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This topic has been archived.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

#61 Gray Peterson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 04

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:54 PM

Has there been any SAF filings in the Moore v. Madigan case in the Central District of Illinois.

#62 jagt48

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,509 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:57 PM

Vezpa, you should post more. In fact, all posts should be Vezpa......


That wouldn't be any fun. I like interacting with all the other gun IC members.
.


I second this idea from Ty. I find your avatar... distracting...

#63 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:01 PM

Has there been any SAF filings in the Moore v. Madigan case in the Central District of Illinois.


Gray,
The ISRA motions are in response to AG Madigan's motion to moot the Shepard case. However, it would be great to see the SAF file the same type of motions for relief in the Moore case too.

Tim
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#64 cm.stites

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:10 PM

You guys screwed up on this.


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

why give em 30 vs 6?

#65 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:26 PM

You guys screwed up on this.


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

why give em 30 vs 6?



Should have done it in purple. The courts in the habit of granting any request from the other side requesting 30 more days...

#66 1MEANGT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:17 PM

This could get very interesting as the new law kills all local handgun ordinances. FOID carry until permit carry would really twist the knife in the machine. :cool:

#67 Scots

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:19 PM

EXCELLENT response.
NRA Life Member, SAF Life Member, ISRA Member

#68 Tvandermyde

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:21 PM

let us not forget that the carrying of a handgun is an exclusive function of the state. they can't pass anything else at the local level.
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

#69 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:26 PM

Response to motion

and motion for permanent injunction


So instead of FOID-carry that we thought the "cliff" would bring, we have "ISRA membership card"-carry...

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#70 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:28 PM

let us not forget that the carrying of a handgun is an exclusive function of the state. they can't pass anything else at the local level.


Point well taken. After decades of "local control", it's hard to wrap my head around that. And I'm in an area with no/very few local ordinances. I'm sure the Chicago guys are suffering from exploding brains trying to get around this simple fact. Chicago/Oak Park/Rockford/Carbondale et.al. can no longer make up cute little laws that citizens there have to abide by.

It'll take a while to make the shift.

T
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#71 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:36 PM

let us not forget that the carrying of a handgun is an exclusive function of the state. they can't pass anything else at the local level.


Get busy on the laser sight ban in Chicago Todd, Chop, Chop........ LOL ...... :P

.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those

who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

                                                    

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                    - Thomas Jefferson


#72 w9trb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:37 PM

I read all those pdf's and must say that it makes my day! It will take a very obtuse Judge to create a reasonable sounding arguement to deny the request. Not that it would be impossible to find a cantankerous Judge, just that whatever is written in a denial would face scutiny at a higher Court and that scrutiny should let our rights be acknowledged.

#73 supprmann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

Awwww SNAP!!!!!

#74 BrowningHP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,612 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:42 PM

I would love to see how much faster than 270 days it would go. They'd be issuing permits within weeks i bet.

#75 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:46 PM

I would love to see how much faster than 270 days it would go. They'd be issuing permits within weeks i bet.


Yup... wanna bet their system is setup WAY fast... Remember Wisconsin had apps and were ready to process in like 60 days from the law being signed.
Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#76 BillR

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:47 PM

I'd think the FOID wait time has just shot up to over 12 months LOL....
Lifetime Member NRA
Lifetime Member IL. State Rifle Assn.

#77 mrpapageorgio

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:50 PM

I would love to see how much faster than 270 days it would go. They'd be issuing permits within weeks i bet.


I say end of the month they'd be ready if this gets approved by the end of the week. lol

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer


#78 jester121

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:52 PM

This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something?

#79 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:55 PM

This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something?


What does SCOTUS have to do with this? SCOTUS can issue a stay IF the SA is appealing to SCOTUS, but there has been no appeal. Instead she is asking dismiss the case here...
Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#80 sctman800

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:56 PM

This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something?



My understanding the SCUS is no longer in play now that a new law is in place. I don't think Kagen can make a stay for anything except after filing for cert. IMHO, Jim.
Kristofferson wrote it and Janis sang it "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

#81 cm.stites

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:57 PM

Response to motion

and motion for permanent injunction


So instead of FOID-carry that we thought the "cliff" would bring, we have "ISRA membership card"-carry...

leaves me out since im not an isra memeber haha.

#82 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:57 PM

This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something?


What does SCOTUS have to do with this? SCOTUS can issue a stay IF the SA is appealing to SCOTUS, but there has been no appeal. Instead she is asking dismiss the case here...


If this is the case could we be using this to force Madigan's hand to take this to SCOTUS anyway to get a stay to prevent a possible FOID carry situation?
.

Edited by vezpa, 10 July 2013 - 02:58 PM.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those

who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

                                                    

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                    - Thomas Jefferson


#83 cm.stites

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:57 PM

This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something?

she cant file to scotus.

#84 BrowningHP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,612 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:58 PM

http://www.thetrutha...ded-in-9-hours/

Wisconsin issued permits on day 1. No wonder it's such a wild wild west up there now.

#85 jester121

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:00 PM

I think she can. If the 7th says "FOID carry for all!!" the day after tomorrow, Madigan can appeal that decision to SCOTUS, and I think she can get Kagan to enter an emergency stay....

#86 solareclipse2

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:01 PM

leaves me out since im not an isra memeber haha.


Next news flash, ISRA membership jumps 1000%
I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#87 cm.stites

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:05 PM

I think she can. If the 7th says "FOID carry for all!!" the day after tomorrow, Madigan can appeal that decision to SCOTUS, and I think she can get Kagan to enter an emergency stay....

posners rulings already been sent down for 1 2 theres a new law on the books which MOOTS her appeal. and 3 its not the 7th circuit dealing with the issues right now its the southern district court.

Edited by cm.stites, 10 July 2013 - 03:06 PM.


#88 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:10 PM

I think she can. If the 7th says "FOID carry for all!!" the day after tomorrow, Madigan can appeal that decision to SCOTUS, and I think she can get Kagan to enter an emergency stay....


I dont believe she can. All she can do is file to take it to SCOTUS and ask for a stay during that time... But then she has to take it to scotus and of course they will ask "Why should we take this case, you already passed a law?"
Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#89 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,165 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:14 PM

The "new" law does not comply with the CA7 ruling IMHO.

1) for the next 3/4 of a year, nothing changes with UUW. This is a direct violation to the courts ruling
2) non-residents are allowed additional freedoms that Illinois residents are not allowed - The right to carry loaded firearms in their vehicles.

Please explain point #2 to me. As a nonresident I thought I had to abide by the same laws reseidents do when it comes to transporting firearms. The only real difference is that I don't need a FOID as per The People v Holmes, Illinois Supreme Court, April 2011.

#90 solareclipse2

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:18 PM

The "new" law does not comply with the CA7 ruling IMHO.

1) for the next 3/4 of a year, nothing changes with UUW. This is a direct violation to the courts ruling
2) non-residents are allowed additional freedoms that Illinois residents are not allowed - The right to carry loaded firearms in their vehicles.

Please explain point #2 to me. As a nonresident I thought I had to abide by the same laws reseidents do when it comes to transporting firearms. The only real difference is that I don't need a FOID as per The People v Holmes, Illinois Supreme Court, April 2011.


Non-Illinois residents with CCW permits from their state of residence can carry concealed in their vehicles while in Illinois immediately under the new law. Residents of Illinois cannot do this until they have an Illinois CCW permit.
I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.