Molly B. Posted June 11, 2015 at 01:59 PM Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 at 01:59 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:19 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:19 AM - No reason given From the way I am reading the lawsuit as filed, these types of revocations would be covered in any ruling we get. Link to comment
jmeyers Posted June 11, 2015 at 02:28 PM Share Posted June 11, 2015 at 02:28 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:19 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:19 AM - No reason given Molly - Thats great news, Im just wondering if this that has been brought to light (actual proof of revocations) would help in getting a injunctions due to irreparable harm by taking our fully applied for, legal CCW away because we moved. Ofcourse we'd have to show cause that we are in the State of IL XX% of the time. Link to comment
III Posted June 11, 2015 at 02:31 PM Share Posted June 11, 2015 at 02:31 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:19 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:19 AM - No reason given Molly - Thats great news, Im just wondering if this that has been brought to light (actual proof of revocations) would help in getting a injunctions due to irreparable harm by taking our fully applied for, legal CCW away because we moved. Ofcourse we'd have to show cause that we are in the State of IL XX% of the time. I am in the state daily for work and to visit my kids. On average a minimum of 10-12hrs per day. Link to comment
Gamma Posted June 11, 2015 at 03:43 PM Share Posted June 11, 2015 at 03:43 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:20 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 22, 2015 at 03:20 AM - No reason given From the way I am reading the lawsuit as filed, these types of revocations would be covered in any ruling we get.Revocations could be a separate suit as that suit could address a separate issue under the law. Namely, that suit could avoid a Civil rights battle and be decided simply by applying the FCCA as written. IANAL but ISP appears to be breaking the law by revoking licenses for that reason. Link to comment
Molly B. Posted June 22, 2015 at 03:25 AM Author Share Posted June 22, 2015 at 03:25 AM jmeyers' interesting situation and discussion have been split off into it's own topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted June 22, 2015 at 01:57 PM Share Posted June 22, 2015 at 01:57 PM Wednesday is an important date in this case (3:14-cv-03320). Deadline for filing Fact Discovery. Should be expecting some pretty large filings in the next day or 2 I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 6, 2015 at 02:32 PM Share Posted August 6, 2015 at 02:32 PM Significant development in this case yesterday: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion and supporting memorandum (retrieved from PACER) are attached. Happy reading! Edited Aug 11: Replaced memorandum with updated copy. .Motion for Preliminary Injunction.pdfMemo in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted August 6, 2015 at 03:43 PM Share Posted August 6, 2015 at 03:43 PM Significant development in this case yesterday: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion and supporting memorandum (retrieved from PACER) are attached. Happy reading! Wow, that was excellent! That memo is a face-punch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted August 6, 2015 at 11:30 PM Share Posted August 6, 2015 at 11:30 PM Significant development in this case yesterday: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion and supporting memorandum (retrieved from PACER) are attached. Happy reading! It seems like that Culp guy has a pretty good attorney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie Posted August 7, 2015 at 01:59 AM Share Posted August 7, 2015 at 01:59 AM That was some good reading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oohrah Posted August 8, 2015 at 12:38 AM Share Posted August 8, 2015 at 12:38 AM Well, I hope something happens. I'm in TX, but visit IL frequently. I just don't understand the reasoning behind tying my state's rules to getting a non-res IL permit. I mean, if I comply with all the background checks and training that IL requires, regardless of which state I'm from, I think I should be able to an IL non-rez permit. Just wondering. TX gives non-res licenses regardless of home state, our only requirement is that you have to take the class physically in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted August 8, 2015 at 01:33 AM Share Posted August 8, 2015 at 01:33 AM One thing I was disappointed in, was that the lawsuit does not address the doubling of the license fee for non-residents. For a fundamental civil right, the fee should be the same. The current cost of the fee for non-residents is clearly excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted August 8, 2015 at 02:53 AM Share Posted August 8, 2015 at 02:53 AM Yes, the fee is excessive, but good luck arguing it when most other states charge more to nonresidents than residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Peterson Posted August 8, 2015 at 03:11 AM Share Posted August 8, 2015 at 03:11 AM One thing I was disappointed in, was that the lawsuit does not address the doubling of the license fee for non-residents. For a fundamental civil right, the fee should be the same. The current cost of the fee for non-residents is clearly excessive. When you have limited space in the motions filings to argue points, narrow lawsuits addressing application access need to proceed first. It will be a lot harder to attack non-resident higher fees, and I'd rather the lawyers be able to dedicate all thirty pages of legal argument to the reasons why charging more for non-residents higher is unconstitutional versus only 5 pages out of the 30 allowed, allowing only 25 pages for the application access claim in Culp. This is why the plaintiffs are OK, for this particular lawsuit, basically asking the ISP to allow them to pay their agency $300. More plaintiffs in an additional lawsuit can file saying it's a burden, and there's no shortage of potential plaintiffs in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oohrah Posted August 8, 2015 at 02:53 PM Share Posted August 8, 2015 at 02:53 PM Texas does not charge a higher fee for non-residents, and give s a discount for seniors and veterans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted August 9, 2015 at 04:15 AM Share Posted August 9, 2015 at 04:15 AM Off the top of my head, Virginia, Florida, and Utah charge more to nonresidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted August 9, 2015 at 05:37 AM Share Posted August 9, 2015 at 05:37 AM Off the top of my head, Virginia, Florida, and Utah charge more to nonresidents. $150 more? Or 100% more? Point is, Illinois is excessive (compared to other states). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted August 10, 2015 at 03:59 AM Share Posted August 10, 2015 at 03:59 AM I know that Virginia is 100% more. $50 for residents and $100 for nonresidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted August 10, 2015 at 06:02 AM Share Posted August 10, 2015 at 06:02 AM Just because someone else is doing it doesn't make it right, or Constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted August 10, 2015 at 11:42 AM Share Posted August 10, 2015 at 11:42 AM I know that Virginia is 100% more. $50 for residents and $100 for nonresidents. So Illinois is 300% more on both counts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 10, 2015 at 12:33 PM Share Posted August 10, 2015 at 12:33 PM So Illinois is 300% more on both counts... 200% more, aka 300% of VA's cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted August 10, 2015 at 12:37 PM Share Posted August 10, 2015 at 12:37 PM It could be free, but so long as I remain unable to apply, my rights are being denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 10, 2015 at 01:27 PM Share Posted August 10, 2015 at 01:27 PM It could be free, but so long as I remain unable to apply, my rights are being denied. Which is, of course, the whole point of this lawsuit. Thanks for getting this thread back on track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith44 Posted August 10, 2015 at 03:07 PM Share Posted August 10, 2015 at 03:07 PM I may be wrong, but does the larger fee for non-residents potentially run afoul of the equal protection clause in the constitution? -Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted August 11, 2015 at 04:10 PM Share Posted August 11, 2015 at 04:10 PM Just because someone else is doing it doesn't make it right, or Constitutional. True, but it does make the counterclaim a little more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted August 11, 2015 at 07:24 PM Share Posted August 11, 2015 at 07:24 PM Just because someone else is doing it doesn't make it right, or Constitutional.True, but it does make the counterclaim a little more difficult.Unlicensed open carry is probably going to allow some states to do whatever they want with concealed carry licensing. I figure the courts will find it a different sitution constitutionally when licensing is the only option for carry. Personally I think concealed carry is a right regardless, and regulation of it should comport with reasonable regulation of a civil right regardless of the availability of open carry. At a practical level I don't like open carry and don't think it is a good fit for most individuals and places. Government should no more force people to open carry as their only lawful option than they should for example force members of a particular religion to wear a distinctive symbol on their clothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted August 11, 2015 at 08:08 PM Share Posted August 11, 2015 at 08:08 PM Yes, the fee is excessive, but good luck arguing it when most other states charge more to nonresidents than residents.A good lawyer could probably argue equal protection violation and disparate impact if he or she finds non-residents that are considered minorities given unequal protection compared to the residents just a few miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted August 11, 2015 at 08:13 PM Share Posted August 11, 2015 at 08:13 PM I may be wrong, but does the larger fee for non-residents potentially run afoul of the equal protection clause in the constitution? -Keith.I agree especially since it is double what the cost. They will have a harder time justifying the fee being double the cost of a resident license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 21, 2015 at 10:35 AM Share Posted August 21, 2015 at 10:35 AM Yesterday the Defendants requested and received a 7-day extension to reply. The response to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is now due by end of day on Aug 31 (vs Aug 24). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted August 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM Share Posted August 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM No surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.