Jump to content

Culp vs Madigan - Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Non-Residents


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

It's become somewhat common to claim that intermediate scrutiny is used but to actually apply rational basis or sometimes something even more lightweight that rational basis. If I was cynical, I'd say it was because if they called what they were doing by its proper name, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to take the case and overturn the decision, and that they don't want to make things that easy for the Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It's back to the Central District Court of Illinois now. The court lifted the stay and wants Dispositive Motions by December 28. Bench trial is scheduled for May 23, 2017.

 

Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: In light of the Seventh Circuit's issuance of the mandate, the stay in this case is lifted. The Court hereby amends the March 26, 2015 Scheduling Order as follows: Dispositive Motions due by December 28, 2016; Final Pretrial Conference set for May 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.; Bench Trial set for May 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/16/2016. (GL, ilcd)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

We'll have national reciprocity by the time this goes to trial. Never mind by the time a judgment is rendered. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

If a national reciprocity bill gets past a filibuster, it will be tied up in the courts for years. I don't think we'll be carrying in all 50 states anytime soon. Illinois will probably be one of the states to object to such a bill, so the need to continue pressing forward with the subject lawsuit remains an important step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of these states realize that a Trump presidency could potentially spell the end of the gun control movement, so they're gonna fight as hard as they can to preserve their gun control laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be tied up in courts due to the 10th Amendment. And states will have an excellent argument. The federal government doesn't retain any jurisdiction to regulate carriage of firearms so that's a bit of a problem. It will be tough for the federal government to argue it has the power to regulate carriage when it has punted that to the states for the entire history of the U.S.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my opinion--but all it would take is for a handful of states to file for a preliminary injunction against implementation of a reciprocity law, and a liberal court (the 9th Circus comes to mind) to issue one.

I am of the same opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be tied up in courts due to the 10th Amendment. And states will have an excellent argument. The federal government doesn't retain any jurisdiction to regulate carriage of firearms so that's a bit of a problem. It will be tough for the federal government to argue it has the power to regulate carriage when it has punted that to the states for the entire history of the U.S. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Does not the 2nd and 14th amendments fortified via Heller & McDonald preclude a 10th amendment claim? A national law that protects persons exercising a fundamental right from prosecution by state actors does not seem to me as violative of the 10th amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States will bluster but they will not fight it, as doing so would put LEOSA in jeopardy also, and they'd have to face the wrath of their public safety unions over that.

 

Consider that LEOSA is more than just interstate recognition, in some places that's all that off-duty LEOs have to give them carry. Those guys are not going to give that up.

 

As I've said before, this is not new ground to tread. It's already been done and in place for over a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would be tied up in courts due to the 10th Amendment. And states will have an excellent argument. The federal government doesn't retain any jurisdiction to regulate carriage of firearms so that's a bit of a problem. It will be tough for the federal government to argue it has the power to regulate carriage when it has punted that to the states for the entire history of the U.S. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Does not the 2nd and 14th amendments fortified via Heller & McDonald preclude a 10th amendment claim? A national law that protects persons exercising a fundamental right from prosecution by state actors does not seem to me as violative of the 10th amendment.

That had slipped my mind. Once McDonald was decided, the 2A incorporated into the 14th Amendment, the states lost a ton of power to regulate above and beyond federal regulation. Doesn't mean they don't do it, just that they can be placed in check by the feds if they so choose. In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment binds the states as well as the federal government. Contrast that with Baltimore v. Maryland (1833) in which SCOTUS held the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, they were the domain of the federal government (thus allowing states to trample on the rights of slaves, anyone they so choose with no remedy for such infringement). FOPA used the Commerce Clause to skirt the 10A but we all know how much anti-gun states like NJ, NY, MD, respect FOPA (not in the slightest). That being said, a law could be enacted using the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plaintiffs' attorney filed a "Motion for Extension of Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline" on Dec 23, citing the need to disclose expert witnesses and depose the Defendants' primary witness, Jessica Trame (director of the Firearm Services Bureau and one of the named defendants). A 90-day extension was requested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today the defendants asked to extend the deadline for filing Dispositive motions by 16 days. Curiously, one of the reasons cited is the ongoing review of new "substantially similar" survey results returned from the states (presumably those returned over a year ago now) and the possible need to update the Defendants' affidavit which addresses these surveys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they're using "We're just getting around to doing what we've had two, maybe three years to do" excuse, at the precise time when pre-trial is ratcheting up. What a coincidence! That's pathetic, but not as pathetic as the "I'm a poor, overworked lawyer" garbage. Bottom line is that it isn't our fault that our politicians can't get anything meaningful accomplished (no, I do not consider passing a law repealing the tampon tax to be a "meaningful accomplishment" or forcing medical practitioners to violate their religious beliefs to be at all "meaningful" much less an "accomplishment"), maybe hire some more AAGs to pick up the slack and stop dragging out every single lawsuit filed against the State. And their lack of funds or....lack of work ethic is not a remotely reasonable justification for screwing with your civil liberties. There is no justification.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state has had years to go over these surveys (or, at minimum, months or a month, still long enough to do something rather than waiting for remand of this case) and that allowing them three months to go over a few dozen sub-20 question surveys is patently absurd. Not to mention that, as Gamma stated above, that it is more likely than not that no substantial changes will take place and this is window dressing, stalling.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state has had years to go over these surveys (or, at minimum, months or a month, still long enough to do something rather than waiting for remand of this case) and that allowing them three months to go over a few dozen sub-20 question surveys is patently absurd. Not to mention that, as Gamma stated above, that it is more likely than not that no substantial changes will take place and this is window dressing, stalling. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

....gives some perspective on why the State is in such financial ruin as a whole though.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, the state is asking for a 16-day extension (not 90).

 

Plaintiffs requested 90 days--primarily because CA7 clearly felt the plaintiffs need to "prove" why the state should be forced to allow exercise of a right protected by the Constitution. Additional discovery will help bolster the supporting evidence, which under an appropriate level of scrutiny should never have been necessary!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today the defendants filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request to reopen Discovery.

 

From their response: "In short, Plaintiffs have demonstrated no good cause for extending the discovery deadlines to take depositions of parties known to Plaintiffs since the outset of this case or to disclose their own experts more than a year after they were required to do so. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs' request to extend discovery deadlines in this matter."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight. They admitted that they possess new discoverable material directly relevant to the instant case (and admit that it could alter the outcome of the case) yet are basically refusing to produce? If this were a criminal action then...remember what Mosby did with the Brady violations? Well, rather than it being conduct which will result in disbarment (it will if it's a pattern), that garbage in a federal civil trial such as this is sanctionable conduct under FRCP Rule 37. Here, we have a Rule 26 (governing discovery, expert witnesses, etc) issue which triggers Rule 37 (discovery violations). "We have new, discoverable material which will materially alter the issue at hand...but you can't have it." Give me a break. You cannot have it both ways, Lisa. Either you don't have anything to hand over or you do and you must hand it over. Myerscough had better grant that extension otherwise CA7 will be reviewing another interlocutory order.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight. They admitted that they possess new discoverable material directly relevant to the instant case (and admit that it could alter the outcome of the case) yet are basically refusing to produce? If this were a criminal action then...remember what Mosby did with the Brady violations? Well, rather than it being conduct which will result in disbarment (it will if it's a pattern), that garbage in a federal civil trial such as this is sanctionable conduct under FRCP Rule 37. Here, we have a Rule 26 (governing discovery, expert witnesses, etc) issue which triggers Rule 37 (discovery violations). "We have new, discoverable material which will materially alter the issue at hand...but you can't have it." Give me a break. You cannot have it both ways, Lisa. Either you don't have anything to hand over or you do and you must hand it over. Myerscough had better grant that extension otherwise CA7 will be reviewing another interlocutory order. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins just DENIED additional discovery. Deadline for Dispositive Motions remains Jan 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dispositive Motions were due yesterday to the Central District Court of Illinois. Both sides filed motions for Summary Judgment.

Documents filed by the Defendants contain nothing that is radically different from prior arguments. They did, however, address their interpretation of the laws of other states and their rationale for determining substantial similarity to the Illinois statutes. Of course, the Defendants continue to claim the right of nonresidents to bear arms in Illinois is far from the core right protected by the Second Amendment.

The Plaintiffs' motion contains expanded content. It introduces the Trame deposition from the Samuel v. Trame (S.D.IL) case. It counters the State's conjecture of harm to the public by citing studies that show permit holders are at a low risk of crime compared to the general population. It covers the four substantially-similar states and their inconsistency with the established "substantially similar" criteria, and addresses the lack of criminal activity committed by nonresident CCL holders from those states. It also points out other disconnects between the requirements codified in the FCCA, and the actual implementation scheme used by the ISP.

I've attached the primary documents from the Defendants ("D -") and the Plaintiffs ("P -") below for your casual reading on a January weekend when we pay special honor to our civil rights. (I excluded other files that are not central to the arguments and those that have been posted previously.)

 

Responses are due Feb 3.

 

.

D - Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf

D - 44-main - Memo in support of motion.pdf

D - 44-1 - Trame Affidavit.pdf

P - 45 - Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf

P - 46-main - Memo in Support of Motion.pdf

P - 46-1 - Statement of Undisputed Facts.pdf

P - 47-main - List of Exhibits.pdf

P - 47-1 - Trame Deposition (from Samuel v Trame).pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...