kwc Posted July 29, 2017 at 12:42 AM Share Posted July 29, 2017 at 12:42 AM Today Judge Myerscough scheduled oral arguments for Aug 22: "Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: The parties' cross motions for summary judgment [43], [45] are set for oral argument on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/28/2017. (GL, ilcd)" This comes as a bit of a surprise to me... I think many of us anticipated a ruling any day now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 29, 2017 at 01:17 AM Share Posted July 29, 2017 at 01:17 AM I, too, wonder why she decided to set oral arguments after issuing that order saying she won't benefit from oral arguments. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted July 29, 2017 at 05:27 PM Share Posted July 29, 2017 at 05:27 PM Looking forward to her finally coming to a decision and hoping to attend if I don't have a CCL class to teach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted July 30, 2017 at 03:55 AM Share Posted July 30, 2017 at 03:55 AM She might have something she wants to say. She was none to proud of the legislature "painting it [the UUW law] red." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 30, 2017 at 01:02 PM Share Posted July 30, 2017 at 01:02 PM Paint (it) red as in "paint the town red?" The ILGA went on a reckless debauch, a wild spree with the UUW? Interesting...that almost sounds like she's irritated by the State placing obscene restrictions on non-residents obtaining a CCL and failing to exempt military personnel who are stationed in Illinois (or classify them as Illinois residents for purposes of the Act). This is gonna be a very interesting hearing. Is her duty station still Springfield? I think there's only one district judge per courthouse in the Central District (all Dem appointees). Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted July 30, 2017 at 01:56 PM Share Posted July 30, 2017 at 01:56 PM Deny, stall, redirect, obfuscate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted August 19, 2017 at 12:10 PM Share Posted August 19, 2017 at 12:10 PM Does anyone have the street address of the court where oral arguements will be made? I see 600 E. Monroe Street in google maps. Is this correct? I haven't been to the Capitol since I was a kid but am seriously thinking of driving down (3+ hours) for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 19, 2017 at 03:33 PM Share Posted August 19, 2017 at 03:33 PM Does anyone have the street address of the court where oral arguements will be made? I see 600 E. Monroe Street in google maps. Is this correct? I haven't been to the Capitol since I was a kid but am seriously thinking of driving down (3+ hours) for this one. Yes, you have the correct street address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted August 19, 2017 at 09:49 PM Author Share Posted August 19, 2017 at 09:49 PM Does anyone have the street address of the court where oral arguements will be made? I see 600 E. Monroe Street in google maps. Is this correct? I haven't been to the Capitol since I was a kid but am seriously thinking of driving down (3+ hours) for this one. There is a parking garage at the corner of 7th and Monroe, almost right across the street from the courthouse. I think parking costs $7.50 for the day? Not sure, it's been awhile since we were there last. There is also a public parking lot on the corner of 8th and Adams St., parking fee isn't very much and is only about 2 1/2 blocks from the courthouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted August 19, 2017 at 11:05 PM Share Posted August 19, 2017 at 11:05 PM Does anyone have the street address of the court where oral arguements will be made? I see 600 E. Monroe Street in google maps. Is this correct? I haven't been to the Capitol since I was a kid but am seriously thinking of driving down (3+ hours) for this one.Yes, you have the correct street address. Thanks. Looking forward to the oral arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted August 19, 2017 at 11:06 PM Share Posted August 19, 2017 at 11:06 PM Does anyone have the street address of the court where oral arguements will be made? I see 600 E. Monroe Street in google maps. Is this correct? I haven't been to the Capitol since I was a kid but am seriously thinking of driving down (3+ hours) for this one. There is a parking garage at the corner of 7th and Monroe, almost right across the street from the courthouse. I think parking costs $7.50 for the day? Not sure, it's been awhile since we were there last. There is also a public parking lot on the corner of 8th and Adams St., parking fee isn't very much and is only about 2 1/2 blocks from the courthouse. $7.50? It was $35 when I parked in the Loop for the Appeals court. The difference will pay for my gas there and back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted August 19, 2017 at 11:17 PM Share Posted August 19, 2017 at 11:17 PM watching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted August 20, 2017 at 11:00 PM Share Posted August 20, 2017 at 11:00 PM At $7.50 for the whole day id he tempted to drive all the way down there just to take advantage of the deal, if only there wasn't so many shootings near the courthouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted August 22, 2017 at 10:57 PM Author Share Posted August 22, 2017 at 10:57 PM Parking fee for the parking lot was only $3.00 for about 3 hrs.! Judicial challenges are probably the most interesting and exciting things that we, as IllinoisCarry, undertakes. Today was no different. The hearing lasted more than two hours. The judge seemed to give each side a fair amount of time to present arguments with little interruption from the bench, except to ask questions for clarity or additional information. I look forward to the transcript being available and posted here. We had three plaintiffs present - Col. Kevin Culp, Doug Zylstra, and Paul Heslin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted August 22, 2017 at 11:16 PM Share Posted August 22, 2017 at 11:16 PM Thanks for the update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 23, 2017 at 12:10 AM Share Posted August 23, 2017 at 12:10 AM Today was a great experience. We had three of the individual plaintiffs present in addition to IllinoisCarry (Molly B.). I won't try to predict Judge Myerscough's ruling, but she dropped a few comments that suggested a warm reception to plaintiffs' arguments. Of course, I was optimistic re: CA7 outcome, so no predictions are coming from me on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted August 23, 2017 at 12:18 AM Share Posted August 23, 2017 at 12:18 AM I agree that today was a good day as I had the opportunity to again see and talk with David, KWC and Molly B. Thanks for stating the course and fighting on behalf of non residents. I have many Hoosiers as friends, customers and students that are anxiously awaiting the decision. Let's pray it is the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted August 23, 2017 at 03:18 PM Share Posted August 23, 2017 at 03:18 PM Yes, I have non-resident military members also waiting to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted August 23, 2017 at 05:35 PM Share Posted August 23, 2017 at 05:35 PM Today was a great experience. We had three of the individual plaintiffs present in addition to IllinoisCarry (Molly B.). I won't try to predict Judge Myerscough's ruling, but she dropped a few comments that suggested a warm reception to plaintiffs' arguments. Of course, I was optimistic re: CA7 outcome, so no predictions are coming from me on this one!I am curious, was there anything new or different from what has been in the various briefs and responses? Did the judge have any questions to explore a particular point with either side? Just wondering if there was a sense that the oral argument was actually of value as opposed to just a stall tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted August 23, 2017 at 06:13 PM Share Posted August 23, 2017 at 06:13 PM Yea I'd be interested too. What more can be discussed, if you're a resident of all but 5 states, you are banned from public carry in IL. Should be an easy call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 24, 2017 at 12:38 AM Share Posted August 24, 2017 at 12:38 AM Today was a great experience. We had three of the individual plaintiffs present in addition to IllinoisCarry (Molly B.). I won't try to predict Judge Myerscough's ruling, but she dropped a few comments that suggested a warm reception to plaintiffs' arguments. Of course, I was optimistic re: CA7 outcome, so no predictions are coming from me on this one!I am curious, was there anything new or different from what has been in the various briefs and responses? Did the judge have any questions to explore a particular point with either side? Just wondering if there was a sense that the oral argument was actually of value as opposed to just a stall tactic.If Judge Myerscough wanted to stall she would simply have done nothing indefinitely, so the fact she had a hearing at all means she wanted to know more on a few issues. Our attorney has asked that we (plaintiffs) limit our public discussion about the hearing. We may get a transcript at some point and should be able to post it when received. Sorry to disappoint, but other than a general statement that we felt it went well, I can't comment any further in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:39 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:39 PM Disappointing news... Judge Myerscough ruled in favor of the defendants. Bummer. 61 - SJ Opinion of 091817.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:51 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 04:51 PM I cannot express how disappointed I am but remain confident that we will ultimately prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutsidr Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:25 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:25 PM So this was just for summary judgement, not the appeal itself, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:40 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:40 PM Disappointing news... Judge Myerscough ruled in favor of the defendants. Bummer. 61 - SJ Opinion of 091817.pdf Wow, this is some of the most circuitous, tortured language BS that I have ever seen in the justification of the denial. With multiple citations of the Heller and Ezell cases, and the types of scrutiny they require to be placed on restrictions of Constitutional rights, this should not be even allowed. Yet, essentially, the judge pretty much said, "All of that precedent notwithstanding, I'm going to deny this and ignore the previous legal support for the appropriate level of scrutiny to be applied." I am all for State's rights, but the State of Illinois does not have the right, although it wants to and believes it does, to arbitrarily deny Constitutional rights the way it does, simply because the powers in charge do not believe that average citizens should have access to firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:42 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:42 PM Disappointing news... Judge Myerscough ruled in favor of the defendants. Bummer. 61 - SJ Opinion of 091817.pdfI didn't doubt her for a minute. My only surprise is that she didn't wait another year or two before releasing the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:01 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:01 PM So this was just for summary judgement, not the appeal itself, correct?Correct. The decision on a preliminary injunction was appealed and decided last fall, and returned to the district court. The ruling released today by the District Court was on the motions for summary judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:18 PM Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 06:18 PM Disappointing news... Judge Myerscough ruled in favor of the defendants. Bummer. 61 - SJ Opinion of 091817.pdf Yes, very disappointing but I don't think it will be the last round in the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted September 18, 2017 at 08:29 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 08:29 PM So following the St. Louis mindset, does it mean know that we all need to go protest and smash the windows at the local Starbucks cause we didn't get the ruling we wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:37 PM Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 11:37 PM Send another appeal up to CA7. Hopefully Amy "The Dogma Lies Within Her" Barrett will be Circuit Judge Barrett by the time the appeal is filed. With Posner gone and Williams taking senior status, it's gonna be VERY interesting. Even more interesting if Brennan is somehow seated in time to be drawn to hear the appeal. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.