Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

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

My 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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

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

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

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

  • 3 weeks later...
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

  • 2 months later...

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...