Hap Posted September 20, 2018 at 01:54 PM Share Posted September 20, 2018 at 01:54 PM Godspeed kwc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 20, 2018 at 08:53 PM Share Posted September 20, 2018 at 08:53 PM Oral Arguments are up: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/sk.17-2998.17-2998_09_20_2018.mp3 Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this was an absolute train wreck. Our side has fallen right into the trap of arguing all the minutiae of the various state laws, even offering annual mental health exams in order to apply. Why aren't we arguing that this is the same ban in Moore, Young, and the 19th Century cases cited in Heller, just for non-residents? It just isn't any more complicated than that, unless there's something I'm missing. And it looks like Trump has whiffed on Michael Scudder's appointment to the 7th Circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted September 21, 2018 at 02:10 AM Author Share Posted September 21, 2018 at 02:10 AM I have listened to the audio and the questioning was brutal but it was brutal on both sides. When questioning the attorney for the state, I felt the judges could possibly lean our way. It's hard to say, can't judge a judge by their questions. We'll see! I'm not discouraged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Nichols Posted September 21, 2018 at 03:14 AM Share Posted September 21, 2018 at 03:14 AM I don't see why anyone here is surprised. Your two left-wing senators praised his appointment as well as the appointment of St. Eve. You know, the judge who thinks gun-free zones which extend 1,000 feet from schools are constitutional. Here is a link to the Durbin, Duckworth joint statement praising the nomination of Scudder and St. Eve. -> https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/press-releases/durbin-duckworth-statement-on-nomination-of-michael-scudder-and-amy-st-eve-for-the-7th-circuit-court-of-appeals “We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge St. Eve and Mr. Scudder. They both have the experience, integrity, and judgment that we look for in federal judges, and we expect them to serve with distinction on the Seventh Circuit. We appreciate the Administration’s willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well. We look forward to guiding these nominations through the Senate.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted September 21, 2018 at 03:45 AM Share Posted September 21, 2018 at 03:45 AM I'm hopeful this ruling will go the right way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted September 21, 2018 at 10:21 AM Share Posted September 21, 2018 at 10:21 AM The illogic of legally allowing me (a law abiding, lcensed and fully trained citizen that TEACHES the Illinois CCL classes) to carry a gun virtually anywhere in Illinois EXCEPT while in public outside my car should be so obviously an undue burden on my right to keep and BEAR arms, that even Federal judges would understand it to be so. The greatest risks occur when you are NOT in your car, home or fixed place of business, but out on the streets.I heard one of the judges desire for studies and research on such matters. With all due respect to Federal judges, who I presume to be highly intelligent, have they no ability to think, particularly when the State of Illinois' own regulations have no way to determine if their own residents are in continued compliance with their rules after they've received their license?I know of Illinois CCL holders (two of which were students of mine) that have used their firearm to save their life while in Indiana outside their car or fixed place of business. It would be nice if I was afforded the same consideration while spending time in Illinois, but I'm not asking for that. Simply that I may apply for and obtain an Illinois license.As it is now, I may drive to a class or work place in Illinois while carrying. I can carry while at work. I can carry when going home. I can carry when going to get gas. I just cannot carry when I get out of my car while actually punping gas, which is when I am most vulnerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 21, 2018 at 03:42 PM Share Posted September 21, 2018 at 03:42 PM I don't see why anyone here is surprised. Your two left-wing senators praised his appointment as well as the appointment of St. Eve. You know, the judge who thinks gun-free zones which extend 1,000 feet from schools are constitutional. Here is a link to the Durbin, Duckworth joint statement praising the nomination of Scudder and St. Eve. -> https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/press-releases/durbin-duckworth-statement-on-nomination-of-michael-scudder-and-amy-st-eve-for-the-7th-circuit-court-of-appeals “We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge St. Eve and Mr. Scudder. They both have the experience, integrity, and judgment that we look for in federal judges, and we expect them to serve with distinction on the Seventh Circuit. We appreciate the Administration’s willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well. We look forward to guiding these nominations through the Senate.”[/size]Guess the Senate is still using the blue slips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcc Posted September 25, 2018 at 01:38 AM Share Posted September 25, 2018 at 01:38 AM Comes down to this, for me anyway, the state applies the right to self defense (2A) for non-citizens differently than citizens of Illinois. The fact state law prohibits any equally qualified non-resident a permit based on the laws of their state is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 25, 2018 at 01:07 PM Share Posted September 25, 2018 at 01:07 PM It is ridiculous and I was disappointed Sigale didn't just tell the judges that it's not his client's problem that IL can't run what they deem is a proper background or monitoring check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted September 25, 2018 at 04:49 PM Share Posted September 25, 2018 at 04:49 PM It is ridiculous and I was disappointed Sigale didn't just tell the judges that it's not his client's problem that IL can't run what they deem is a proper background or monitoring check.Exactly. I've stated many times that a regulatory system that is impossible is obviously an unreasonable burden, and can't even pass rational basis as far as a government regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 26, 2018 at 06:57 AM Share Posted September 26, 2018 at 06:57 AM Exactly. I've stated many times that a regulatory system that is impossible is obviously an unreasonable burden, and can't even pass rational basis as far as a government regulation. "Rational basis" doesn't mean what you may think it means. For judicial review of a law, rational basis just means the law has some reason to exist, even an unsubstantiated ideological assertion (e.g., "banning guns will eliminate crime"). It simply cannot be arbitrary or capricious (e.g., "ban guns because I don't like them"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:44 AM Share Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:44 AM I have listened to the audio and the questioning was brutal but it was brutal on both sides. When questioning the attorney for the state, I felt the judges could possibly lean our way. It's hard to say, can't judge a judge by their questions. We'll see! I'm not discouraged!They often tear an attorney for one side apart, then rule in that side's favor. It's the questions asked by two judges going in the same direction that is often telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:34 AM Share Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:34 AM I guess I'll have to listen again but did Scudder say anything other than suggest the IL supreme should weigh in if the statute is being applied correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcc Posted September 28, 2018 at 02:36 AM Share Posted September 28, 2018 at 02:36 AM It is ridiculous and I was disappointed Sigale didn't just tell the judges that it's not his client's problem that IL can't run what they deem is a proper background or monitoring check. Yep, I agree with that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted January 28, 2019 at 02:00 AM Share Posted January 28, 2019 at 02:00 AM Whats going on with this case? No update in a long time. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted January 28, 2019 at 02:53 AM Share Posted January 28, 2019 at 02:53 AM Whats going on with this case? No update in a long time. . The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t issued a ruling yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted March 10, 2019 at 12:36 PM Share Posted March 10, 2019 at 12:36 PM It has been a while since orals. But now with SCOTUS hearing the NYSRPA case I'm wondering if the panel decides to hold off making a ruling until SCOTUS rules on that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted March 10, 2019 at 01:00 PM Share Posted March 10, 2019 at 01:00 PM It has been a while since orals. But now with SCOTUS hearing the NYSRPA case I'm wondering if the panel decides to hold off making a ruling until SCOTUS rules on that case.We're entering what, the fifth year of this suit? What's another year or two in the overall scheme of things? Fighting cancer this past year I wasn't sure I'd be around for the end, but now that I'm in remission, I can hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted March 10, 2019 at 02:51 PM Share Posted March 10, 2019 at 02:51 PM It has been a while since orals. But now with SCOTUS hearing the NYSRPA case I'm wondering if the panel decides to hold off making a ruling until SCOTUS rules on that case. We're entering what, the fifth year of this suit? What's another year or two in the overall scheme of things? Fighting cancer this past year I wasn't sure I'd be around for the end, but now that I'm in remission, I can hope.I hope you see many more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted March 19, 2019 at 04:48 PM Author Share Posted March 19, 2019 at 04:48 PM It has been a while since orals. But now with SCOTUS hearing the NYSRPA case I'm wondering if the panel decides to hold off making a ruling until SCOTUS rules on that case.We're entering what, the fifth year of this suit? What's another year or two in the overall scheme of things? Fighting cancer this past year I wasn't sure I'd be around for the end, but now that I'm in remission, I can hope. Sorry to hear you were going through this. I am so thankful you are now in remission!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 22, 2019 at 04:11 PM Share Posted March 22, 2019 at 04:11 PM They often tear an attorney for one side apart, then rule in that side's favor. It's the questions asked by two judges going in the same direction that is often telling.They tore into Illinois then ruled in favor of Moore. They tore into Shepard's counsel Thompson and ruled in favor of the state. I don't even try to predict anymore but the longer this is out, the better it is for Col. Culp. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted March 23, 2019 at 11:44 AM Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 11:44 AM They often tear an attorney for one side apart, then rule in that side's favor. It's the questions asked by two judges going in the same direction that is often telling.They tore into Illinois then ruled in favor of Moore. They tore into Shepard's counsel Thompson and ruled in favor of the state. I don't even try to predict anymore but the longer this is out, the better it is for Col. Culp. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Typically this would mean a split decision one way or another with a long delay (7th circuit timing). But there's NYSRPA being taken by SCOTUS and one of the judges during orals suggesting the IL Supremes get a crack at interpreting the statute. So we wait..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted April 16, 2019 at 12:55 PM Author Share Posted April 16, 2019 at 12:55 PM The 7th Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs this past week. Two judges - Hamilton and Scudder against. One judge, Manion, offers dissenting opinion why plaintiffs should prevail in this case. 48 - Opinion of 041219.pdf Next step will be to determine whether to request en banc hearing or appeal to U.S. Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcc Posted April 16, 2019 at 02:30 PM Share Posted April 16, 2019 at 02:30 PM My issue is the laziness of the ISP to send out surveys. They should analyze the laws of the other states themselves and make a determination if they are substantially similar. They are the ones the at are required to do the work by statute, not the other states. An they are should make decisions based on the information provided, or the lack there of limit their liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcc Posted April 16, 2019 at 02:44 PM Share Posted April 16, 2019 at 02:44 PM The dissent was excellent. I do wish the judge had pointed out that surveys are not proper in this day and age, may in pre-internet era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted April 16, 2019 at 05:26 PM Share Posted April 16, 2019 at 05:26 PM The 7th Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs this past week. Two judges - Hamilton and Scudder against. One judge, Manion, offers dissenting opinion why plaintiffs should prevail in this case. 48 - Opinion of 041219.pdf Next step will be to determine whether to request en banc hearing or appeal to U.S. Supreme Court.Odds are decent for en banc, so I'd try that first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted May 6, 2019 at 10:12 PM Share Posted May 6, 2019 at 10:12 PM Will they appeal for en banc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted May 6, 2019 at 11:01 PM Share Posted May 6, 2019 at 11:01 PM Yes--a petition for an en banc review was filed last week. Additionally, the Missouri Attorney General filed an amicus brief on behalf of the states of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. The brief favors the plaintiffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted May 8, 2019 at 09:51 PM Author Share Posted May 8, 2019 at 09:51 PM The Amicus Brief: 55 - States' Amicus Brief (filed).pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted June 6, 2019 at 10:47 AM Share Posted June 6, 2019 at 10:47 AM Any news here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.