Jump to content


Photo

Madigan's office files motion to dismiss Shepard/Moore cases as moot


This topic has been archived.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

#31 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:14 AM

filing. . . .


Oh boy this is gonna be good.

#32 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Members
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:18 AM

If anything hopefully we get another court mandated date to have the permitting process done. The legislature can screw with their new law all they want in the fall session and there is nothing set in stone to keep them on track and from pushing any and all implementation dates back. Who cares about breaking your own made laws anyway? (Look at the FOID) A court set date will IMHO keep things on track. Get em Todd !

.

Edited by vezpa, 10 July 2013 - 11:25 AM.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those

who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

                                                    

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                    - Thomas Jefferson


#33 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:27 AM

Would an injunction affect everyone or just Mary Sheppard and the ISRA? Good thing I keep my membership up to date!


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

#34 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:28 AM

Well I guess thats what you get when you pass a bill in response to a losing federal rights case and the parties involved do not support or disapprove (recall the official party line was both ISRA and NRA were indifferent / neutral on HB 183).

#35 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:34 AM

another of the filing

Attached Files


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.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#36 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:36 AM

scough,
Nobody is arguing that the right to carry can't be regulated or restricted. But as of today, carrying is still totally and completed banned in the State of Illinois. The 7th Circuit said that total and complete bans are not permitted. Without a doubt, Illinois can set up certain hoops and hurdles for its citizens to jump through to get a license, but a citizen ready and willing to jump through such hoops and hurdles can't do it right now because the State has all the hoops and hurdles locked away in the gym closet.

You and others are also giving too much weight to the 7th Circuit's stated reason for granting a stay. The Court did say that the reason for the stay was to give the State time to pass a new law (and not also to implement the law) but the reason for the stay does not change the fact that there is no more stay. Ironically, this is similar to the text of the 2A, where the stated reason for the amendment (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . .) does not constrain the right actually being granted (the right to keep and bear arms).

Illinois could have filed a motion with the 7th Circuit asking for an additional extension of the stay to give them time to actually implement the new law, but it didn't. So the stay is over, and the law of the land is that citizens in Illinois cannot be completely barred from carrying weapons in public.


I'm not sure we are disagreeing, BUT as you say in your first paragraph, if the court has stated that the right to carry can be restricted, and they gave 6+ months to merely pass a law, surely they are going to agree that a similar amount of time to develop the implementation process after the law passed is reasonable. Obviously, until the law passed, there was no iron-clad understanding of the various requirements, so that all starts now, and I thinik the state can prove they have already started on the work.

Like it or not, and I hate it, the fact is, anyone arguing that the court is going to demand immediate FOID carry is nuts.While it's great to see we are fighting Lisa's play here, the reality is, the implementation period is in my opinion probably not going to be a strong suit for us, as I believe they will agree 6-9 is reasonable. Again, I wanted immediate carry for current CCW holders, and I'm just as disappointed as everyone else.

#37 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:42 AM

Note pointing out Less than 30 minutes after legislature passed act defendants filed to the courts attention. recall all the pleas in the past for more time to decide if they would file? Thats a shot at the state Atty's office.

#38 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,738 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:44 AM

...
Like it or not, and I hate it, the fact is, anyone arguing that the court is going to demand immediate FOID carry is nuts.While it's great to see we are fighting Lisa's play here, the reality is, the implementation period is in my opinion probably not going to be a strong suit for us, as I believe they will agree 6-9 is reasonable. Again, I wanted immediate carry for current CCW holders, and I'm just as disappointed as everyone else.



If the court wants to calls us nuts, so be it, but I would rather have the question asked than assume they will not grant relief.

#39 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,267 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:46 AM

I just read through all 3 docs. That's some powerful language in there. I got all teary eyed reading it. With the motion to expedite filed, how long do you think before any action is taken?
I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#40 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:46 AM

Note pointing out Less than 30 minutes after legislature passed act defendants filed to the courts attention. recall all the pleas in the past for more time to decide if they would file? Thats a shot at the state Atty's office.

Yet they needed an extension for SCOTUS?
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

#41 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Members
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:58 AM

Note pointing out Less than 30 minutes after legislature passed act defendants filed to the courts attention. recall all the pleas in the past for more time to decide if they would file? Thats a shot at the state Atty's office.

Yet they needed an extension for SCOTUS?


Several.
.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those

who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

                                                    

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                    - Thomas Jefferson


#42 mrpapageorgio

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:59 AM

So basically this is a motion asking the court to force FOID carry until permits start being issued?

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer


#43 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:00 PM

yup
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.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#44 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:00 PM

...
Like it or not, and I hate it, the fact is, anyone arguing that the court is going to demand immediate FOID carry is nuts.While it's great to see we are fighting Lisa's play here, the reality is, the implementation period is in my opinion probably not going to be a strong suit for us, as I believe they will agree 6-9 is reasonable. Again, I wanted immediate carry for current CCW holders, and I'm just as disappointed as everyone else.



If the court wants to calls us nuts, so be it, but I would rather have the question asked than assume they will not grant relief.


I'm tickled pink, and perhaps have been conditioned to expect the worse. While we have a great argument, and I've got every finger and tow crossed hoping we get some relief. I would love to see current CCW permit holder to get carry during the period.

I do however hope we have some additional filings going after some of the restrictions and requirements of the new law as being to oppressive. This thing is far from over.

#45 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,033 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:00 PM

For some reason I see Stiehl issuing in interlocutory order sending it up to the Seventh. This is above is pay grade heh.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#46 Phatty

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:02 PM

So basically this is a motion asking the court to force FOID carry until permits start being issued?

Kind of. In essence, everyone with a FOID card will be deemed a license holder until actual licenses are being issued. FOID holders will still have to comply with the new CCW law regarding prohibited places, etc.

#47 skottieusa

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 07

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:04 PM

Isnt it problematic to the state that the law now allows, as of yesterday, non residents w/CCW permits to vehicle carry immediately while there remains an effective ban to IL residents on all forms of carry or do I have my facts wrong?

So now non residents can come to our state, pierce our borders, and enjoy a measure of self defense we are enjoined from exercising as residents? I would be satisfied with car carry as a measure of relief until permits are granted. At least there is some equality with that.

#48 Skorpius

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,375 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:07 PM

Of course, if we get FOID carry and have been using it for some time, it will be a bitter pill to swallow having to go from that to having to pay for it and wait for permission.
Posted Image
NRA / ISRA

#49 vstar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 872 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:09 PM

Now we're cooking with gas. I love this move!

#50 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,385 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:11 PM

is there a time frame for the ruling?

#51 jdbeier38

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:12 PM

The way I see it if non residents can have loaded firearms in their vehicle then I want this ability too.
"Illinois is the epicenter of what's wrong with America" - Ted Nugent

#52 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:12 PM

I hear the sounds of democratic rears tightening in Springfield. Oh Crud those guys again?

#53 miztic

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:16 PM

For some reason I see Stiehl issuing in interlocutory order sending it up to the Seventh. This is above is pay grade heh.

I'm guessing the lower court is going to deny us, like they always do.
It'll have to be appealed up to the 7th again.

still pretty awesome they are asking for FOID carry. with any luck at least the 180 day implementation date will have some teeth at least if the court says that's the most time they'll get. Maybe the court will give us FOID carry if the ISP misses it's 180 day deadline.

We were speculating here at work that Quinn will now do everything in his power to delay and slow implementation as much as possible.

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.


#54 Mr_Rich

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:16 PM

is there a time frame for the ruling?


In the motion they request a ruling by 7/16/13.

Rich

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2



#55 jdbeier38

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:18 PM

is there a time frame for the ruling?


In the motion they request a ruling by 7/16/13.

Rich

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2


But a reply within 24 hours though right?

Edited by jdbeier38, 10 July 2013 - 12:19 PM.

"Illinois is the epicenter of what's wrong with America" - Ted Nugent

#56 Mr_Rich

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:26 PM

is there a time frame for the ruling?


In the motion they request a ruling by 7/16/13.

Rich

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2


But a reply within 24 hours though right?


In the motion to expedite the plaintiffs (Shepard) are requesting that the defendants (Madigan) be ordered to respond within 1 day.

Rich

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2



#57 thornstein

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:30 PM

So basically this is a motion asking the court to force FOID carry until permits start being issued?

Kind of. In essence, everyone with a FOID card will be deemed a license holder until actual licenses are being issued. FOID holders will still have to comply with the new CCW law regarding prohibited places, etc.


I could live with that.

#58 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,033 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

I could live with my FOID card being a carry permit until the ISP gets its act together. That'll expedite the process that's for sure heh. I got permits from AZ and UT as well as an 03 FFL, it's not like I haven't been "checked out."

Edited by skinnyb82, 10 July 2013 - 12:34 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#59 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:51 PM

You guys screwed up on this.


You should have made a motion for 30 days to consider.

#60 BillR

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 766 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:52 PM

I think this gets into a "Grey" area.... when does the court start to "Legislate" instead of enforce or determine Constitutionality of a law ??
Lifetime Member NRA
Lifetime Member IL. State Rifle Assn.