339 replies to this topic

[NakPPI]

JackTripper, on 15 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

Had not read anything on Williams, but seriously, if the Maryland brief is even remotely true, Williams' claim does not pass the smell test.

If there was a permit system in place (however unjust) and you fail to apply, but decide to pack a gun, you are just another thug in my book.

The "smell test" you are referring to is the legal term of "standing" the correct party has to bring a claim or defense. As Williams never applied for a permit, he was never actually damaged by the permit statute, however unjust the statute is and therefore doesn't have a right to challenge the statute. This case is far from ideal for concealed carry issues or second amendment issues for that matter, honestly I wish this wasn't the one to go to the supreme court. The Supreme Court is not going to address whether the permit system was unjust, they are only going to be able to address whether a person has an unqualified right to carry a handgun in public, and given that there was a permitting system which was ignored, the answer is likely going to be "No."

If the supreme court addresses the permitting scheme anyway, it will likely be due to some analysis of irreparable harm, the defendant wouldn't necessarily have to show damage, only that the statue on its face violates the second amendment. There are some serious legal hoops to jump through in this case, I'm curious to see what the supreme court does with it.

[bob]

Tvandermyde, on 15 July 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

05FLHT, on 15 July 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

As far as throwing Illinois under the bus, as long as the SCOTUS rules that bearing arms outside of the home is core to the 2A (which we know it is), we here in Illinois will be just fine.

My comment is that Maryland was on the brief with Illinois about the scope fo the right. Now to save their skin they try to save themselves by saying if you have a permit system, then there is no problem. ILLINOIS doesn't have ANY permit system. So they tossed lisa under the bus and cut her argument off at the knees. They didn't even argue that the right does not apply outside the home.

They cut and ran. They know the Illinois position is a losing one.

More likely they just do not care about a case they are not involved in. They have to present the best case for the case they are trying, and not worry about something in another state that won't be decided for 3 or 4 or 5 years.

Our side has to worry about how these things mesh together a lot more.

I doubt that SCOTUS is going to buy into the idea that a permit that cannot be obtained is adequate deference to the 2A. By trying that tactic MD is flirting with a court order that permits become shall issue. Something along the lines of the literacy tests for voting. Voter registration became shall issue over the effectively unobtainable passing score for certain people for the literacy test.

[Talonap]

NakPPI, on 15 July 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

JackTripper, on 15 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

Had not read anything on Williams, but seriously, if the Maryland brief is even remotely true, Williams' claim does not pass the smell test.

If there was a permit system in place (however unjust) and you fail to apply, but decide to pack a gun, you are just another thug in my book.

The "smell test" you are referring to is the legal term of "standing" the correct party has to bring a claim or defense. As Williams never applied for a permit, he was never actually damaged by the permit statute, however unjust the statute is and therefore doesn't have a right to challenge the statute. This case is far from ideal for concealed carry issues or second amendment issues for that matter, honestly I wish this wasn't the one to go to the supreme court. The Supreme Court is not going to address whether the permit system was unjust, they are only going to be able to address whether a person has an unqualified right to carry a handgun in public, and given that there was a permitting system which was ignored, the answer is likely going to be "No."

If the supreme court addresses the permitting scheme anyway, it will likely be due to some analysis of irreparable harm, the defendant wouldn't necessarily have to show damage, only that the statue on its face violates the second amendment. There are some serious legal hoops to jump through in this case, I'm curious to see what the supreme court does with it.

I have to agree with both posts. If he had applied for the permit and was denied, then he would have a case. As is, he was just breaking the law. IANAL BTW.  

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 15 July 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

My comment is that Maryland was on the brief with Illinois about the scope fo the right. Now to save their skin they try to save themselves by saying if you have a permit system, then there is no problem. ILLINOIS doesn't have ANY permit system. So they tossed lisa under the bus and cut her argument off at the knees. They didn't even argue that the right does not apply outside the home.

They cut and ran. They know the Illinois position is a losing one.

Gotcha now. MD has a big mouth and a fat foot. It's ironic that their State Supreme Court taunted SCOTUS to 'say so more plainly' and now the State is arguing against SCOTUS taking a carry case.

The Scalia smack down should be epic.

As far as little Lisa, I cannot wait to see her response to the PI's filed her in Illinois. Me thinks the States legal team is in for some long nights...

[lockman]

NakPPI, on 15 July 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

JackTripper, on 15 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

Had not read anything on Williams, but seriously, if the Maryland brief is even remotely true, Williams' claim does not pass the smell test.

If there was a permit system in place (however unjust) and you fail to apply, but decide to pack a gun, you are just another thug in my book.

The "smell test" you are referring to is the legal term of "standing" the correct party has to bring a claim or defense. As Williams never applied for a permit, he was never actually damaged by the permit statute, however unjust the statute is and therefore doesn't have a right to challenge the statute. This case is far from ideal for concealed carry issues or second amendment issues for that matter, honestly I wish this wasn't the one to go to the supreme court. The Supreme Court is not going to address whether the permit system was unjust, they are only going to be able to address whether a person has an unqualified right to carry a handgun in public, and given that there was a permitting system which was ignored, the answer is likely going to be "No."

If the supreme court addresses the permitting scheme anyway, it will likely be due to some analysis of irreparable harm, the defendant wouldn't necessarily have to show damage, only that the statue on its face violates the second amendment. There are some serious legal hoops to jump through in this case, I'm curious to see what the supreme court does with it.

But the state admits in previous filings that Williams would be denied a permit; therefore going through the process was an exercise in futility and equal protection claims based on a fundamental right would still have standing. We will see is Ezell will be considered by this court. Since this is not the 7th circuit Ezell is not binding in any way but may provide guidance and reason.

[mauserme]

Williams is not the perfect case in that is is criminal, but its not too bad either.  The argument, in part, is that applying for the permit would have been an excercise in futility and one cannot be required to engage in futile acts.

If Maryland hadn't stepped in it's own do-do whenever the opportunity arose there wouldn't be much hope here.  But the testimony in Woolard that documentary evidence of need is prerequisite to getting a permit will hurt them.  Then there's that thing about Maryland calling out SCOTUS for claficiation of "in the home".

I'm guessing SCOTUS will grant cert and provide the clarification asked for, if not more.  I'd also guess that clarification will be to the effect that the Second Amendment is much broader than possession in the home - that the troublesome phrase "such as in the home" was included in the Heller holding only to answer the question then at hand and is unnecessary to a basic understanding of the right protected by the Second Amendment.


EDIT: Sorry Lockman - seems I unintentionally stole some of your thoughts.

[JackTripper]

lockman, on 16 July 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

But the state admits in previous filings that Williams would be denied a permit; therefore going through the process was an exercise in futility and equal protection claims based on a fundamental right would still have standing. We will see is Ezell will be considered by this court. Since this is not the 7th circuit Ezell is not binding in any way but may provide guidance and reason.

This is the only filing I have read (and obviously it is coming from their side).
But when I read things like "threw his gun in the bushes," I see 'gangbanger'.

Fingers crossed that this helps the movement, but I wont be surprised if it hurts

[Tvandermyde]

I am not sure if they would accept the case. I think Shepard is much better to achieve their ends as it once again deeal with an absolute prohibition.

But the CA case, can't remember the name might work as well, but Illinois provides the best contrast tot he principals of nothing and allows them to expand on Reid and Nunn.

[bob]

JackTripper, on 16 July 2011 - 08:33 AM, said:

lockman, on 16 July 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

But the state admits in previous filings that Williams would be denied a permit; therefore going through the process was an exercise in futility and equal protection claims based on a fundamental right would still have standing. We will see is Ezell will be considered by this court. Since this is not the 7th circuit Ezell is not binding in any way but may provide guidance and reason.

This is the only filing I have read (and obviously it is coming from their side).
But when I read things like "threw his gun in the bushes," I see 'gangbanger'.

Fingers crossed that this helps the movement, but I wont be surprised if it hurts

Throwing the gun in the bushes does have that gangbanger feel to it.

OTOH, nothing in any of the court filings indicate he was a person prohibited from owning firearms. You would think that if that was the case the state would have pointed it out in no uncertain terms given as it would have effectively mooted the permit issue.

If SCOTUS takes this case it seems likely it is because they are willing to take a bigger leap forward than some of the other cases represent. If they chose not to take it, it really does not mean much in the overall scheme of things.

[mauserme]

Tvandermyde, on 16 July 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

I am not sure if they would accept the case. I think Shepard is much better to achieve their ends as it once again deeal with an absolute prohibition.

But the CA case, can't remember the name might work as well, but Illinois provides the best contrast tot he principals of nothing and allows them to expand on Reid and Nunn.

They did seem to signal an interest in Williams but that was probably before Shepad was filed, so you could be right.  

Still, I perceive a reluctance to rule in a way that would overturn all or most gun law overnight.  Granting cert to Williams with Shepard in the wings would give them an opportunity to flesh this out in a more stepwise mannner.

[vess1]

[quote name='05FLHT' date='16 July 2011 - 08:08 AM' timestamp='1310821703' post='282797']
[quote name='Tvandermyde' date='15 July 2011 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1310781927' post='282776']

As far as little Lisa, I cannot wait to see her response to the PI's filed her in Illinois. Me thinks the States legal team is in for some long nights...
[/quote]


  I can't help but think about how any [u]American[/u] would want to be the lawyer for the state of Illinois, staying up all night to come up with some legal BS to restrict the rights of the law abiding and the innocent.   To come up with legal BS that will cost innocent people their lives and their families lives on the streets.  

  These are small, small men indeed....  Shouldn't even be referred to as men.  More like scum of the earth.  Worse than many people who are in prison.  Most inmates would themselves have the sense not to be on that side.  Says a lot.

[Ashdump]

[quote name='vess1' date='17 July 2011 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1310912132' post='282892']
[quote name='05FLHT' date='16 July 2011 - 08:08 AM' timestamp='1310821703' post='282797']
[quote name='Tvandermyde' date='15 July 2011 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1310781927' post='282776']

As far as little Lisa, I cannot wait to see her response to the PI's filed her in Illinois. Me thinks the States legal team is in for some long nights...
[/quote]


  I can't help but think about how any [u]American[/u] would want to be the lawyer for the state of Illinois, staying up all night to come up with some legal BS to restrict the rights of the law abiding and the innocent.   To come up with legal BS that will cost innocent people their lives and their families lives on the streets.  

  These are small, small men indeed....  Shouldn't even be referred to as men.  More like scum of the earth.  Worse than many people who are in prison.  Most inmates would themselves have the sense not to be on that side.  Says a lot.
[/quote]
These people are communists. They may take offense to be referred to as such, but Karl Marx would be pleased with their actions. They probably consider themselves "progressives", which is just the nice, cleaned up PC name for communist.

[spec4]

First, Lisa is incompetent and only has the job because of her criminal father.
Secondly, she lacks integrity, so I'd say she fits right in with the Illinois elitist pols.

[colt-45]

spec4, on 17 July 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

First, Lisa is incompetent and only has the job because of her criminal father.
Secondly, she lacks integrity, so I'd say she fits right in with the Illinois elitist pols.

i agree, and when we do get ccw in Illinois, where are we going to have the victory party?

[BadWaterBill]

The victory party should be in front of Richies home

[colt-45]

BadWaterBill, on 17 July 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

The victory party should be in front of Richies home

who's Richie?

[Sigma]

Richard Daley = Richie

All the Wisconsin criminals can run to Illinois to do their evil

When all 50 state have RTC where will the criminals go then? Cyber crimes, identity theft?

[Win30-30]

Sigma, on 17 July 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Richard Daley = Richie

All the Wisconsin criminals can run to Illinois to do their evil

When all 50 state have RTC where will the criminals go then? Cyber crimes, identity theft?

They will all go to Richie's home.  Remember he don't believe in having guns.

[papa]

Win30-30, on 17 July 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Sigma, on 17 July 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Richard Daley = Richie

All the Wisconsin criminals can run to Illinois to do their evil

When all 50 state have RTC where will the criminals go then? Cyber crimes, identity theft?

They will all go to Richie's home. Remember he don't believe in having guns.

Correction.....he don't believe in us peons having guns.

[Win30-30]

papa, on 17 July 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

Win30-30, on 17 July 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Sigma, on 17 July 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Richard Daley = Richie

All the Wisconsin criminals can run to Illinois to do their evil

When all 50 state have RTC where will the criminals go then? Cyber crimes, identity theft?

They will all go to Richie's home. Remember he don't believe in having guns.

Correction.....he don't believe in us peons having guns.

Well said

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 16 July 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

I am not sure if they would accept the case. I think Shepard is much better to achieve their ends as it once again deeal with an absolute prohibition.

But the CA case, can't remember the name might work as well, but Illinois provides the best contrast tot he principals of nothing and allows them to expand on Reid and Nunn.

The California case is Richard v. Prieto. http://wiki.calgunsf...es_v._McGinness

We are lucky the court is going to have their pick of cases to choose from. Right now the court has Williams and Masciandaro and, if the PI's are denied by the District and 7th Circuit, there is a very good chance of SCOTUS having Shepard and Moore to choose from as well. Anyway you look at it, it looks very promising we'll have  a decision on carry by June of 2012.

Finally, as far as people thinking Williams and Masciandaro are 'bad' cases, just remember Miranda was far from being a saint.

[05FLHT]

BadWaterBill, on 17 July 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

The victory party should be in front of Richies home

Where ever the party is...it's going to be epic.

[Lou]

Win30-30, on 17 July 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Sigma, on 17 July 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Richard Daley = Richie

All the Wisconsin criminals can run to Illinois to do their evil

When all 50 state have RTC where will the criminals go then? Cyber crimes, identity theft?

They will all go to Richie's home.  Remember he don't believe in having guns.

Here is the address:  Just syt when!!!  
Richard M Daley

1476 S Prairie Ave, Unit D

Chicago, IL 60605-3343

The information is available to anyone who has an internet connection.

[NakPPI]

Here's a preview of the sort of arguments we can expect in Shepard v. Madigan:

This was just filed on 7/18, it uses Ezell to argue for carry rights under the second amendment:
https://docs.google....JhMTEz&hl=en_US

https://docs.google....dkN2Jk&hl=en_US
https://docs.google....Y3OTU4&hl=en_US

(uploaded to google docs, no log in required)

Also, as for the whole "Party at Daley's house" thing, I'm sure you were all joking, but all kidding aside, getting arrested for disturbing the peace or some other nonsense does nothing to further the cause. If you want to "gloat" to someone about a second amendment victory, gloat to the media, not a former mayor who has returned to his life as an attorney. You should party with your supporters to celebrate, not on the doorstep of the former enemy of the second amendment. Despite all of the wrongs Daley has done to ruin the second amendment in Illinois, his time as the chief opponent of the second amendment has passed.

[blackhalo]

NakPPI, on 18 July 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

Here's a preview of the sort of arguments we can expect in Shepard v. Madigan:

This was just filed on 7/18, it uses Ezell to argue for carry rights under the second amendment:
https://docs.google....JhMTEz&hl=en_US

https://docs.google....dkN2Jk&hl=en_US
https://docs.google....Y3OTU4&hl=en_US

(uploaded to google docs, no log in required)

Also, as for the whole "Party at Daley's house" thing, I'm sure you were all joking, but all kidding aside, getting arrested for disturbing the peace or some other nonsense does nothing to further the cause. If you want to "gloat" to someone about a second amendment victory, gloat to the media, not a former mayor who has returned to his life as an attorney. You should party with your supporters to celebrate, not on the doorstep of the former enemy of the second amendment. Despite all of the wrongs Daley has done to ruin the second amendment in Illinois, his time as the chief opponent of the second amendment has passed.

Well said.

[bob]

Interesting snippets from Gura's pieces in the MD case.

Quote

Defendants suggest that their handgun restrictions pass Second Amendment analysis because Maryland law "permit[s] . . . anyone who can lawfully possess a long gun to wear and carry it, concealed or openly, anywhere the holder of a handgun carry permit could carry a handgun."

Quote

In any event, it is difficult to imagine that individuals slinging loaded shotguns and rifles through the streets of Baltimore would not attract negative police attention. And while Plaintiffs have no desire to carry such weapons in public, other people who feel strongly about the right to bear arms—and who enjoy carrying arms at least as much for reasons of political expression as for self-defense—have recently made spectacles of themselves carrying long arms in a variety of public settings throughout the country. Plaintiffs are surprised that Defendants would welcome this type of activity, and otherwise take no position on its legality.

It is almost like he is threatening to call on those activists to sling arms and walk down the streets of Baltimore.

Quote

CONDITIONING THE EXERCISE OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON PROOF
OF "GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REASON" FOR SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATES THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

He is not giving up on the EP argument. It is a very good one and should turn the may issue states to shall issue PDQ. IMO, it is a better argument than the 2A argument because there is a very long history of may issue states denying the EP of the laws to most of their citizens WRT issuance of LTC. Whether the courts see it that way or not is another thing.

MD's LTC provisions are pretty reasonable, other than the may issue side of it. Not all that much different than other states. The EP argument can deal with the may issue side of it without ever having to deal with the 2A issue at all, and I would not be at all surprised if that was how the court disposed of it.

[NakPPI]

The long gun argument was dismissed by the court in Heller. The state is literally arguing the dissent of Heller, the LOSING side.

The fact that the state can only argue with bogus statistics, which was also dismissed by Scalia as being irrelevant to constitutional analysis and re argue positions that have lost at the highest level is an admission of defeat.

The best part is politicians such as May and Quinn are completely oblivious that these cases are going on and the ramifications that will result if the plaintiff wins.

If the illinois uuw law is stricken, it doesn't necessarily just mean open carry handguns, it could mean long guns too, depending on the scope of the injunction order.

Think May would be pissed about a bunch of people walking around in Highland Park with AR-15s, shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns? I desperately want Lisa Madigan to make the long gun argument so I can send it to May, unfortunately the uuw law doesn't read the same way maryland's law does.

"Look what your vote has done, Lisa Madigan wants us to parade around downtown highland park with assault rifles!" Oh well.

There is also an equal protection argument to invalidate FOID, the act it's really just a poll tax by a different name.

[TyGuy]

Has a response been filed, or are we still waiting for the 22nd of July to pass?

[Sigma]

[quote name='NakPPI' date='19 July 2011 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1311080101' post='283138']
The long gun argument was dismissed by the court in Heller. The state is literally arguing the dissent of Heller, the LOSING side.


Can you help me understand where Heller spoke about long guns. Im confused because the lower courts said that an Assault Weapon Ban is ok.
Are you speaking of where it talks about firearms in common use?

[Davey]

TyGuy, on 19 July 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Has a response been filed, or are we still waiting for the 22nd of July to pass?

What happens July 22?