Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

So wonder if we will get filling on Monday or a new delay?

It would really surprise me if the State attempted to extend. The court has already stated “no further extensions... except in extraordinary circumstances,” and if they had planned to request an extension it must have been filed at least 7 days before the due date. That didn’t happen, so I would expect to see a filing on Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is the analysis for the filing? Is the brief loaded with cr@p?

Basically. They still say it's not a ban just because 4 states' residents can obtain permits. It's essentially the same thinking as a may-issue scheme, that rationing rights is a fulfillment of the right. Unfortunately the Culp I opinion basically let that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not asking anything more of nonresidents than they are of residents and that they cannot vet the mental health of nonresidents. They haven't yet figured out that they cannot do that even for Illinois residents because nothing prevents them from leaving the state to seek treatment elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not asking anything more of nonresidents than they are of residents and that they cannot vet the mental health of nonresidents. They haven't yet figured out that they cannot do that even for Illinois residents because nothing prevents them from leaving the state to seek treatment elsewhere.

They have predicated a fundamental civil right on the illusion of being able to prove a negative with 100% certainty, which cannot be done.

 

They have chosen a regulatory scheme that they admittedly are unable to complete, and the response is to simply deny the civil rights of the people they can't regulate to their own satisfaction.

 

How any court could let this stand is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, what is the analysis for the filing? Is the brief loaded with cr@p?

My reading of it, is it's a very long winded recitation of everything that has transpired so far in the case, and then "you should let us have our way, because people with guns scare us".

 

Well, given that their "argument" to maintain the ban on CCW consisted of:

 

1) It might make the public safer (but provided no statistical proof)

2) Because it's not nonsensical

3) Because we can

 

is it surprising?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, given that their "argument" to maintain the ban on CCW consisted of:

 

1) It might make the public safer (but provided no statistical proof)

2) Because it's not nonsensical

3) Because we can

 

is it surprising?

 

 

As for #1, let's not forget Judge Easterbrook's words of support for the Highland Park AWB - "If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit," (emphasis added)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, their arguments ignore something very simple yet profound:

 

The state may be allowed to enact a particular regulatory scheme, but if they are then admittedly unable to fulfill that scheme, that doesn't allow them to summarily deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right.

 

Arguments in favor of a particular scheme are invalid if the scheme is impossible to employ. It defies reasonableness when they enact something that they know is impossible. The whole concept of predicating civil rights on something some other state does defies the separation of the states in any event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the H ell is it that literally every pro-firearm filing I've ever seen in this state so far outstrips the anti-firearm filings in every logical and legal argument, yet there continues to be anything other than complete vindication for the pro-firearm viewpoint, at least from a legal standpoint?

 

The arguments from the anti-firearm sides are universally unsupported and well-nigh inept to the point of legal malpractice, in my experience from both linguistic and legal editing and research.

 

I am dumbfounded that any judge with even a minimum of jurisprudence could find against briefs such as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hope you are not in a hurry!

If Culp I's timeline were an indicator we should be getting an oral argument date any day now, probably set for September/October. And 2 more Trump judges(not including Brennan, already confirmed) are expected to be confirmed this week, which will make 4 on the 7th Circuit.

I still expect Manion and Williams to be on the panel along with someone to take Posner's place.

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...