Highland park suit

[domin8]

Injunction has not been granted, then?

 

Concerning discovery, I think the fact Friedman is a pediatrician may help if Highland Park/Elrod tries to use the AAP's false data on the affects firearms have on children. Plaintiffs will want to be prepared in the event of this.

 

[transplant]

Thanks Todd!

[TheQ]

Thanks for the update!

 

So did we get a Stay too?

[Hap]

We think they are going to want to do some discovery, and expect them to try that to draw this out.

Discovery? After seven plus months of just making stuff up, why would HP want to start dragging facts into this?

[McCroskey]

Discovery? After seven plus months of just making stuff up, why would HP want to start dragging facts into this?

 

I'd be curious to see what kinds of facts they could come up with. It seems like the antis entire gameplan in all cases is to sandbag until they can't anymore.

[Hap]

It's more a matter of what facts the city could hope to extract from Dr. Friedman, but, yes, the general approach of the Illinois anti-2A crowd seems to be to drag things out.

[domin8]

Dragging things out works nationwide. Both the Dems and Reps do it. They enact something and get a little hate mail for it, their party loses that seat, a court ruling overturns that enactment, the person currently in the seat gets the blame and losses reelection to the party that placed caused that act in the first place.

 

[Leth]

Sorry if this is a silly question, but since this is now in a federal court would the verdict have a wider impact than just on Highland Park? Could other IL or interstate AWBs be overturned?

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

 

[lockman]

Any decision would be binding on Highland Park at the circuit level. As far as other jurisdictions that will depend on the decision and what provisions may have been struck.

 

Any binding precedent for other jurisdictions occurs up the chain.

 

I am sure some more gram iliac with the specifics will fill us in on the whole process in detail.

[RockerXX]

Discovery? After seven plus months of just making stuff up, why would HP want to start dragging facts into this?

 

Because that is the GAME the judicial system has become in this country... The State dragged out discovery for 8 months in my personal legal mess and in the entire 8 months couldn't produce a single piece of evidenced they had fabricated and told the grand jury they had, but hey why let fact and real evidence lead to a quick and honest trial when you can drag you feet and hope the other side capitulates and you can get your way... The legal and judicial system in this country it broken to say the least...

[skinnyb82]

Discovery is one thing. The length of time to conduct discovery is another. That and what the judge allows, especially Rule 34 (electronic evidence) subpoenas where they will manage to get stored communications (violation of the ECPA/SCA) and go way beyond the scope of what the subpoenas permit. They're proposing changing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because attorneys routinely abuse the discovery process to dig up as much as they can on the opposing party in order to strong arm them into settling rather than litigating. The proposals do not go far enough, though.

 

I just checked the docket, Highland Park (Murdoch) filed its answer to the complaint I'm 1/7 and Judge Darrah entered an order on 1/8 setting the schedule for responses and replies in re Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, and issued a vague order stating "Discovery is authorized." He then entered a minute order on the 1/10, re-setting the hearing on the preliminary injunction from 3/5 to 2/27 (10:30 am if anyone wants to go heh).

 

This answer to the complaint is a joke. Affirmative defenses are failure to state a cause of action and the second affirmative defense is that the ISRA "may lack standing."

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

[jagt48]

I'm glad that you clarified what Rule 34 means in terms of the legal system, because I think you and I have VERY different definitions of what that means... I feel like I learn something useful each time I read one of your posts, so thanks for helping to get my mind out of the gutter.

[Capt_Destro]

I'm glad that you clarified what Rule 34 means in terms of the legal system, because I think you and I have VERY different definitions of what that means... I feel like I learn something useful each time I read one of your posts, so thanks for helping to get my mind out of the gutter.

 

This here....

[domin8]

I just read Highland Park's response. I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to drag their feet in discovery.

[Tango7]

I just read Highland Park's response. I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to drag their feet in discovery.

 

What? Utilize the bottomless pocketbook of the already oppressed citizenry to engage in "by any means necessary" tactics?

 

Shocked, I am...

[Hap]

I just checked the docket, Highland Park (Murdoch) filed its answer to the complaint I'm 1/7 and Judge Darrah entered an order on 1/8 setting the schedule for responses and replies in re Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, and issued a vague order stating "Discovery is authorized." He then entered a minute order on the 1/10, re-setting the hearing on the preliminary injunction from 3/5 to 2/27 (10:30 am if anyone wants to go heh).

Can you post the documents or links to them (or are they not worth reading)?

[Drylok]

Dragging things out works nationwide. Both the Dems and Reps do it. ,They enact something and get a little hate mail for it, their party loses that seat, a court ruling overturns that enactment, the person currently in the seat gets the blame and losses reelection to the party that placed caused that act in the first place.

Yep the housing crash is perfect example with the dems affordable home act or whatever the heck they called it

[skinnyb82]

Highland Park hasn't even filed a response to the motion for preliminary injunction and it's due today. Darrah has little patience for attorneys who screw around (he just sanctioned a bunch of them under Rule 11). The Brady Bunch has stuck its nose in this. Filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Highland Park. The HP answer to the complaint *gag* is below, along with the motion for leave and the proposed amicus brief (you may not wanna read that one, the first paragraph made me wanna yell at my computer).

 

Here are some paragraphs that have caught my eye for the level of stupidity, my comments are emphasized at the end of each paragraph....and this is just from the motion for leave to file....

 

"The accompanying brief will assist this Court by providing additional analysis of

the current standard for application of the Second Amendment and the standard of review for

restrictions on the possession of firearms, particularly in the context of assault weapon laws

similar to Highland Park Ordinance No. 68-13." (Yes because Darrah is just that stupid, to not have a CLUE that you have an agenda)

 

"The brief also provides additional critical information regarding the history,

characteristics and function of assault weapons and large capacity magazines and how they have

played a devastating role in numerous mass shooting nationwide." (Uh huh sure, kinda like how semi autos and full autos are basically the same as far as rate of fire)

 

Answer:

 

Defendants.Answer.to.Complaint.D16.0.pdf

 

Brady Bunch's Motion and Proposed Brief:

 

Brady.Bunch.Motion.for.Leave.To.File.Amicus.Brief.D20.0.pdf

 

Brady.Bunch.Proposed.Amicus.Brief.Exhibit.1.D20.1.pdf

[TheQ]

thanks for the update......

[johnsxdm]

I just read Highland Parks answer. LOL !! All I could picture is their lawyer walking around, with a finger stuck in each ear, saying la la la la la la la la la la la I can't hear you! To quote Bugs Bunny, WHAT A MAROON!

[skinnyb82]

Yeah you wanna laugh harder? Look at this. HP just filed its response with affidavits including Mayor Rotering, Chief Shafer, and others. Look at this idiotic garbage.

 

Yeah the response (and exhibits, Exhibit A is Rotering's affidavit, B is Chief Shafer's affidavit, C is...I dunno heh). Some of these affidavits contain royally idiotic statements...Chief Shafer says that ATF agents have to go through yada yada yada insofar as firearms training goes yet one of these so-called "experts" is featured in a viral YouTube video where he brings a Glock 22, 23, whatever into a classroom full of children, says he's the only one qualified to use it, then shoots himself in the foot.

 

From the opening paragraph in the motion. "Assault weapons" are not protected under the Second Amendment. I don't believe that the Supreme Court has ruled on that arbitrary definition as of yet. I do know that these weapons are "in common use" so they ARE PROTECTED. In the alternative, this Ordinance still doesn't violate individuals' Second Amendment rights because it's for the children and the police even though there have been FOUR homicides in Highland Park in the past 21 YEARS. But Laurie Dann...ohh we can't have that happening again as if this would've stopped her nooo.

 

"Plaintiffs' motion should be denied. The Second Amendment does not protect the assault

weapons or large capacity magazines that are regulated by the ordinance. Even if it did, the

Ordinance does not violate the Second Amendment because the Ordinance regulates a small

subset of firearms and substantially advances Highland Park's important interests in public safety

and protecting its citizens and police force."

 

Here's a gem from Rotering's affidavit, neglecting to state that the ILSC reversed the lower courts in re counts involving pure Second Amendment challenges, remanded back to the circuit.

 

"7. The City deliberately chose Cook County's ordinance as a model because it has

recently survived equal protection and vagueness challenges before the Illinois Supreme Court."

 

This crap has no place in an affidavit, feelings, that's not a legal issue. The Judge does not give a crap about your "feelings," Mayor. His job is to rule based on the statutory and case law. Not based on what feels good.

 

"9. The City Council also expressed its concern that the recent mass shooting

tragedies in Aurora, Colorado, Newtown, Connecticut, Tucson, Arizona and Santa Monica,

California, could occur in Highland Park, unless proper public safety measures are taken. As

Mayor, and as a mother of four, I am particularly concerned about preventing a school shooting

similar to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. That is what was on my

mind throughout our consideration of the Ordinance: how unlikely an assault weapon massacre

was in Newtown and how similar our communities are. I could not shake the thought that we

could just as easily be those panicked and grief-stiicken parents."

 

So, just to set the record straight, you didn't consider the constitutional rights of your constituents? OK, nice to hear that, judges don't really give a crap how you feel but the fact that this is admittedly a knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook is very telling.

 

From the same "facts" in her declaration (OF FACTS NOT FEELINGS), this is just insane. It doesn't even make sense.

 

"Lastly, the tragedy that occurred when Laurie

Dann attempted to ignite an incendiary device at one of our Highland Park elementary schools,

then went on a shooting rampage at another school in nearby Winnetka was also on my mind.

My concern for how vulnerable our schools and schoolchildren are played into our need to pass

the Ordinance."

 

From the Declaration of Paul S. Shafer, I find this to be very telling of the "Ordinance" and its purpose. He actually goes and states facts in re violent crimes. Then he talks about Dann. Like if they ban "assault weapons" that will stop a nutcase. Ok, and if we ban teenagers from talking on phones while they drive, ban everyone from texting while driving, they will stop doing it (they did not, will not, never will).

 

"7. Since 2008, there have been 68 reported incidents of aggravated assault or

aggravated battery in the City.

 

8. In the six-year period from 2008 to 2013, there were 293 residential and

commercial burglaries in the City that were reported to the Department.

 

9. Since 2008, there have been two reported home invasions during which the

residents of the home were present. In one of those invasions, there were multiple intruders.

 

10. Since 2008, there have been 16 arrests for crimes in the City involving firearms

and/or ammunition.

 

11. There has not been a homicide in the City since June 2003. However, there were

four homicides in the City between October 1996 and June 2003."

 

Wow, one every two years, and you haven't had one for 11 years. Home invasions and agg assault/battery, well let's disarm our citizens. He also shows that he has no idea what he's talking about, because if you submerge a DI rifle in mud and get the gas system all nice and jacked up, the barrel full of crap, well I would suggest cleaning it prior to using it otherwise God knows what will happen if the gas tube is clogged with crap etc. But Chief Shafer says that I can just go out, bury my rifles in sand and mud, then pick em up and shoot them without so much as hosing them down. And what does submerging a rifle in mud have to do with the Second Amendment? The AR-15 was not designed for hunting, it was designed to kill a ton of people...right uh huh. Explain that to the millions of people who use DI ARs to hunt. Finally, well the last sentence, is he talking about SBRs? I can't conceal an AR with a 16" barrel and I've talked to multiple LEOs who are on tactical teams, they hate the 14.5" and 16" barrel ARs because they lack maneuverability and they wanna switch over to a piston SBR or something with a much shorter barrel such as an MP5 but hey whatever dude.

 

"18. By way of example, the AR-15 assault weapon (the civilian version of the

military M-16) was not designed as a hunting weapon; it was designed for use by the military in

combat situations. As such, the AR-15 and other assault weapons, by their nature, allow the user

to carry increased firepower (larger capacity magazines) and a weapon designed to engage

multiple targets. These weapons, designed for the military, are specifically manufactured to

operate in adverse situations such as mud and sand before malfunctioning. These weapons also

tend to be shorter than true sporting weapons, which aides in concealment as well as

maneuverability."

 

And the middle finger! Why don't we leave that up to the residents, not some desk jockey, hmm?

 

"19. I do not believe that City residents need assault weapons to adequately protect

themselves, their families, or their properties. If required, there are numerous other types of

firearms available and legal for possession by City residents that would serve the intended self defense

purposes."

 

This man is an idiot...just an idiot. Only .223 ammo can penetrate body armor...right OK then pal. Accurate at longer distances, well of course, it's a rifle. Accurate at 1000 yds, no. I also highly doubt that they use .223 ammo but I'm just guessing. Anyway I can't read any more of this drivel so I'm just gonna post the briefs and (try to) post the exhibits.

 

"22. In 2013, due to the nationwide increase in active shooter incidents, I requested

that the City Council approve the use of .223 rifles by members of the Department. I believe that

these rifles, which are assault weapons, are necessary for law enforcement, because: (a) the rifles

are more accurate at longer distances; ·and ( the ammunition for these rifles can penetrate a

suspect's body armor. To my knowledge, every municipal police department in the vicinity of

the City deploys .223 rifles for its officers."

 

Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (asinine):

Defendants.Response.to.Plaintiffs.Motion.for.Prelim.Injunction.D22.0.pdf

 

Affidavits (Exhibits A, B, C, D, had to split them up to get the file size down to the limit):

Defendants.Response.to.Plaintiffs.Motion.For.Preliminary.Injunction.Rotering.Decl.Exhibit.A.D22.pdf

Defendants.Response.to.Plaintiffs.Motion.For.Preliminary.Injunction.Shafer.Decl.Exhibit.B.D22.pdf

Defendants.Response.to.Plaintiffs.Motion.For.Preliminary.Injunction.Jones.Decl.Exhibit.C.D22..pdf

Defendants.Response.to.Plaintiffs.Motion.For.Preliminary.Injunction.Yurgealitis.Decl.Exhibit.D.D22.pdf

 

Exhibit E is a declaration filed by Dr. Gretechen Cusick who happens to be the Director of Research for the (anti-gun) University of Chicago Crime

Lab and Urban Education Lab, she attempts to dismantle Plaintiff's experts:

Defendants.Response.to.Plaintiffs.Motion.For.Preliminary.Injunction.Cusick.Decl.Exhibit.E.D22.pdf

 

(I had to remove her 6 page resume from the brief, notice the signature, Ph.D., M.A. which is just downright redundant)

 

There are like 100 pages more of exhibits, I don't feel like paying for them nor do I feel like posting them.

[Hap]

It's ironic that the Laurie Dann case is being used to support the current Highland Park ordinance. Laurie Dann used three handguns which would not have been affected, except possibly as far as magazines are concerned, by the current ordinance. For many years Highland Park and other North Shore communities cited this case as the reason for banning handguns - all the while leaving long guns, including AR-15s, totally unregulated. To cite this case in support of the current ordinance is just plain twisted.

 

And with the current provisions of the FOID act, her FOID would have been revoked and her firearms seized long before she could have used them to harm anyone.

[domin8]

Would anybody like me to pass them some popcorn?

 

Hapless, you might want to reread the Highland Park AWB. There is no magazine capacity restriction for handguns, with the exception of 10 rounds for fixed magazines. Detachable magazines do not have an ammo capacity restriction unless defined as large capacity magazines, which was specifically restricted to rifles.

 

Has anybody on our side thought about utilizing the recent research of a 29 year study from Quinnipac University? What about John Lott and his books that have been published by University of Chicago Press?

[Tango7]

It's ironic that the Laurie Dann case is being used to support the current Highland Park ordinance. Laurie Dann used three handguns which would not have been affected, except possibly as far as magazines are concerned, by the current ordinance.

 

 

Laurie Dann, whose murderous rampage on May 20, 1988, earned her eternal infamy in Chicagoland, purchased all three of the weapons she used during her shooting spree at Marksman Police & Shooting Supply in Glenview. She purchased a high-powered Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum with a 4-inch barrel and nickel plating on May 10, 1986. She returned to purchase a .32 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver on November 7, 1987, and a .22 caliber Beretta semi-automatic pistol on December 29, 1987.

 

The Bobcat only holds 7 rounds.

[Tango7]

Has anybody on our side thought about utilizing the recent research of a 29 year study from Quinnipac University? What about John Lott and his books that have been published by University of Chicago Press?

 

What about the 1997 National Institute of Justice study by Cook and Ludwig "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997) http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt ?

 

 

[Hap]

It's ironic that the Laurie Dann case is being used to support the current Highland Park ordinance. Laurie Dann used three handguns which would not have been affected, except possibly as far as magazines are concerned, by the current ordinance.

 

 

Laurie Dann, whose murderous rampage on May 20, 1988, earned her eternal infamy in Chicagoland, purchased all three of the weapons she used during her shooting spree at Marksman Police & Shooting Supply in Glenview. She purchased a high-powered Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum with a 4-inch barrel and nickel plating on May 10, 1986. She returned to purchase a .32 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver on November 7, 1987, and a .22 caliber Beretta semi-automatic pistol on December 29, 1987.

 

The Bobcat only holds 7 rounds.

Perhaps they should have banned small-capacity magazines.

[Hap]

Chief Shafer, in item 16 of his Declaration, states:

Assault weapons are not designed for self-defense, but are instead designed for combat situations which include rapid fire, the possibility of multiple targets, and a need for increased magazine capacity to engage multiple targets. These factors are not typically present when a firearm is required for defense of a home.

Except when they are. For example, in December 2011 there was an armed home invasion in Highland Park with multiple assailants and multiple shots fired within the home (and not by the homeowners, who were unarmed). In March 2013, there was a home invasion in Deerfield (the homeowner has, somewhat ironically, since moved to Highland Park) - three armed suspects on this one. In June 2012 there was an armed robbery - three attackers on this one as well - in the Ravinia shopping district.

 

Multiple armed assailants are rapidly becoming the rule rather than the exception. Chief Shafer's statement concedes that increased firepower is necessary to deal with these situations.

[domin8]

The real problem with Chief Shafer's statements is that he's not an expert. The ISRA will have no trouble blowing up his testimony. We should be thanking Elrod for helping us, and Rotering and Shafer too.

 

My opinions only reflects what I've read here. I haven't read the documents yet.

 

 

[domin8]

Chief Shafer, in item 16 of his Declaration, states:

Assault weapons are not designed for self-defense, but are instead designed for combat situations which include rapid fire, the possibility of multiple targets, and a need for increased magazine capacity to engage multiple targets. These factors are not typically present when a firearm is required for defense of a home.

I keep thinking about this. I went on record at a city council meeting stating this law impacted military personnel living in Highland Park. On 10/14, after Todd, you, and everybody else that sat with us left, Councilman Paul Frank said this did not impact military personnel readiness. Now the Chief of Police is stating these banned firearms are used in combat? Boy did Highland Park step in it. Paul Frank's comments can be found at the end of the city council meeting on 10/14.

 

Pertaining to item #22, iirc, departments nationwide purchased modern sporting rifles for their officers after the bank robbery in Los Angeles in the 90s by the 2 guys that outgunned the police and were wearing full body armor. The officers handguns were no match, and many officers were killed that day. Iirc, this was post 1994, so the ban on semi auto rifles was in affect. The police were fortunate to find a gun dealer that had the rifles pre-ban. The rifles were just sitting in the backroom because they couldn't be sold.

[johnsxdm]

Would anybody like me to pass them some popcorn?

 

Hapless, you might want to reread the Highland Park AWB. There is no magazine capacity restriction for handguns, with the exception of 10 rounds for fixed magazines. Detachable magazines do not have an ammo capacity restriction unless defined as large capacity magazines, which was specifically restricted to rifles.

That's not the way I read it. On page #3 of D22.0 it defines "assault weapons" and pistols are included! If it has a pistol grip without a shoulder stock (like all pistols do) and the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition,its an assault weapon!