Jump to content


Photo

Shepard v. Madigan - Orals - 10/3/2013


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
260 replies to this topic

#241 spu69

    Firearm and Motorcycle Enthusiast

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 13

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:36 AM

Hopefully the electronic nature of the application will reduce the handling and use of trucks. It is still going to be a mess.

#242 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,016 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 28 October 2013 - 10:14 AM

The case was taken on an expedited basis. Expedited doesn't mean they publish an opinion immediately. The Court does have other cases....ones that are arguably higher up on the totem pole than Shepard. A huge batch of opinions will be published this week, well that's my prediction.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#243 spu69

    Firearm and Motorcycle Enthusiast

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 13

Posted 31 October 2013 - 02:47 PM

The following case was argued 10-3-13 and was decided today. Does this give us any indication that we should expect a finding soon in Shepard?
13-1821 Mark Suesz v.
Med-1 Solutions, LLC civil 10/31/2013 Final
Opinion
Flaum 13-1821 Mark Suesz v.
Med-1 Solutions, LLC civil 10/31/2013 Final
Opinion

Posner
dissents


#244 cm.stites

    Member

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

Posted 31 October 2013 - 02:55 PM

not really posner also issued one that was from september 12th today.

#245 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,422 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 31 October 2013 - 04:17 PM

This is getting to be ridiculous! I know I know the courts march to their own drum, work at their own speed etc etc etc etc; but for us low life common folks, this is taking way to long. About time someone either dumps or gets off the pot!

Ok, I'll go back to sleep now

#246 Pusher

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 13

Posted 31 October 2013 - 05:48 PM

This is getting to be ridiculous! I know I know the courts march to their own drum, work at their own speed etc etc etc etc; but for us low life common folks, this is taking way to long. About time someone either dumps or gets off the pot!

Ok, I'll go back to sleep now


I agree. I keep checking three or four times per day and get disappointed every time. MAYBE SOON!!
NRA Member
ISP Certified Instructor
NRA BP Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor Personal Protection In The Home
NRA Certified RSO
Utah Concealed Firearm Instructor
Instructor at Tactical Training Service
Vietnam Veteran
VFW Life Member
VFW Rider
Iron Guns LE/MC Support Member

#247 BrowningHP

    Member

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

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:38 PM

a watched pot never boils

#248 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,016 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:49 PM

I just have an RSS reader app set up on my phone to sync to new opinions. It's not about WHEN it was argued, it's about which judge is drafting the opinion and some judges take longer than others. It also depends on the particular judge's caseload and the cases themselves. Posner clearly takes his time with every opinion which is not the worst thing in the world. I saw he drafted a couple opinions for cases argued on 9/24 and decided last week and then an opinion for a case argued on 9/12 was published today so there's no way to predict when it'll be. Settle down, we're just along for the ride.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#249 spu69

    Firearm and Motorcycle Enthusiast

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 13

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:51 PM

I just have an RSS reader app set up on my phone to sync to new opinions. It's not about WHEN it was argued, it's about which judge is drafting the opinion and some judges take longer than others. It also depends on the particular judge's caseload and the cases themselves. Posner clearly takes his time with every opinion which is not the worst thing in the world. I saw he drafted a couple opinions for cases argued on 9/24 and decided last week and then an opinion for a case argued on 9/12 was published today so there's no way to predict when it'll be. Settle down, we're just along for the ride.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Thanks for the insight into the process. I am just anxious to see what he decides (like everyone else). :cry:

#250 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 01 November 2013 - 08:04 AM

a watched pot never boils

Not true. I tried it once when making Ramen. It still boiled.

On a more serious note, I understand what you are saying, and won't argue it.

Edited by domin8, 01 November 2013 - 08:05 AM.


#251 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,422 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 01 November 2013 - 04:24 PM

I just have an RSS reader app set up on my phone to sync to new opinions. It's not about WHEN it was argued, it's about which judge is drafting the opinion and some judges take longer than others. It also depends on the particular judge's caseload and the cases themselves. Posner clearly takes his time with every opinion which is not the worst thing in the world. I saw he drafted a couple opinions for cases argued on 9/24 and decided last week and then an opinion for a case argued on 9/12 was published today so there's no way to predict when it'll be. Settle down, we're just along for the ride.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


Yeah I know; but I ain't gotta like it!!!!!!!

#252 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,849 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:14 PM

This is the week...

#253 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,588 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:16 PM

So THIS is what it means when the court accepts it on an "expedited" basis.

I'm glad to know that a fundamental, individual, constitutionally-protected right is so important to the court!

-- Frank

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#254 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 05 November 2013 - 04:37 PM

Order is out. DENIED.

http://1.usa.gov/1cCsLvS

Edited by RoadyRunner, 05 November 2013 - 04:41 PM.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#255 bear226

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 13

Posted 05 November 2013 - 05:06 PM

I really don't think we expected anything different. The state can take as long as they want...maybe in 10 or 20 years. :no:

USMC Vet, ISRA


#256 cls74

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,248 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 05 November 2013 - 06:21 PM

Wow, that was a mixed bag. Everything from plaintiffs don't challenge the FOID is unconstitutional, didn't seek open carry, file a new lawsuit seeking a temporary injunction as a permanent would take beyond the remainder of the 270 days(180+90).

Almost sounded like they want another case, yet sounded like they were done with it. Called 16 hours relatively minimal.

Over/under was 44 pages, ended up being 7

#257 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,016 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 November 2013 - 06:24 PM

Order is out. DENIED.

http://1.usa.gov/1cCsLvS


Denied? I don't see that anywhere. I see "Affirmed" but not "Denied." I was in court that day for orals, this opinion is the polar opposite of Posner's mood and tone that day. Quite honestly, the second Posner opened his mouth I was absolutely certain that we'd lose this appeal and he'd add some juicy stuff like defining what "reasonable" is in re "reasonable restrictions." That being said, I was quite surprised that the opinion was short, explicitly stated that the restrictions are not issues that the Court will rule on (unless a lawsuit is brought, which was stated implicitly). IMO, the opinion's language is very cut and dry and precedent supports it, whether we like it or not (I don't like it, but I respect it). Now, if Moore had been heard, Myerscough's ruling would've been affirmed as the State did not grant relief as requested in the FAC. The fact of the matter is that the mandate was stayed for 180+30 days to allow the ILGA to PASS a new law. Not implement it. Posner kept saying, over and over, file a lawsuit...file a lawsuit. The opinion says "file a lawsuit."

That being said, even if you don't agree with the opinion and order, respect the jurists because I seem to recall Posner on a pedestal not too long ago. Flaum also sided with Posner and Williams. Now that he's ruled "against us" well he's been removed from that pedestal, to say the least. Remember, Posner was the swing vote in Moore. Posner wrote the opinion in Moore. Moore is the basis for Aguilar.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#258 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 05 November 2013 - 06:35 PM

IMO, the opinion's language is very cut and dry and precedent supports it, whether we like it or not (I don't like it, but I respect it). Now, if Moore had been heard, Myerscough's ruling would've been affirmed as the State did not grant relief as requested in the FAC. The fact of the matter is that the mandate was stayed for 180+30 days to allow the ILGA to PASS a new law. Not implement it. Posner kept saying, over and over, file a lawsuit...file a lawsuit. The opinion says "file a lawsuit."

I was not surprised at all by today's opinion, but I do not believe it was legally correct or supported by any precedent. The holding can really be boiled down to this: "Yes, we found certain Illinois statutes to be unconstitutional, and yes, those unconstitutional statutes are still being enforced by Illinois, but we're not personally comfortable with the consequences that will result if an injunction is entered against the enforcement of those unconstitutional statutes so we affirm the dismissal of this case."

#259 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,422 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 05 November 2013 - 06:56 PM

Bottom line is our constitutional rights are still being violated and to exercise those rights we have to pay big time! Sucks!

#260 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,121 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:16 PM

Judge Poseur, big disappoint!
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#261 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:49 PM

@skinny

I meant we were denied. No real surprise.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor