kwc Posted February 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM Share Posted February 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM The Defendants just filed their response. Documents are attached. Makes my head hurt... and raises the blood pressure a bit... The first file is the response; the second is a revision to Trame's affidavit, now citing the new substantially similar states list. D - 52-main.pdf D - 52-1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted February 18, 2017 at 05:27 AM Share Posted February 18, 2017 at 05:27 AM The Defendants just filed their response. Documents are attached. Makes my head hurt... and raises the blood pressure a bit...The first file is the response; the second is a revision to Trame's affidavit, now citing the new substantially similar states list.D - 52-main.pdfD - 52-1.pdfMy head hurts.... Conclusions of law that are not supported by law.... Conclusions of law that are not facts. Sheesh. That's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 18, 2017 at 01:31 PM Share Posted February 18, 2017 at 01:31 PM Plaintiffs filed their response (see attached brief). The changes in the list of Substantially Similar states provided an opportunity to further explore the arbitrary nature of the ISP's scheme and the resulting mayhem. The brief includes as an exhibit a copy of the revocation letter sent to "Nancy B." in New Mexico, and says the following: Still staying with New Mexico, this flip-flopping by the State, based seemingly on arbitrariness and randomness, has real-world consequences. Attached as Exhibit P is a letter dated February 8, 2017, from ISP to Nancy B., a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and until nine days ago, a non-resident concealed carry license-holder in Illinois. Her offense? Living in New Mexico after Illinois decided its residents were no longer trustworthy to apply for a non-resident CCL. Nancy has a New Mexico CCL (she must, to have been eligible to apply for an Illinois non-resident CCL), went through the Illinois training, paid the increased fee and met all requirements, and the only thing that changed was the ISP's attitude towards New Mexico. No real or threatened harm had come out of New Mexico as a result of non-resident CCL applications, only imagined harm. The brief also references the recent attempted robbery of a Missouri resident in Venice, IL which resulted in the death of an assailant due to the victim's ability to carry in his car: Finally, this case is not just academic. On February 2, 2017, while the ISP was rotating available non-resident states, a 70 year-old veteran from St. Louis, along with another man, were sitting in a vehicle in front of a residence in Venice, Illinois, when two other men approached them and attempted to rob them. The veteran, who was carrying a firearm in the vehicle pursuant to his Missouri concealed carry license, shot the two robbers. (See Vietnam Veteran Turns Table on Would-Be Robbers, Shooting Both, The Telegraph, February 3, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit Q). In discussing the incident, Thomas Gibbons, the Madison County State's Attorney, stated: "Self-defense is an inalienable right in a free society and the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The courts have consistently recognized the right of a law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense. This incident yesterday morning is the exact situation where the necessity for this right becomes crystal clear, said Gibbons, who also participates in concealed carry. I have said it before and I will not waver from this position I say to all criminals thinking about committing violent crimes in Madison County if you come here to commit your crimes, do not be surprised if you end up on the wrong side of the concealed weapon of a law-abiding citizen. We will not tolerate violent crime and we will defend ourselves, our loved ones and our community from the harm you intend to bring." This is what this case is about. It is not about speculative harm from imaginary criminals who take the time to apply for a non-resident CCL before coming into Illinois to commit their dastardly deeds. It is about the law-abiding persons who wish to apply to obtain the same ability to defend themselves as Illinois residents. The St. Louis veteran was lucky to survive the incident, but even more nuanced than that he was lucky he was in his car, because that is about the only place in Illinois he could have been armed. The next person, who has the misfortune to be attacked by a criminal on a city street, may not be so lucky. P - 55-1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted February 18, 2017 at 04:31 PM Share Posted February 18, 2017 at 04:31 PM Question here and apologies I haven't waded through the briefs: If 3 states were dropped, that suggests that 1 of 3 things has happened: 1) IL requirements have changed (statutorily)2) Those 3 states' laws have changed 3) The questionnaires weren't sent back or those states didn't "check a box" Which one is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 18, 2017 at 04:45 PM Share Posted February 18, 2017 at 04:45 PM Question here and apologies I haven't waded through the briefs: If 3 states were dropped, that suggests that 1 of 3 things has happened: 1) IL requirements have changed (statutorily)2) Those 3 states' laws have changed 3) The questionnaires weren't sent back or those states didn't "check a box" Which one is it?None of the above. The states answered the survey questions differently this time, and the ISP dug a little further into some of the other state's statutes. There is a thread on those changes here: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=64716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted February 18, 2017 at 08:33 PM Share Posted February 18, 2017 at 08:33 PM Question here and apologies I haven't waded through the briefs: If 3 states were dropped, that suggests that 1 of 3 things has happened: 1) IL requirements have changed (statutorily) 2) Those 3 states' laws have changed 3) The questionnaires weren't sent back or those states didn't "check a box" Which one is it? None of the above. The states answered the survey questions differently this time, and the ISP dug a little further into some of the other state's statutes. There is a thread on those changes here: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=64716 One thing to keep in mind is that the questions asked on the surveys do not directly address the criteria that the ISP invented to evaluate "substantially similar". So someone in the ISP bureaucracy has to make a determination. And of course neither the survey questions nor the ISP's criteria are supported by actual law. All you really need to know about how the ISP treats your civil rights, you can discern from reading the Trame deposition. Your rights are allowed at the whim of apparatchik office drones with little more concern than if they were deciding what day of the week trash pickup should happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted February 18, 2017 at 10:50 PM Share Posted February 18, 2017 at 10:50 PM Are the questions and responses found in any of the records? Not that it really should matter, the overall issue is that 46 states residents cannot carry in IL and have no way of doing so legally.When it gets back to CA7, please tell me the standard of review won't be "reasonableness", right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 19, 2017 at 01:03 AM Share Posted February 19, 2017 at 01:03 AM Are the questions and responses found in any of the records? Not that it really should matter, the overall issue is that 46 states residents cannot carry in IL and have no way of doing so legally. Yes, they are included as exhibits in the motions for summary judgment. I also have the full set posted at http://morsel.info/?p=537 When it gets back to CA7, please tell me the standard of review won't be "reasonableness", right? One can only hope the court uses strict or near-strict scrutiny next time around instead of rational basis! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 1, 2017 at 09:27 PM Share Posted March 1, 2017 at 09:27 PM The defendants requested and received an extension to file a reply to the plaintiff's response to their motion for a summary judgment. Judge Myerscough approved an extension for both sides, now due Friday, March 10, 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 12, 2017 at 03:09 AM Share Posted March 12, 2017 at 03:09 AM Replies to the responses to the motions for summary judgment were filed yesterday. Now the wait begins... trial is scheduled for May 23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 29, 2017 at 08:12 PM Share Posted March 29, 2017 at 08:12 PM Judge Myerscough cancelled the pretrial conference and bench trial--she apparently intends to rule on the pending motions for summary judgement without them. Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: On the Court's own motion, the Final Pretrial Conference set for May 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. and the Bench Trial set for May 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. are VACATED and will be reset, as necessary, following the Courts ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/29/2017. (GL, ilcd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Nichols Posted March 29, 2017 at 08:40 PM Share Posted March 29, 2017 at 08:40 PM Deja Vu all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 29, 2017 at 09:31 PM Share Posted March 29, 2017 at 09:31 PM Myerscough doesn't need a trial, she knows it all. Just ask (former) Sangamon County Deputy Koester who was sued under 1983 and she granted summary judgment in favor of the PLAINTIFFS. Yes, Plaintiffs, nevermind that the Deputy had a very (VERY) questionable history of taser use (multiple incidents over several years), record of excessive force, but an individual capacity lawsuit skipping trial and going straight to summary judgment is...uhhh I've only seen one case, the aforementioned one. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted March 30, 2017 at 12:01 AM Share Posted March 30, 2017 at 12:01 AM Judge Myerscough cancelled the pretrial conference and bench trial--she apparently intends to rule on the pending motions for summary judgement without them.Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: On the Court's own motion, the Final Pretrial Conference set for May 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. and the Bench Trial set for May 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. are VACATED and will be reset, as necessary, following the Courts ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/29/2017. (GL, ilcd) Sounds like a stall tactic. Skip the fact finding, make a summary judgement, then the appellate court remands for some requested fact finding, just add another year to the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 30, 2017 at 12:49 AM Share Posted March 30, 2017 at 12:49 AM I believe Judge Myerscough simply thinks she has enough information to rule, and is pressing ahead. We'll see. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted March 30, 2017 at 01:05 AM Share Posted March 30, 2017 at 01:05 AM I'm with KWC. She should have adequate information to come to a decision. Let's just hope it is the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted April 18, 2017 at 03:09 PM Share Posted April 18, 2017 at 03:09 PM Any idea on when the judge will issue her decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM Share Posted April 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM That's a great question--not sure anyone knows the answer. It could be this week or it could be in July or later. Fingers crossed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted April 18, 2017 at 05:39 PM Share Posted April 18, 2017 at 05:39 PM Judge Myerscough's comments on Moore when it was remanded back to the district were solid gold. Hoping for good things here. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 18, 2017 at 07:25 PM Share Posted April 18, 2017 at 07:25 PM Judge Myerscough's comments on Moore when it was remanded back to the district were solid gold.I must have missed those. I was under the impression that she was pretty hostile to firearms rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted April 18, 2017 at 08:32 PM Share Posted April 18, 2017 at 08:32 PM Judge Myerscough's comments on Moore when it was remanded back to the district were solid gold.I must have missed those. I was under the impression that she was pretty hostile to firearms rights.Skinny did a real good synopsis on it, too. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42076 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 18, 2017 at 11:19 PM Share Posted April 18, 2017 at 11:19 PM Myerscough wasn't having any of the State's "this case is moot, we're gonna litigate the attorney's fees and expenses" garbage. She point blank stated that the Moore plaintiffs had not obtained the sought after relief. It may have been more of a "OK, so this is what they wanted, this is what they got, nope. Didn't get everything they wanted." It was by the book. She was correct, they sought invalidation of the ban on carriage of stun devices and the FCCA kept the ban on carriage of stun devices. Can't have relief without relief. She also refused to play games with the State, attempting to nickel and dime counsel for the Moore plaintiffs. Then again, all judges are human beings and all humans are biased. To state otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. I can't begin to speculate on how she'll rule but she seems to have little patience for government antics as evidenced by her granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a 1983 false arrest and excessive force case arising out of a Sangamon County Deputy's liberal taser usage (LEO who arrested a woman for no reason, then repeatedly tased her into submission because she asked why she was being arrested, presumably because he believed he had the authority to order anyone to do anything under any circumstance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted July 14, 2017 at 12:29 PM Share Posted July 14, 2017 at 12:29 PM Four years have passed since Illinois passed the FCCA, three and one-half years since they certified me to teach classes, two and one-half years since the case was filed and they still won't allow me to apply for a license. Anybody think Judge Myerscough will ever issue her decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted July 14, 2017 at 02:42 PM Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 at 02:42 PM Four years have passed since Illinois passed the FCCA, three and one-half years since they certified me to teach classes, two and one-half years since the case was filed and they still won't allow me to apply for a license. Anybody think Judge Myerscough will ever issue her decision? She will eventually but my goodness, she seems to be taking her sweet time to do it . . . sitting on the edge of my seat here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted July 15, 2017 at 03:12 AM Share Posted July 15, 2017 at 03:12 AM I can't help but wonder if she was waiting for an outcome on the Peruta case before issuing her opinion. Yea, I'm VERY anxious to get a ruling!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted July 15, 2017 at 06:26 AM Share Posted July 15, 2017 at 06:26 AM I can't help but wonder if she was waiting for an outcome on the Peruta case before issuing her opinion. Yea, I'm VERY anxious to get a ruling!!! Well if she was hoping SCOTUS would take the case, they didn't, so Moore is still binding on her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted July 15, 2017 at 10:12 AM Share Posted July 15, 2017 at 10:12 AM I can't help but wonder if she was waiting for an outcome on the Peruta case before issuing her opinion. Yea, I'm VERY anxious to get a ruling!!! Well if she was hoping SCOTUS would take the case, they didn't, so Moore is still binding on her.Absolutely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted July 15, 2017 at 08:11 PM Share Posted July 15, 2017 at 08:11 PM I can't help but wonder if she was waiting for an outcome on the Peruta case before issuing her opinion. Yea, I'm VERY anxious to get a ruling!!! Well if she was hoping SCOTUS would take the case, they didn't, so Moore is still binding on her.Absolutely agree. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted July 17, 2017 at 03:09 PM Share Posted July 17, 2017 at 03:09 PM Hope to see a positive resolution to this sometime soon. We could use the tourism money, and IL has a bad enough rep as it stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted July 17, 2017 at 03:27 PM Share Posted July 17, 2017 at 03:27 PM Well if she was hoping SCOTUS would take the case, they didn't, so Moore is still binding on her.Absolutely agree. +1 Maybe she was hoping nationwide reciprocity would pass then she wouldn't have to rule on this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.