jmeyers Posted October 12, 2016 at 05:10 PM Author Posted October 12, 2016 at 05:10 PM The saga continues. The AG now says that I need to file a separate Complaint in Administrative Review for this new Final Administrative Decision pursuant to the Administrative Review Law Keep in mind, the hearing was requested by them, not me, was REMANDED by the court. WE'll see how the court handles this stall tactic.
Gamma Posted October 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM Posted October 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM One would think that the record of the administrative proceeding would be admissible in your suit, since it was remanded to the ALJ and now the court has to review it. I would think the judge might be interested in the show put on by the state.
borgranta Posted October 13, 2016 at 05:10 AM Posted October 13, 2016 at 05:10 AM Meyers may have standing to challenge the current UUW as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that most non-residents are not allowed their right to bear arms.
jmeyers Posted October 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM Author Posted October 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM The communication of the show will all be submitted. Delay Delay Delay. My thought is, they are the ones that asked for the hearing, not I and the court remanded it and then set us for a Status Hearing as needed. We've had that hearing, told the judge we had a hearing and expect a denial. The judge then said we could reset as needed. We will go back Nov 9 (I most likely won't be in attendance) to reset and get a briefing schedule setup to brief the arguments and see how the judge would like to handle all of this Delay and BS.
Tango7 Posted October 13, 2016 at 05:43 PM Posted October 13, 2016 at 05:43 PM Illinois the only one to have a licensing scheme such that you need something to own or possess a firearmIncorrect, MA has their FID card, NY and I think a few other states require a permit/license to possess a handgun. Purchase permits required in CT, DC, HI, IA (handguns), MD (handguns), MI (for handguns not purchased by an CCW or through an FFL), MN (handguns w/o CPL and EBR's), NE (handguns w/o CCW), NJ, NY (handguns), NC (handguns - obtain from sheriff), RI (handguns), Ownership permits required in DC & NY (handguns). Looks like NJ actually got rid of their FOID.
stm Posted October 13, 2016 at 06:55 PM Posted October 13, 2016 at 06:55 PM I can't remember the name of the plaintiff, but ISP was sued a few years ago by a woman (from Indiana?) because they wouldn't issue a FOID to her so she could possees a handgun for self-defense while visiting relatives in Illinois. The state argued that she could possess a handgun legally in Illinois without a FOID and that as a non-resident, she was not eligible for a FOID. How can they revoke your CCL because you are no longer eligible for a FOID, when they won't issue you one as a non-resident? Do the 29 non-resident IL CCL holders have FOIDS? I know this has been hashed out over and over, but the hypocrisy of the state's arguments is astounding.
kwc Posted October 13, 2016 at 07:17 PM Posted October 13, 2016 at 07:17 PM I can't remember the name of the plaintiff, but ISP was sued a few years ago by a woman (from Indiana?) because they wouldn't issue a FOID to her so she could possees a handgun for self-defense while visiting relatives in Illinois. The state argued that she could possess a handgun legally in Illinois without a FOID and that as a non-resident, she was not eligible for a FOID. How can they revoke your CCL because you are no longer eligible for a FOID, when they won't issue you one as a non-resident? Do the 29 non-resident IL CCL holders have FOIDS? I know this has been hashed out over and over, but the hypocrisy of the state's arguments is astounding. That would be the Mishaga case: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=55134 Non-residents, including non-resident CCL holders from the 4 approved states, are not required to have a FOID card to possess a firearm in Illinois, and most cannot obtain one anyway. Exceptions are individuals such as active duty military members stationed in Illinois and security guards. I'm guessing most of the 29 non-resident CCL holders do not have a FOID card, but several (who happen to be military members assigned here and are legal residents of VA, NM, or SC) may have one. But all 29 must meet the basic qualifications for obtaining a FOID card (except Illinois residency) even if one isn't actually issued. The Mishaga (an Ohio resident) case, which was decided in the Central District Court of Illinois, affirmed that a non-resident may possess a firearm in Illinois if "licensed" to possess the firearm in his or her state of residence. But "license," according to the C.D.IL, simply means "eligible." Ohio doesn't issue a license to own or possess a firearm. But since it was legal for Mishaga to possess a firearm in Ohio, she was "licensed" to do so. As I understand it, the state's argument in Meyers' case, with which the ALJ concurred, revolves around the fact that a resident's CCL will be revoked if that individual no longer qualifies for a FOID card. Changing residency to another state allows the ISP to revoke the FOID card, which in turn causes the CCL to be revoked as well. Possession isn't the issue here--license to carry, and on-going eligibility to have that license, is the issue.
skinnyb82 Posted October 19, 2016 at 07:28 PM Posted October 19, 2016 at 07:28 PM While going down the list of states that require "permission" to purchase/own, did anyone forget about that idiotic California horse manure DoJ Certificate of Eligibility required to obtain a firearm, each and every time, regardless of how many firearms one owns. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Charles Nichols Posted October 24, 2016 at 01:39 AM Posted October 24, 2016 at 01:39 AM While going down the list of states that require "permission" to purchase/own, did anyone forget about that idiotic California horse manure DoJ Certificate of Eligibility required to obtain a firearm, each and every time, regardless of how many firearms one owns. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkThe DOJ Certificate of Eligibility is something else. In order for most people to purchase most firearms they need to first obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate.
jmeyers Posted November 17, 2016 at 02:39 PM Author Posted November 17, 2016 at 02:39 PM The delay saga continues. On Nov 9 we had a status conference in which the State asked the judge for some time so that they may prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that I had an Administrative Hearing, was denied relief, they believe a Miscellaneous Remedy lawsuit which challenges the rules is no longer valid and If I wish to seek relief, I need to refile as an Administrative Action pursuant to the act for Judicial Review of the hearing. Once they file a motion we'll have 7 days to respond. It is highly likely that this motion will be denied based on previous case law.
Tango7 Posted November 17, 2016 at 05:55 PM Posted November 17, 2016 at 05:55 PM The delay saga continues. On Nov 9 we had a status conference in which the State asked the judge for some time so that they may prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that I had an Administrative Hearing, was denied relief, they believe a Miscellaneous Remedy lawsuit which challenges the rules is no longer valid and If I wish to seek relief, I need to refile as an Administrative Action pursuant to the act for Judicial Review of the hearing. Once they file a motion we'll have 7 days to respond. It is highly likely that this motion will be denied based on previous case law. Nothing like the state using our tax dollars to continue deprivation of rights by disparate funding methods...
jmeyers Posted December 6, 2016 at 02:02 PM Author Posted December 6, 2016 at 02:02 PM Motion to Dismiss has been filed by the state and set for hearing Jan 9 at 10:30am
bmyers Posted December 6, 2016 at 03:21 PM Posted December 6, 2016 at 03:21 PM At the rate this is going we will have National Reciprocity before this case is done in court.
jmeyers Posted December 6, 2016 at 03:31 PM Author Posted December 6, 2016 at 03:31 PM Yes unfortunately thats a real possibility. It is not for the lack of trying though. We hope to get the courts to establish a briefing and oral argument schedule on Jan 9 and order that the Full and Complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing be produced to the court (which still has not been done 4 months later)
jmeyers Posted January 9, 2017 at 06:21 PM Author Posted January 9, 2017 at 06:21 PM The States' Motion to Dismiss was DENIED and a Scheduling Order as follows was entered: - Plaintiff to file brief on the merits of the case on or before February 6, 2017 - State shall file response to Plaintiffs brief on or before March 6, 2017 - Plaintiff may file, if needed, any reply to States response on or before March 20, 2017 Cause shall be set for hearing thereafter.
Federal Farmer Posted January 12, 2017 at 03:35 AM Posted January 12, 2017 at 03:35 AM My experience with Admin. Law is that they are kangaroo courts. The municipal unit (in my case, Chicago) or agency (in this case, ISP) hires lawyers to act as judges in cases against themselves. How often will such a "judge" bite the hand that feeds it? I moved out of IL to WA last Spring. I tried to change my address on the ISP site and was unable to do so as it does not allow one to put in a different state. I'm looking forward to a win here or National Recognition, whichever comes first.
jmeyers Posted January 12, 2017 at 12:42 PM Author Posted January 12, 2017 at 12:42 PM Federal Farmer - Unfortunately this isn't an Admin Review case and never has been. The state attempted to make it an Admin Review case but that was successfully defended against. We now move on to briefing the court on the validity of the rules
jmeyers Posted February 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM Author Posted February 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM A motion for Summary Judgement and Memorandum in support of Summary Judgement was filed on 2/21/2017 by the Plaintiff. Defendants have until March 24, 2017 to file their return brief and the Oral Hearing is set for April 4 (day before IGOLD) Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for SJ.PDF
jmeyers Posted March 1, 2017 at 09:52 PM Author Posted March 1, 2017 at 09:52 PM Court Hearing for April 4 has been pushed back TBD due to the State being out of state "at a conference"
kwc Posted March 1, 2017 at 09:57 PM Posted March 1, 2017 at 09:57 PM Let's see... "attending a conference" vs. "eliminating infringements upon the rights of our citizens." Which is more important?
jmeyers Posted March 2, 2017 at 12:31 AM Author Posted March 2, 2017 at 12:31 AM Based on the States M-O of right infringement, I say the Conference is more important Remember kwc, networking networking networking
jmeyers Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:18 PM Author Posted May 26, 2017 at 12:18 PM Long time since a update, the judge signed the blanket Summary Judgement for the state that had multiple inaccuracies in it. As of 5/24 we have placed a Notice of Appeal on file and we will move to the 4th District of Illinois Appeals
kwc Posted May 26, 2017 at 02:49 PM Posted May 26, 2017 at 02:49 PM Long time since a update, the judge signed the blanket Summary Judgement for the state that had multiple inaccuracies in it. As of 5/24 we have placed a Notice of Appeal on file and we will move to the 4th District of Illinois Appeals Our foreheads are starting to feel pretty flat from all the "banging our heads against the wall," aren't they? Thank you for continuing the good fight!
jmeyers Posted May 26, 2017 at 04:36 PM Author Posted May 26, 2017 at 04:36 PM Yes Couple errors here:Court refused to answer the substantially similar question or even look at the definition compared to the survey Court entered a order stating we provided no data on similar states laws, which we did and are part of the record (they took the States blanket SJ and signed it)
jmeyers Posted October 8, 2017 at 02:48 PM Author Posted October 8, 2017 at 02:48 PM Appeal has been filed with the 4th District Appellate Court on October 2. The state now will respond in the next 30-90 days 4-17-0395.pdf
lockman Posted October 9, 2017 at 11:27 PM Posted October 9, 2017 at 11:27 PM Appeal has been filed with the 4th District Appellate Court on October 2. The state now will respond in the next 30-90 days Again the download count tics up but fails every time on this pdf.
mauserme Posted October 9, 2017 at 11:53 PM Posted October 9, 2017 at 11:53 PM Appeal has been filed with the 4th District Appellate Court on October 2. The state now will respond in the next 30-90 days Again the download count tics up but fails every time on this pdf. See if this works any better. 4-17-0395.pdf
Gamma Posted October 10, 2017 at 01:33 AM Posted October 10, 2017 at 01:33 AM Appeal has been filed with the 4th District Appellate Court on October 2. The state now will respond in the next 30-90 days Again the download count tics up but fails every time on this pdf. See if this works any better. 4-17-0395.pdf No
mikeyk101 Posted October 10, 2017 at 02:03 AM Posted October 10, 2017 at 02:03 AM Must be something on your end. I was able to open it on either of the links.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.