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

[jmeyers]

I gotta say, the best line out of the brief for me is:

Even if the State could provide a hearing to determine whether a nonresident was qualified under Illinois law, the State still would not be able to monitor his continued eligibility. That is why Illinois must rely on similar State regimes; no other method is practicable

 

hmm, thats not what i was told before a judge... I love how the state talks out both sides depending on how it fits their need.

[kwc]

What were you told that differs from this claim?

[jmeyers]

Well in the current situation Im in, they told the judge to remand it for a hearing and when we argued it had already been mind made up, there response was it would be fair and impartial and they would definitely take a look at the status.

 

This seems to indicate exactly what we thought in that a hearing would be futile and be nothing but a waste of time for everyone involved.

[jmeyers]

Another great line is:

 

And plaintiffs do not contend that the State Police’s survey results were inaccurate or otherwise failed to show which States have similar firearms restrictions to Illinois.

 

As I have shared in the past privately, the truth will hurt on this one.

[press1280]

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

[Gamma]

Do courts even care when the state makes a claim in a case which is completely contradicted by claims made in other cases?

[domin8]

What needs to be recognized is that judges are not experts in all subject matter, and need attorneys to point out even the smallest details. Attorneys need act as if they are dealing with somebody who knows nothing.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

 

[skinnyb82]

What needs to be recognized is that judges are not experts in all subject matter, and need attorneys to point out even the smallest details. Attorneys need act as if they are dealing with somebody who knows nothing.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Oh, yes, they know as much as they're told. And if anyone needs to be reminded that judges don't know more than what's presented to them, listen to the orals or read the transcript for arguments in Birchfield v. North Dakota. Justice Kennedy wasn't aware that breathalyzers are administered at the cop shop. He was actually shocked to learn that they're not roadside. And IIRC he was in the majority in McNeely.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Charles Nichols]

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

[borgranta]

Do courts even care when the state makes a claim in a case which is completely contradicted by claims made in other cases?

Maybe the plaintiff could point out the constant contradictions in the reply brief that way it will be on record that the state repeatedly lies to the courts so that they can be held in contempt and/or face perjury charges.

[borgranta]

A judge may rule against the state if the state repeatedly lies to the courts.

[domin8]

 

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

 

 

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

Iirc, SCOTUS ruled that bans are lawful for open carry OR concealed carry, but not both. Therefore, a prohibition of open carry makes concealed carry lawful.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

 

[MrTriple]

 

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

 

 

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

Iirc, SCOTUS ruled that bans are lawful for open carry OR concealed carry, but not both. Therefore, a prohibition of open carry makes concealed carry lawful.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Was this in Heller or McDonald? I ask because I don't recall ever seeing anything on "bearing arms" in those rulings except in the wider context of the 2nd Amendment.

[borgranta]

 

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

 

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

Does this mean that ILLINOIS is in contempt of court by still banning open carry despite his wording in the Moore ruling.

[press1280]

 

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

 

Here's why it's laughable-Moore said you can't have a total ban on public carry. IL is saying see Peruta, we can ban concealed carry (or in this case ban residents of 45 states from concealed carry). So what does that leave? Oh yea, OC, which we also ban.

They're playing a dangerous game where they could conceivably end up with both OC AND CC, maybe not directly because of this case but if they get a judgment based off Peruta then an OC challenge should easily prevail.

[Charles Nichols]

 

 

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

Does this mean that ILLINOIS is in contempt of court by still banning open carry despite his wording in the Moore ruling.

 

Had the NRA or SAF asked Judge Poser (or the district court judge assigned to their case) to hold Illinois in contempt for banning Open Carry then yes. But the NRA and SAF lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry didn't they.

[Charles Nichols]

 

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

 

 

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

Iirc, SCOTUS ruled that bans are lawful for open carry OR concealed carry, but not both. Therefore, a prohibition of open carry makes concealed carry lawful.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

You recall incorrectly. SCOTUS held that there is absolutely no right to concealed carry and, no offense, the argument that something which is not a right (concealed carry) must be permitted because something which is a right, and has always been a right (Open Carry) is banned is nutty. Never in the history of American courts has there been a single decision which so held. Which is why no such case has ever been cited by anyone.

[Charles Nichols]

 

 

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

 

Here's why it's laughable-Moore said you can't have a total ban on public carry. IL is saying see Peruta, we can ban concealed carry (or in this case ban residents of 45 states from concealed carry). So what does that leave? Oh yea, OC, which we also ban.

They're playing a dangerous game where they could conceivably end up with both OC AND CC, maybe not directly because of this case but if they get a judgment based off Peruta then an OC challenge should easily prevail.

 

Illinois isn't in any danger. The plaintiffs do not seek to carry openly and do not challenge Illinois' Open Carry bans. They plaintiffs seek concealed carry permits and like the en banc Peruta decision, that is the only question before the court. The plaintiffs lose and the Illinois bans on Open Carry remain because they were never challenged by the plaintiffs.

[Molly B.]

The reliance on Peruta and other CCW is laughable considering, when Moore was handed down, that THEY were the ones that passed a CCW regime, not an OC one. So they're telling the court IOW, what we passed after Moore isn't even 2A protected activity, we did a bait-and-switch.

What makes it "laughable"?

 

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

There isn't a single Federal Circuit or state high court which has held that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry. If, more likely when, the court of appeals decides that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry then all of the remaining claims are subject to rational basis review.

 

Which means the remaining claims fail.

Does this mean that ILLINOIS is in contempt of court by still banning open carry despite his wording in the Moore ruling.

Had the NRA or SAF asked Judge Poser (or the district court judge assigned to their case) to hold Illinois in contempt for banning Open Carry then yes. But the NRA and SAF lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry didn't they.

The Illinois legislature? No.

[stm]

Judge Posner did not say that Illinois could ban Open Carry as per the Heller decision he said that Illinois could ban concealed carry. It was the NRA and others who lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry.

 

I'm sorry, but I just re-read Moore v. Madigan and I cannot find where Judge Posner, writing for the majority, stated that the state could ban Concealed Carry but not Open Carry. He said that states

 

"...may be able to require 'open carry' âthat is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed."

 

That's not a ban on concealed carry, or a statement that the right is to only carry openly. It's a time/place/manner restriction. Both the Moore and Shepard lawsuits were about the complete ban on carrying a ready-to-use firearm outside the home. This wasn't about Open or Concealed Carry, it wasn't about Shall Issue or May Issue. The court overturned a complete ban on all forms of carry outside the home. In fact, Judge Posner seems to be advocating concealed carry over open carry:

 

"Some weapons do not terrify the public (such as well-concealed weapons), and so if the statute was (as it may have been) intended to protect the public from being frightened or intimidated by the brandishing of weapons, it could not have applied to all weapons or all carriage of weapons."

 

The CONCEALED carry laws that were proposed before Moore were seen to be more palatable to the legislators who were not firm 2A supporters. They didn't want us scaring the general public. The Firearms Concealed Carry Act was passed without the input of the NRA. Our NRA representative was specifically excluded from negotiations on the bill. Our carry law is a result of what the anti-gun leadership felt they had to grudgingly give us in order to get enough votes to pass before the court's stay expired. To claim that the NRA lobbied for banning open carry is not accurate.

[kwc]

The Nichols v. Brown thread dives deeper into this issue. May I suggest we continue the discussion there so as to not rehash old ground?

 

I've added some thoughts in this post: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=62013&p=1018082

[stm]

You're right. We shouldn't clutter this thread with discussions about another lawsuit.

 

Mea culpa.

[domin8]

I may have just discovered a way to push an argument in this case that hasn't really been pushed beyond a simple claim.

 

We've seen/heard the questions about whether or not Illinois has done it's due diligence in determining which states are "substantially similar". Illinois, so far, has been able to say, "Yes we did. We sent out surveys." What's the counter argument to that? There hasn't been much from the plaintiff. I may have just discovered it by using the

ISPs spreadsheet (https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/similarsummary.pdf) against them. Look down the column of the first question. Go all the way down to Washington DC. It's the only jurisdiction that has responded where they said they DON'T regulate who can carry a firearm. The DC ccw law is so restrictive that there's no way that's true. Furthermore, look a few rows up at Vermont, a Constitutional carry state. They have a checkmark indicating they do regulate who may carry a concealed firearm in public.

 

2 exact opposite answers from reality at both extremes of measure. This, if employed accurately, could be of some help.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

 

[Gamma]

I may have just discovered a way to push an argument in this case that hasn't really been pushed beyond a simple claim. We've seen/heard the questions about whether or not Illinois has done it's due diligence in determining which states are "substantially similar". Illinois, so far, has been able to say, "Yes we did. We sent out surveys." What's the counter argument to that? There hasn't been much from the plaintiff. I may have just discovered it by using the ISPs spreadsheet (https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/similarsummary.pdf) against them. Look down the column of the first question. Go all the way down to Washington DC. It's the only jurisdiction that has responded where they said they DON'T regulate who can carry a firearm. The DC ccw law is so restrictive that there's no way that's true. Furthermore, look a few rows up at Vermont, a Constitutional carry state. They have a checkmark indicating they do regulate who may carry a concealed firearm in public. 2 exact opposite answers from reality at both extremes of measure. This, if employed accurately, could be of some help. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I don't see how their methodology could possibly be described as "due diligence". If Illinois' Attorney General had analyzed other state's laws, perhaps in consultation with other state's AGs, they would have an end result which might be viable.

 

Your observations just add to the stack of obviously incorrect information in their chart.

 

The whole premise of the chart is entirely a fabrication of ISP's administrative rules anyway, the specifics are not based on the law and frankly seem quite disconnected from the seeming purpose which was to compare CCW licensing regimes.

[domin8]

I may have just discovered a way to push an argument in this case that hasn't really been pushed beyond a simple claim. We've seen/heard the questions about whether or not Illinois has done it's due diligence in determining which states are "substantially similar". Illinois, so far, has been able to say, "Yes we did. We sent out surveys." What's the counter argument to that? There hasn't been much from the plaintiff. I may have just discovered it by using the ISPs spreadsheet (https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/similarsummary.pdf) against them. Look down the column of the first question. Go all the way down to Washington DC. It's the only jurisdiction that has responded where they said they DON'T regulate who can carry a firearm. The DC ccw law is so restrictive that there's no way that's true. Furthermore, look a few rows up at Vermont, a Constitutional carry state. They have a checkmark indicating they do regulate who may carry a concealed firearm in public. 2 exact opposite answers from reality at both extremes of measure. This, if employed accurately, could be of some help. Sent from my SM-G935T using TapatalkI don't see how their methodology could possibly be described as "due diligence". If Illinois' Attorney General had analyzed other state's laws, perhaps in consultation with other state's AGs, they would have an end result which might be viable.Your observations just add to the stack of obviously incorrect information in their chart.The whole premise of the chart is entirely a fabrication of ISP's administrative rules anyway, the specifics are not based on the law and frankly seem quite disconnected from the seeming purpose which was to compare CCW licensing regimes.

My attempt at the post is merely to provide evidence to the claim. Now the plaintiff's counsel can go from saying, "No you didn't." Every time the defendant says, "Yes we did. Here's a spreadsheet of our surveys." To, "Here's how your surveys results are wrong." The last part, in my observations, often being missed. It's an opportunity to use what the defendants may claim as supportive evidence against them.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

 

[chislinger]

But the NRA and SAF lobbied the legislature to ban Open Carry didn't they.

When did they do that? I'm pretty sure open carry was banned in Illinois long before the SAF even existed.

[Tvandermyde]

If Mr. Nichols' acumen here is any demonstration of his understanding case law, color me less than impressed

[lockman]

Vermont does regulate who may carry arms. They have answered factually. The fact that they do not issue permits does not negate the fact that they do have laws in place regulating who may carry, or more precisely, who may not carry firearms.

 

And the District of Columbia answered inappropriately because they do regulate who can carry a firearm it's just that their regulations are prohibitive and virtually assure no one does.

[kwc]

Appellants' (plaintiffs') reply brief has been filed and is attached below.

Appellants' Reply Brief.pdf

[jmeyers]

Beat me to it. I see no reason for the Court to not allow the motion to leave to file it, after all they allowed the state 7 or 8 extensions to file their brief. Attorney here is simply asking to accept a 2 1/2 hour late brief.