nocaster Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:29 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:29 PM I really wanted to go, but I've missed too many days of work in the past month. Not sure if I count as being "in the know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:30 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:30 PM will a decision be made today No, though it could be as soon as a week or anytime until they adjourn in August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nocaster Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:30 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:30 PM will a decision be made today No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:30 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:30 PM Flaum was an assistant States Attorney of Cook co. and assistant Attorney General of Illinois, I'm not sure what that says about his political views, but just being a Regan appointee doesn't tell the whole story.Should be interesting to see how this plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:31 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:31 PM will a decision be made today No ... again ... no. The arguments are today. It takes time to write decisions. Some have suggested the decision will come down in early August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:32 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:32 PM Just a reminder to those attending, today's session starts at 9:00, a departure from their usual, advertised 9:30 start time. I'm not familiar with protocol or etiquette of this court, but I'm guessing it would be best to be inside the courtroom and in your seat well before court is called to order at 9:00. Court room etiquette:Don't be late.Take your hat off.No snapping bubble gum.Turn your phone off.NO CHEERING. ;-)That is all.DM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:39 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:39 PM August 8th is the final day so it won't be any later than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:41 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:41 PM Who's presenting Madigan / chicago's argument? Which atty's ? Garand I'm trying to remember about the McDonald case, I cant recall if the clerks office was efficient enough to make the argument available on line the same day of the case or not? I thought they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:45 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:45 PM Who's presenting Madigan / chicago's argument? Which atty's ? Garand I'm trying to remember about the McDonald case, I cant recall if the clerks office was efficient enough to make the argument available on line the same day of the case or not? I thought they did. My recollection is that the audio was up later the same day. The opinion was out pretty much a week...many of us speculated it had been drafted prior to the oral arguments! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:48 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:48 PM Quick search. We should be able to get the argument here when posted: http://feed://www.ca...submit=rss_args And the official 7th district court of appeals website http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggro_jo Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:55 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:55 PM Again, Many thanks to the folks who closely follow these cases and the legislative sessions and give us the info in plain english! Can someone please point me to a paragraph as to exactly what this case is about? A little bit of searching has left me dizzy. TIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:58 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 02:58 PM Can someone please point me to a paragraph as to exactly what this case is about? A little bit of searching has left me dizzy. TIA I can paraphrase ... The cases (Moore and Shepard) regard the question of whether Illinois' complete ban on bearing arms is unconstitutional in light of those rights protected under the second amendment (the right to keep and bear arms). While the Heller case (DC) was about whether we have the right to keep arms, these cases (Illinois) are about whether we have the right to bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:05 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:05 PM Does the Second Amendment protect the right to bear arms outside the home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:10 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:10 PM So let me see if I understand this, I am much better at understanding what is going on in the ILGA but i still struggle with courts. From riffling through all the post I have concluded that: 1. A win for us means we will be able to carry constitutionally?!?!?! i.e. Arizona, vermont? 2. A win from us will be appealed and SCOTUS probably won't hear the appeal and therefore the ruling stands??3. We lose, we appeal and SCOTUS will accept our appeal??? Please correct me, so i can understand this better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:15 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:15 PM So let me see if I understand this, I am much better at understanding what is going on in the ILGA but i still struggle with courts. From riffling through all the post I have concluded that: 1. A win for us means we will be able to carry constitutionally?!?!?! i.e. Arizona, vermont?2. A win from us will be appealed and SCOTUS probably won't hear the appeal and therefore the ruling stands??3. We lose, we appeal and SCOTUS will accept our appeal??? Please correct me, so i can understand this better. If we win and the court grants the injunction, we'll be able to carry with an FOID card. However, IL will likely appeal and also will likely request a stay of the injunction pending that appeal. They could either appeal directly to SCOTUS or appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals again 'en banc'. This means another hearing before the entire panel of judges instead of just the 3 we drew today. If we lose we will appeal to SCOTUS and they may or many not hear the case. There are other scenarios like we win but the case is punted back down to the District Court for another trial. This will add another year or two. This is what happened to Ezell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:18 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:18 PM Ugh!! I thought Ezell was a fast case? You would think at some point the courts would get tired of this and just rule on it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:30 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:30 PM You forgot there will be the wild west in the streets catch phrase. Geez where are they ? We should hear something by now. Chaos in the streets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:32 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:32 PM You forgot there will be the wild west in the streets catch phrase. Geez where are they ? We should hear something by now.it has not started yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:37 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:37 PM It was scheduled for 9am. My guess is that the lower courts want to pass the buck. They know people will be very upset either way, and so they'll do what they can to let someone else (SCOTUS) make the decision. Maybe not, but it feels like the buck is being passed around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:51 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:51 PM Ok WOW You wont beleive the tapes when they come out. Short answer is they dont seem to be buying tye ban. But. Will see. The state did poorly and they have to know they have a very big problem on their hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:54 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:54 PM Ok WOW You wont beleive the tapes when they come out. Short answer is they dont seem to be buying tye ban. But. Will see. The state did poorly and they have to know they have a very big problem on their hand Yeah, I had a great but brief report from Colleen on her way home. She has notes and I'm sure she'll share them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:54 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:54 PM Patience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:56 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:56 PM WOOOOOOOOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:57 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:57 PM Todd posted this in the other discussion Ok WOW You wont beleive the tapes when they come out. Short answer is they dont seem to be buying tye ban. But. Will see. The state did poorly and they have to know they have a very big problem on their hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:59 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 03:59 PM Ok. WOW They were not buying the states total ban. When the state said the apex of the 2A wasin the home one of the judges near the end rejected it and said no its self defense and hinted outside the home. Very differnet from McDonald. They seemed to be looking for the opposite of Wollard that a may issues discreationary law would get them past the consitutional question of a ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:02 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:02 PM Colleen says the judges had good poker faces, but their questions and comments gave her a distinct warm fuzzy feeling. Williams is a woman and referenced women and teachers etc being disarmed when leaving the home and prey for attackers. Posner questioned why Chicago is so special. More when Colleen gets back with her notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:02 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:02 PM Hope I didn't step on your toes ToddV. So, they seem to be leaning towards saying may issue is ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:03 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:03 PM Ok WOW You wont beleive the tapes when they come out. Short answer is they dont seem to be buying tye ban. But. Will see. The state did poorly and they have to know they have a very big problem on their hand Damn it, Todd. Now I am even MORE excited to hear that argument audio! Great report (too brief, but still appreciated)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:03 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:03 PM AHHHHH I'm so anxious to hear Colleen's notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:04 PM Share Posted June 8, 2012 at 04:04 PM I have to leave soon and I'll be gone for awhile. If someone would be so kind as to PM me the link to the audio, when it is posted, I would greatly appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.