Jump to content


Photo

Culp vs Madigan - Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Non-Residents


  • Please log in to reply
672 replies to this topic

#661 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 02 November 2017 - 08:14 AM

Any way Highland Park can be re-argued?.... (yeah, I know...)

That would be nice but I'm hopeful that SCOTUS will take Kolbe. Just pulled the orders list from 10/30 for the conference on the 27th. Cert was denied in Robinson. Now they don't wanna touch the Exclusionary Rule and Automobile Exception. Or disturb Terry.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

One theory I have is maybe they'll wait on taking Kolbe until Kennedy retires. Supposedly Kennedy never hired any law clerks for this term, can anyone confirm that? If so, that might suggest imminent retirement.

My concern with Kolbe is that it doesn't appear to address the issue of magazines, only the weapons themselves, and also doesn't appear to address the issue of scrutiny. If we could only get them to address scrutiny, we could much more effectively overturn all sorts of restrictions and laws. Not sure why they never fully addressed the issue to begin with.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#662 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:29 AM

Well the three-judge panel addressed scrutiny. Then the en banc panel said "screw that" and went back to the two-step, intermediate scrutiny, ignored...everything. Petitioners not arguing that in the cert petition is...meh. The en banc panel said weapons of war CAN be banned. Miller said weapons of war CANNOT be banned. They're at odds with 88 years of precedent. In US v. Staples, Thomas said "assault weapons" is a concocted term that has no meaning. Magazines lump in with the firearms themselves since all semi-autos are useless without mags or clips. All mags are useless without a companion firearm. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#663 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:58 PM

Well the three-judge panel addressed scrutiny. Then the en banc panel said "screw that" and went back to the two-step, intermediate scrutiny, ignored...everything. Petitioners not arguing that in the cert petition is...meh. The en banc panel said weapons of war CAN be banned. Miller said weapons of war CANNOT be banned. They're at odds with 88 years of precedent. In US v. Staples, Thomas said "assault weapons" is a concocted term that has no meaning. Magazines lump in with the firearms themselves since all semi-autos are useless without mags or clips. All mags are useless without a companion firearm.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

But we need the court to explicitly state such. The gun control movement thrives on finding exceptions and exploiting them. If they don't explicitly address magazines alongside "assault weapons," then the gun control movement will drop the "assault weapons" issue and focus entirely on banning magazines because "the court never said we couldn't!"

It's the same reason why I'm upset that Heller never addressed gun registration. It was a mistake for him to claim that he didn't have a problem with registering his guns; he should've disputed that alongside everything else. By not addressing the issue, the court gave enough benefit of the doubt to the concept that the gun control movement can now claim that because it wasn't explicitly banned, they can freely pursue registration laws.

Edited by MrTriple, 02 November 2017 - 01:01 PM.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#664 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 07 November 2017 - 08:19 AM

The plaintiffs' brief to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was filed yesterday. This forum can't accommodate a file of this size, so I've hosted it here:

 

http://morsel.info/w...lants-Brief.pdf

 

 


"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)

#665 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,908 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 08 November 2017 - 02:09 AM

The plaintiffs' brief to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was filed yesterday. This forum can't accommodate a file of this size, so I've hosted it here:

 

http://morsel.info/w...lants-Brief.pdf

 

 

 

Unholy . . . that thing is 465 pages long! That is some serious post-BBQ overeating toilet reading!


“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#666 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 08 November 2017 - 04:27 AM

The plaintiffs' brief to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was filed yesterday. This forum can't accommodate a file of this size, so I've hosted it here:
 
http://morsel.info/w...lants-Brief.pdf

 
Unholy . . . that thing is 465 pages long! That is some serious post-BBQ overeating toilet reading!

That’s a unique way to put it! ;)

Most of it is appendices. The argument itself is much shorter.
"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)

#667 ChicagoZman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 13

Posted 08 November 2017 - 07:12 AM

Thanks for posting this Colonel.  After reading the brief, (only the first 70 pages or so), I cannot understand how any judge could say no to the request, but I'm just a poor uneducated former banker.


NRA Patron/NRA Pistol Instructor
Illinois/Utah Concealed Carry Instructor

Glock Armorer/M&P Armorer

LFI I/LFI II


#668 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 November 2017 - 07:54 AM

Sigale lays it out in plain English. "It was determined, for purposes of obtaining a preliminary injunction against the ban, that Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and no adequate remedy at law. The only factor in which the Courts have ruled against Plaintiffs was the balance of harm/public interest element. Nothing on Defendants’ end has changed. They still have no evidence that allowing non-resident CCL holders to file CCL applications in Illinois would cause any harm, or that allowing non-resident CCL applications has caused harm anywhere else. Defendants cannot even argue that CCL reciprocity has caused a problem in any other state. The Defendants have nothing factual to support their discriminatory restriction. In contrast, Plaintiffs show that CCL permit-holders are lawabiding and commit less crime than the general population, which explains why Defendants cannot show that any harm would result from enjoining the ban. Defendants likewise cannot show any resulting harm from allowing non-resident CCL-holders to possess firearms in public while in their cars on Illinois roads, on hunting grounds, firing ranges and sport-shooting locations, and on Illinois residents’ private property. The State allows all this yet denies the ability to apply for an actual CCL, which would ensure training, registration into Illinois’s CCL system, and compliance with all of Illinois’s CCL requirements." Have fun arguing against that. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#669 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 08 November 2017 - 08:29 AM

Update on the timeline moving forward: The court has ordered the Appellees' (defendants') brief to be filed by Dec 7 and the Appellants' (plaintiffs') reply brief, if any, to be filed by Dec 21.


"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)

#670 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 08 November 2017 - 10:27 AM

The case should be so simple. Residents of 45 states are banned from carry in IL period.while the stuff about the surveys and all show an arbitrary system, it just shouldn't be necessary. What needs to be spelled out is except for very few rights like voting,a state cannot with hold those rights from non residents.

#671 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 09 November 2017 - 11:18 PM

Have fun arguing against that

The sad reality is that they don't have to. The courts will almost always just side with the state by default, because guns are scary. Hopefully it won't fly this time.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#672 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 30 November 2017 - 07:25 PM

No surprise... the state asked for an extension to file their brief. The court granted one.

The appellees’ brief is now due Jan 8.
"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)

#673 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 01 December 2017 - 08:15 AM

thanks, kwc






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users