Jump to content


Photo

Meyers vs Schmitz


  • Please log in to reply
203 replies to this topic

#181 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,125 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 12 October 2016 - 05:39 PM

One would think that the record of the administrative proceeding would be admissible in your suit, since it was remanded to the ALJ and now the court has to review it. I would think the judge might be interested in the show put on by the state.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#182 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,542 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 12 October 2016 - 11:10 PM

Meyers may have standing to challenge the current UUW as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that most non-residents are not allowed their right to bear arms.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#183 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 13 October 2016 - 05:39 AM

The communication of the show will all be submitted.  Delay Delay Delay.  My thought is, they are the ones that asked for the hearing, not I and the court remanded it and then set us for a Status Hearing as needed.  We've had that hearing, told the judge we had a hearing and expect a denial.  The judge then said we could reset as needed.  We will go back Nov 9 (I most likely won't be in attendance) to reset and get a briefing schedule setup to brief the arguments and see how the judge would like to handle all of this Delay and BS.



#184 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,641 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 13 October 2016 - 11:43 AM

Illinois the only one to have a licensing scheme such that you need something to own or possess a firearm

Incorrect, MA has their FID card, NY and I think a few other states require a permit/license to possess a handgun.


Purchase permits required in CT, DC, HI, IA (handguns), MD (handguns), MI (for handguns not purchased by an CCW or through an FFL), MN (handguns w/o CPL and EBR's), NE (handguns w/o CCW), NJ, NY (handguns), NC (handguns - obtain from sheriff), RI (handguns),

Ownership permits required in DC & NY (handguns). Looks like NJ actually got rid of their FOID.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#185 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,777 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 13 October 2016 - 12:55 PM

I can't remember the name of the plaintiff, but ISP was sued a few years ago by a woman (from Indiana?) because they wouldn't issue a FOID to her so she could possees a handgun for self-defense while visiting relatives in Illinois. The state argued that she could possess a handgun legally in Illinois without a FOID and that as a non-resident, she was not eligible for a FOID. How can they revoke your CCL because you are no longer eligible for a FOID, when they won't issue you one as a non-resident? Do the 29 non-resident IL CCL holders have FOIDS? I know this has been hashed out over and over, but the hypocrisy of the state's arguments is astounding.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#186 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,115 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 13 October 2016 - 01:17 PM

I can't remember the name of the plaintiff, but ISP was sued a few years ago by a woman (from Indiana?) because they wouldn't issue a FOID to her so she could possees a handgun for self-defense while visiting relatives in Illinois. The state argued that she could possess a handgun legally in Illinois without a FOID and that as a non-resident, she was not eligible for a FOID. How can they revoke your CCL because you are no longer eligible for a FOID, when they won't issue you one as a non-resident? Do the 29 non-resident IL CCL holders have FOIDS? I know this has been hashed out over and over, but the hypocrisy of the state's arguments is astounding.

 

That would be the Mishaga case: http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=55134

 

Non-residents, including non-resident CCL holders from the 4 approved states, are not required to have a FOID card to possess a firearm in Illinois, and most cannot obtain one anyway.  Exceptions are individuals such as active duty military members stationed in Illinois and security guards. 

 

I'm guessing most of the 29 non-resident CCL holders do not have a FOID card, but several (who happen to be military members assigned here and are legal residents of VA, NM, or SC) may have one.  But all 29 must meet the basic qualifications for obtaining a FOID card (except Illinois residency) even if one isn't actually issued.

 

The Mishaga (an Ohio resident) case, which was decided in the Central District Court of Illinois, affirmed that a non-resident may possess a firearm in Illinois if "licensed" to possess the firearm in his or her state of residence.  But "license," according to the C.D.IL, simply means "eligible."  Ohio doesn't issue a license to own or possess a firearm.  But since it was legal for Mishaga to possess a firearm in Ohio, she was "licensed" to do so.

 

As I understand it, the state's argument in Meyers' case, with which the ALJ concurred, revolves around the fact that a resident's CCL will be revoked if that individual no longer qualifies for a FOID card.  Changing residency to another state allows the ISP to revoke the FOID card, which in turn causes the CCL to be revoked as well.  Possession isn't the issue here--license to carry, and on-going eligibility to have that license, is the issue.


Edited by kwc, 13 October 2016 - 01:34 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#187 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 October 2016 - 01:28 PM

While going down the list of states that require "permission" to purchase/own, did anyone forget about that idiotic California horse manure DoJ Certificate of Eligibility required to obtain a firearm, each and every time, regardless of how many firearms one owns. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#188 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 23 October 2016 - 07:39 PM

While going down the list of states that require "permission" to purchase/own, did anyone forget about that idiotic California horse manure DoJ Certificate of Eligibility required to obtain a firearm, each and every time, regardless of how many firearms one owns. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

The DOJ Certificate of Eligibility is something else.  In order for most people to purchase most firearms they need to first obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate.  



#189 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 17 November 2016 - 08:39 AM

The delay saga continues.  

 

On Nov 9 we had a status conference in which the State asked the judge for some time so that they may prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that I had an Administrative Hearing, was denied relief, they believe a Miscellaneous Remedy lawsuit which challenges the rules is no longer valid and If I wish to seek relief, I need to refile as an Administrative Action pursuant to the act for Judicial Review of the hearing.  Once they file a motion we'll have 7 days to respond.  It is highly likely that this motion will be denied based on previous case law.



#190 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,641 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 17 November 2016 - 11:55 AM

The delay saga continues.  
 
On Nov 9 we had a status conference in which the State asked the judge for some time so that they may prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that I had an Administrative Hearing, was denied relief, they believe a Miscellaneous Remedy lawsuit which challenges the rules is no longer valid and If I wish to seek relief, I need to refile as an Administrative Action pursuant to the act for Judicial Review of the hearing.  Once they file a motion we'll have 7 days to respond.  It is highly likely that this motion will be denied based on previous case law.


Nothing like the state using our tax dollars to continue deprivation of rights by disparate funding methods...
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#191 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 06 December 2016 - 08:02 AM

Motion to Dismiss has been filed by the state and set for hearing Jan 9 at 10:30am



#192 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,374 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 06 December 2016 - 09:21 AM

At the rate this is going we will have National Reciprocity before this case is done in court.



#193 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 06 December 2016 - 09:31 AM

Yes unfortunately thats a real possibility.  It is not for the lack of trying though.  We hope to get the courts to establish a briefing and oral argument schedule on Jan 9 and order that the Full and Complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing be produced to the court (which still has not been done 4 months later)



#194 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 09 January 2017 - 12:21 PM

The States' Motion to Dismiss was DENIED and a Scheduling Order as follows was entered:

 

 - Plaintiff to file brief on the merits of the case on or before February 6, 2017

 - State shall file response to Plaintiffs brief on or before March 6, 2017

 - Plaintiff may file, if needed, any reply to States response on or before March 20, 2017

 

 Cause shall be set for hearing thereafter.

 

 



#195 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

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

Posted 11 January 2017 - 09:35 PM

My experience with Admin. Law is that they are kangaroo courts.  The municipal unit (in my case, Chicago) or agency (in this case, ISP) hires lawyers to act as judges in cases against themselves.  How often will such a "judge" bite the hand that feeds it?

 

I moved out of IL to WA last Spring.  I tried to change my address on the ISP site and was unable to do so as it does not allow one to put in a different state.  I'm looking forward to a win here or National Recognition, whichever comes first.


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.

#196 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 12 January 2017 - 06:42 AM

Federal Farmer - Unfortunately this isn't an Admin Review case and never has been.  The state attempted to make it an Admin Review case but that was successfully defended against.  We now move on to briefing the court on the validity of the rules :)



#197 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:14 AM

A motion for Summary Judgement and Memorandum in support of Summary Judgement was filed on 2/21/2017 by the Plaintiff.   Defendants have until March 24, 2017 to file their return brief and the Oral Hearing is set for April 4 (day before IGOLD)

 

Attached File  Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf   104.16KB   41 downloads

 

Attached File  Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for SJ.PDF   235.56KB   45 downloads



#198 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 01 March 2017 - 03:52 PM

Court Hearing for April 4 has been pushed back TBD due to the State being out of state "at a conference"



#199 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,115 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 01 March 2017 - 03:57 PM

Let's see... "attending a conference" vs. "eliminating infringements upon the rights of our citizens."  Which is more important?


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#200 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 01 March 2017 - 06:31 PM

Based on the States M-O of right infringement, I say the Conference is more important :)

 

Remember kwc, networking networking networking


Edited by jmeyers, 01 March 2017 - 06:31 PM.


#201 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:18 AM

Long time since a update, the judge signed the blanket Summary Judgement for the state that had multiple inaccuracies in it.  As of 5/24 we have placed a Notice of Appeal on file and we will move to the 4th District of Illinois Appeals



#202 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,115 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 26 May 2017 - 08:49 AM

Long time since a update, the judge signed the blanket Summary Judgement for the state that had multiple inaccuracies in it.  As of 5/24 we have placed a Notice of Appeal on file and we will move to the 4th District of Illinois Appeals

 

Our foreheads are starting to feel pretty flat from all the "banging our heads against the wall," aren't they? :ermm:

 

Thank you for continuing the good fight!


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#203 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 26 May 2017 - 10:36 AM

Yes

 

Couple errors here:

Court refused to answer the substantially similar question or even look at the definition compared to the survey

 

Court entered a order stating we provided no data on similar states laws, which we did and are part of the record (they took the States blanket SJ and signed it)



#204 mkhalil61

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 17

Posted 27 May 2017 - 09:55 AM

Good luck!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users