Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Not surprisingly, Madigan et al filed another extension request. The court approved it. The appellees’ response is now due Feb 7, and the plaintiffs’ reply is due Feb 21. Rationale given for the extension request is, simply put, “...too busy with other cases.”

 

How can this kind of stalling cr@p-wankery be prevented by the plaintiff, especially after so many BS delays and delaying motions? There surely has to be some sort of recourse that the plaintiff's attorney can file to stop this blatant stalling tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really no way to compel the court to take action, they could sit on the case for years if they wanted to. Other than the usual incessant stalling by the state, they are probably additionally motivated to wait to see if nationwide recognition passes which would moot the need for an injunction and avoid them losing yet another 2A case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not surprisingly, Madigan et al filed another extension request. The court approved it. The appellees’ response is now due Feb 7, and the plaintiffs’ reply is due Feb 21. Rationale given for the extension request is, simply put, “...too busy with other cases.”

 

 

 

How can this kind of stalling cr@p-wankery be prevented by the plaintiff, especially after so many BS delays and delaying motions? There surely has to be some sort of recourse that the plaintiff's attorney can file to stop this blatant stalling tactic.

It works because it's the government. Courts always grant extensions for the government. They just assume that the lawyers are overworked. I mean, I don't think that the motions panel will keep granting extensions. They will say "ENOUGH" but the whole "I went on vacation" or "I'm a poor ($100k salaried) AAG and overworked" excuses are accepted by the court on a regular basis.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Here's an idea for them.

 

Since it's ok to just change the acceptible-states list at will, just change the list to green light all the states where the plantiffs live. Then they can go to the court and say, case is moot. Then a year from now, change the list back and revoke any licenses from those states. Problem solved. I'm surprised the dedicated and helpful public servants in the IL AG and ISP legal haven't thought of that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday the AAG requested a third extension (usual excuses—too busy), which the court approved. The defendants’ brief is now due March 9. The court said they expect the briefings to proceed as scheduled after this extension since CA7’s docket is current.

. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday the AAG requested a third extension (usual excuses—too busy), which the court approved. The defendants’ brief is now due March 9. The court said they expect the briefings to proceed as scheduled after this extension since CA7’s docket is current.

If the court put that in writing then that should be the last extension. I think this happened in another case and once the court pretty much said "That's it," they finally got their s***t together and filed the brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea for them.

 

Since it's ok to just change the acceptible-states list at will, just change the list to green light all the states where the plantiffs live. Then they can go to the court and say, case is moot. Then a year from now, change the list back and revoke any licenses from those states. Problem solved. I'm surprised the dedicated and helpful public servants in the IL AG and ISP legal haven't thought of that yet.

I thought there were IN residents as part of this; if they green light them then they throw out training as being needed to be substantially similar. That starts down a very dangerous path for them. It'll get so ridiculous (more than it is even now) that they could lose on rational basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here's an idea for them.

 

Since it's ok to just change the acceptible-states list at will, just change the list to green light all the states where the plantiffs live. Then they can go to the court and say, case is moot. Then a year from now, change the list back and revoke any licenses from those states. Problem solved. I'm surprised the dedicated and helpful public servants in the IL AG and ISP legal haven't thought of that yet.

I thought there were IN residents as part of this; if they green light them then they throw out training as being needed to be substantially similar. That starts down a very dangerous path for them. It'll get so ridiculous (more than it is even now) that they could lose on rational basis.

 

It was a sarcastic example of a ridiculous path that they could take in their zeal to delay and circumvent firearms rights. Such a stunt would also likely get them crushed by the judiciary in the subsequent litigation.

 

As far as Indiana, they should do an "enhanced" license like ID or ND, which with careful design could accomplish numerous things: meet Illinois requirements, as well as those of numerous other states like MN, ND, and NV. Such a license would alleviate the need for IN residents to add-on a FL or UT permit as so many do, as well as make IL possible.

 

I've stated before and will repeat, that if that happened, or something similar that would lead to a ton of out-of-state applicants, that some sort of reciprocity/recognition would soon be implemented. ISP does not want to be responsible for licensing people that are not IL residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the court put that in writing then that should be the last extension. I think this happened in another case and once the court pretty much said "That's it," they finally got their s***t together and filed the brief.

 

The same thing happened with this case during CA7 appeal of the preliminary injunction ruling. The third extension request by the State (which was approved) prompted the same cautionary note from the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gamma; I checked on handgunlaw and an Indiana resident only picks up 3 or 4 state by adding FL and UT. Indiana permits are already honored in Florida and several other states that do not honor the Illinois permit. I remember when the law was passed many of us thought the Illinois permit would be honored in almost all other states but that is not the case. That was the thought because of the totally excessive amount of training required. Indiana has no training required but is recognized in several more states because many states require reciprocity with the states they honor. So the law not only screws us on training time but also on carrying in other states. Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea for them.Since it's ok to just change the acceptible-states list at will, just change the list to green light all the states where the plantiffs live. Then they can go to the court and say, case is moot. Then a year from now, change the list back and revoke any licenses from those states. Problem solved. I'm surprised the dedicated and helpful public servants in the IL AG and ISP legal haven't thought of that yet.

Such a stunt would probably result in the state being held in contempt for perpetrating a fraud on the 7th circuit. Such a stunt would definitely prove to the 7th circuit that all their justifications are lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 

Here's an idea for them.Since it's ok to just change the acceptible-states list at will, just change the list to green light all the states where the plantiffs live. Then they can go to the court and say, case is moot. Then a year from now, change the list back and revoke any licenses from those states. Problem solved. I'm surprised the dedicated and helpful public servants in the IL AG and ISP legal haven't thought of that yet.

Such a stunt would probably result in the state being held in contempt for perpetrating a fraud on the 7th circuit. Such a stunt would definitely prove to the 7th circuit that all their justifications are lies.

Would probably take a motion from Plaintiff's counsel and the court would issue a show cause order. That would definitely piss off the Court, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Amazing. Despite the court’s caution that their docket is open and briefings are expected to continue as scheduled, Lisa Madigan et al just asked for a FOURTH extension to file their brief (April 9). The court hasn’t posted its response yet.

I'm sure she has a good reason.

 

They probably lost their crayon sharpener.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when the law was passed many of us thought the Illinois permit would be honored in almost all other states but that is not the case. That was the thought because of the totally excessive amount of training required.

That was only a thought if one had not actually looked at recognition/reciprocity before.

 

If so one would have known about the significant number of states that only do actual reciprocity, either via formal agreements or analysis. Since Illinois doesn't offer full recognition to anyone, none of those states would be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's NO good reason to delay fully briefing and hearing this appeal. I've been following this lawsuit since day one and...the motto of the Seventh Circuit is "justice delayed is justice denied." Not kidding. So if they put their money where their mouth(s) are, deny the motion and tell the state that they will not have a brief if it is not filed on time. Boo boo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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