hit it on all fronts.http://www.ilga.gov/...sionID=88&GA=99


So far:
- 2 active non-resident lawsuits against the state (both include active duty military)
- More than 7 military-specific concealed carry bills introduced since March 2014
- Highlighted during IGOLD as major legislative priority; addressed with dozens of reps and senators
- Issue discussed face-to-face with Gov Rauner during IGOLD
- Draft military language included in House's proposed clean-up bill (deleted before vote)
- Numerous threats (lone wolf, ISIS, etc.) and actual attacks against military members

I hope our time has come. What will it take to push this over the top?

I think the lawsuits are still the key... that's the only thing that gets any action in this state. Pray for success, and soon!

Edited by kwc, 31 July 2015 - 05:19 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#7 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 31 July 2015 - 12:53 PM

For what it's worth, "Questions for the Record" from Senators Grassley and Cruz during Judge Rosenstengel's nomination hearing might reveal a little bit on how she might decide a case like this.  In her responses, she addresses D.C. v. Heller, Due Process and Equal Protection, applicability of strict scrutiny as it applies to a fundamental right, and commitment to following the precedents of higher courts regardless of personal views.  My initial impression is positive in the context of this case.

 

Perhaps someone with a strong legal background can shed additional light on this.


Edited by kwc, 31 July 2015 - 12:54 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#8 GM1(SW)

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 13

Posted 31 July 2015 - 08:00 PM

I have my fingers crossed that this ruling will allow non resident military members to get their CCL and in doing so will address the question of why not allow every other non resident to obtain a Illinois ccl.



#9 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,542 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:19 PM

Considering federal law requires non-resident military members stationed on orders in another state to be treated as residents in the state that they are stationed within leave no wiggle room to deny military members the same rights other ILLINOIS residents enjoy.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#10 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,123 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 03 August 2015 - 02:38 AM

address the question of why not allow every other non resident to obtain a Illinois ccl.

I've mentioned before and I will again here. My strong suspicion is that they just do not have the ability or capability to do the background check they have devised on non-Illinois residents. The mental health care requirement goes beyond what is required to be recorded or tracked in most other states or federally. The burden on the state of trying to do all those inquiries would probably be substantial. So they devised a way to shift that burden to others, by limiting applicants to those who already have licenses from another state which include the requirement they want. So they're just relying on the other state to check the requirement they want people to meet instead of actually doing the check themselves.

Kind of like their survey they sent out to determine "substantially similar" states, they didn't apparently even research other state's laws or requirements, just sent out a questionnaire to the other states.

Edited by Gamma, 03 August 2015 - 02:40 AM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#11 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 18 August 2015 - 07:34 AM

Attached are the Defendant's response to the original complaint (filed Aug 3, 2015) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed Aug 17).

 

Basically, ISP uses (among others) an affirmative defense that the plaintiff's claims are "premature and unripe."  One of their claims is that the plaintiff failed to apply for either a FOID card or a concealed carry license.  Plaintiff revealed in the original complaint that she has a FOID card, and as her attorney points out in the Motion, it is impossible for her to even apply for a CCL without using an address from an approved state.

 

Happy reading!

 

Attached Files


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#12 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 18 August 2015 - 11:23 AM

Also note defendant's response is due Sep 21, 2015.


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#13 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 18 August 2015 - 03:23 PM

Attached are the Defendant's response to the original complaint (filed Aug 3, 2015) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed Aug 17).

 

Basically, ISP uses (among others) an affirmative defense that the plaintiff's claims are "premature and unripe."  One of their claims is that the plaintiff failed to apply for either a FOID card or a concealed carry license.  Plaintiff revealed in the original complaint that she has a FOID card, and as her attorney points out in the Motion, it is impossible for her to even apply for a CCL without using an address from an approved state.

 

Happy reading!

 

 

Wow, that motion for summary judgement and permanent injunction is an

 

77289d1315004400-one-bad-a**-wacker-lelo

 

for the ISP and the state of Illinois, ain't it?

 

And essentially, the ISP's response to just about every single point made by the plaintiff is "I know nothing" and "I don't think so" and "I don't agree."

 

What kind of idiots are my taxes paying for as counsel for the ISP?


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 18 August 2015 - 03:28 PM.

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#14 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,641 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 18 August 2015 - 04:18 PM

What kind of idiots are my taxes paying for as counsel for the ISP?


Obviously the political machine hack type.
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.

#15 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 18 August 2015 - 05:13 PM

I think the "admit/deny" construct is standard practice, and the substantive arguments come later.

That being said, I can't comprehend how the ISP wouldn't know if it is legal for the plaintiff to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois without a CCL. Seriously?

8. That carrying a firearm by Plaintiff, while off duty, and without a concealed carry license issued by the State of Illinois, is a criminal offense.

RESPONSE: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8.


Edited by kwc, 18 August 2015 - 07:49 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#16 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,669 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 18 August 2015 - 09:30 PM

Did they really essentially say that the Plaintiff lacked sufficient intellect to understand the Law, therefore cannot make this claim?

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#17 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 18 August 2015 - 09:36 PM

Did they really essentially say that the Plaintiff lacked sufficient intellect to understand the Law, therefore cannot make this claim?


Where did you see that? I interpret that statement to mean the ISP is lacking in intellect. :)

Edited by kwc, 18 August 2015 - 09:40 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#18 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,662 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 18 August 2015 - 10:00 PM

I think the "admit/deny" construct is standard practice, and the substantive arguments come later.

That being said, I can't comprehend how the ISP wouldn't know if it is legal for the plaintiff to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois without a CCL. Seriously?
 

8. That carrying a firearm by Plaintiff, while off duty, and without a concealed carry license issued by the State of Illinois, is a criminal offense.

RESPONSE: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8.

 

 

Perhaps they are saying that there could be other factors, not known to the ISP, which would allow the plaintiff to carry while off duty. Still, pretty slippery.


Ad utrumque paratus


#19 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,123 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 18 August 2015 - 11:17 PM

Samuel v Trame - Response to complaint.pdf 36.32KB 23 downloads

I'm pretty disgusted that we pay the people who wrote that.

Then again we pay the people who are denying our rights and getting sued too.

I wish they would have included the SCOTUS precedent that specifically addressed a state denying rights and privileges to non-residents. I don't have it in front of me but I think I've posted the citation before. I think it might even have been Illinois who got spanked in that case also.

Edited by Gamma, 18 August 2015 - 11:26 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#20 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 19 August 2015 - 03:03 AM

I wish they would have included the SCOTUS precedent that specifically addressed a state denying rights and privileges to non-residents. I don't have it in front of me but I think I've posted the citation before. I think it might even have been Illinois who got spanked in that case also.


The plaintiff's attorney in Culp v Madigan referenced a couple of cases in his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction:

http://illinoiscarry...=52501&p=929313
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#21 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,669 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 19 August 2015 - 05:45 AM

Did they really essentially say that the Plaintiff lacked sufficient intellect to understand the Law, therefore cannot make this claim?

Where did you see that? I interpret that statement to mean the ISP is lacking in intellect. :)
Ahh, yes. Wrong way around. Thanks!

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#22 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,672 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 25 August 2015 - 05:12 PM

Attached are the Defendant's response to the original complaint (filed Aug 3, 2015) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed Aug 17).
 
Basically, ISP uses (among others) an affirmative defense that the plaintiff's claims are "premature and unripe."  One of their claims is that the plaintiff failed to apply for either a FOID card or a concealed carry license.  Plaintiff revealed in the original complaint that she has a FOID card, and as her attorney points out in the Motion, it is impossible for her to even apply for a CCL without using an address from an approved state.
 
Happy reading!


They, on the one hand, deny she had a "temporary" FOID card but by doing so tactically acknowledge that they saw that wording used in the original complaint, but then double back and state "oh, well, she didn't bother applying so she can't sue us."
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#23 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 26 August 2015 - 04:52 AM

Yesterday Judge Rosenstengel scheduled the final Pretrial Conference for 8/9/2016 at 1:30 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse. Presumptive Bench Trial is set for September, 2016.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#24 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,123 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 26 August 2015 - 03:58 PM

Yesterday Judge Rosenstengel scheduled the final Pretrial Conference for 8/9/2016 at 1:30 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse. Presumptive Bench Trial is set for September, 2016.

Unbelievable. If this was some politically correct cause it would have already been adjudicated.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#25 GM1(SW)

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 13

Posted 26 August 2015 - 04:46 PM

Yesterday Judge Rosenstengel scheduled the final Pretrial Conference for 8/9/2016 at 1:30 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse. Presumptive Bench Trial is set for September, 2016.

That is just plain unacceptable....



#26 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,123 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 26 August 2015 - 11:58 PM

Get another plaintiff in another district and sue again, maybe there is a judge somewhere that has some respect for civil rights.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#27 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 27 August 2015 - 04:12 AM

Wouldn't we expect the plaintiff to move for a preliminary injunction and advance the timeline? Also, unless I'm misunderstanding the process, I think the judge hasn't yet ruled on the motion for summary judgment. If favorable to the plaintiff, the ruling would skip the discovery phase and nullify the need for the bench trial that was just scheduled. Are there any legal experts here able to clarify this?

Edited by kwc, 27 August 2015 - 04:30 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#28 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 09 September 2015 - 09:51 AM

moving along

NOTICE of Scheduling and Discovery Conference: Scheduling/Discovery Conference set for 9/21/2015 at 03:30 PM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. (amv) (Entered: 09/08/2015)



#29 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 09 September 2015 - 05:43 PM

moving along

NOTICE of Scheduling and Discovery Conference: Scheduling/Discovery Conference set for 9/21/2015 at 03:30 PM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. (amv) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

Always wondered why discovery would be needed in a case like this, seems clear cut?



#30 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 10 September 2015 - 07:40 AM

9/21 conference will probably be more scheduling than anything but Discovery will be allocated some time as well.  Just gives plaintiffs more time to let the state hang themselves.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users