Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
833 replies to this topic

#811 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 15 November 2019 - 08:44 PM

The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia have submitted an amici brief supporting Culp.

 

So, would that mean we should be living in one of those states instead of Illinoying?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#812 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 12 January 2020 - 08:25 AM

IL response due tomorrow. Let's see if they try to extend it again.



#813 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 12 January 2020 - 01:17 PM

IL response due tomorrow. Let's see if they try to extend it again.

 

At what point can some sort of punitive action be taken for the obvious delaying tactic? Otherwise, they can keep asking for extensions in perpetuity, since there is no pressure or penalty for doing so.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#814 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,418 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 January 2020 - 01:43 PM

If they wanted an extension, I think they would have had to request one 10 business days before the deadline. If I'm correct on that assumption it's too late to do so now.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#815 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 12 January 2020 - 11:24 PM

If they wanted an extension, I think they would have had to request one 10 business days before the deadline. If I'm correct on that assumption it's too late to do so now.

 

So, does that mean they are actually going to face off and take kicks in the teeth, or are they going to capitulate?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#816 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,139 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 13 January 2020 - 12:49 PM

So was a response filed?


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#817 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,507 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 13 January 2020 - 01:37 PM

Maybe they have until 2359 tonight?



#818 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 13 January 2020 - 02:52 PM

If they wanted an extension, I think they would have had to request one 10 business days before the deadline. If I'm correct on that assumption it's too late to do so now.

They'll just file "emergency" petitions etc, same way they did with the Moore case. Probably waiting to see what SCOTUS does with the NY case. I have a sinking feeling that they're going to punt NY for mootness and all the other cases that are on hold will start grinding forward again. Anything to put off a 2a decision.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#819 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 13 January 2020 - 04:39 PM

Raoul's response
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#820 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,139 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 14 January 2020 - 08:58 AM

It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something? 


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#821 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 14 January 2020 - 11:22 PM

It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something?


If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#822 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,139 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 15 January 2020 - 06:01 AM

 

It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something?


If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert.

 

So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case?


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#823 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,364 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 15 January 2020 - 09:48 AM

 

 

It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something?


If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert.

 

So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case?

 

Its not quite that cut and dry. A lack of a split makes it so SCOTUS will usually not grant cert, although sometimes they will if the case of high profile (or the violation egregious enough, as your slave law would be if the circuit court upheld it) or sometimes to set a precedent to preemptively prevent a split from occurring

 

When there is a split they almost have to grant cert, to settle the split and create a single precedent nationwide


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#824 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 15 January 2020 - 02:28 PM

So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case?


Such a law would violate well-established legal precedent. To get to the SC, the case would have to go through the applicable appeals court first. The SC would most likely just send the case back to the appeals court without hearing it and order the appeals court to apply the appropriate law.

As always, IANAL.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#825 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 15 January 2020 - 07:14 PM

If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert.

So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case?

Its not quite that cut and dry. A lack of a split makes it so SCOTUS will usually not grant cert, although sometimes they will if the case of high profile (or the violation egregious enough, as your slave law would be if the circuit court upheld it) or sometimes to set a precedent to preemptively prevent a split from occurring
 
When there is a split they almost have to grant cert, to settle the split and create a single precedent nationwide


AFAIK there was no circuit split or any other conflict between courts in the Caetano decision - it wasn't even a case in the Federal courts, it was an appeal from a state SC.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#826 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 19 January 2020 - 07:52 AM

There are few other places where a somewhat similar lawsuit could be made, like CA/N.Y. (permits not generally available to non residents), and SC (No unlicensed carry, non resident permits not available, limited reciprocity).

But let's not forget NYSRPA isn't a split either. In any case I'm counting on this to be added to the other cases pending NYSRPA

#827 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 19 January 2020 - 10:23 AM

It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something?


If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert.
So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case?

The odds heavily favor Scotus granting cert when there's a split. But it isn't guaranteed by any means. They've left deep splits in place for years and taken no split cases like NYSRPA. Just depends on getting the necessary 4 votes.

#828 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,592 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Yesterday, 02:31 PM

I believe the case will be in conference at SCOTUS for consideration in mid-February. 


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#829 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted Yesterday, 03:11 PM

I believe the case will be in conference at SCOTUS for consideration in mid-February.


It's not currently scheduled, but Culp did just respond today to Raoul's opposition brief, so it probably won't be too long now.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#830 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,592 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Yesterday, 04:52 PM

Response filed today.

 

Attached File  Response to U.S. Supreme Court Culp.pdf   457.66KB   17 downloads


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#831 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,592 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Yesterday, 05:08 PM

 

I believe the case will be in conference at SCOTUS for consideration in mid-February.


It's not currently scheduled, but Culp did just respond today to Raoul's opposition brief, so it probably won't be too long now.

 

Do you have a link to the conference list?


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#832 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted Yesterday, 06:56 PM

Not on the Feb. 21 Conference List as far as I could tell:  https://certpool.com...nces/2020-02-21



#833 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,592 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Yesterday, 10:20 PM

Can cases still be added to that list?


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#834 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted Yesterday, 10:50 PM

Can cases still be added to that list?


The SC has conferences approximately weekly through June 25 for this term. There's plenty of opportunity for a case to get added to conference.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users