Jump to content

Shepard v. Madigan - Orals - 10/3/2013


skinnyb82

Recommended Posts

They can't take 5 years... The FCCA gave them a finite amount of time...

 

And the FOID card law requires 30 days issuance. And look at how things are now.

 

I believe another lawsuit is waiting if they ignore those deadlines. Posner even recommended that!

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can hear the Chicago anti-gun tone in the judges' statements. Was one comparing constitutional carry to being a cop and having similar training?

 

I did not hear any anti-gun rhetoric at all. They seemed annoyed over a point of law. I don't think this hurts us any at all. They were never going to give us temporary FOID carry anyway.

 

I think it may have turned out to be a bad tactic to ask for that. It would have been a mess if such a request was granted anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't take 5 years... The FCCA gave them a finite amount of time...

 

And the FOID card law requires 30 days issuance. And look at how things are now.

 

I believe another lawsuit is waiting of they ignore those deadlines. Posner even recommended that!

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

 

Sure, and how long did Sheppard take? And where are we now? Still with no carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was maddening to listen to. How did you guys restrain yourselves?! While Posner's legal reasoning could be spot on, he was just plain rude. Thompson got cut off every time he spoke. That was very unprofessional of Posner.

We were in CA7 court room, not a bar. Very easy to restrain oneself in that setting.

 

Although, I was sitting on the back bench mumbling to myself at a low enough volume so that the judges couldnt hear. And I did let out a couple of louder "meh" in honor of TyGuy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't expecting FOID or constitutional carry (hoped for but not expecting) but I did expect a fair give and take on it. Guess I am naive! And I guess there ain't nothing one can do about a judge acting this way expect maybe appeal??

 

Since it seems that their minds were made up, can we expect a quick ruling or do you think they will draw that out too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ignoring the deadline is exactly what the state will do when something doesn't suit them.

I'd say file a new suit based on the previous rulings.

The courts can always toss it if the state shows an honest effort at implementation.

Based on the judges attitude today, all the state has to do is issue one permit and they're good.

As moronic as that may seem, that's how these people seem to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find some of Posner's statements quite confusing, like repeatedly asking Thompson how many hours police training lasts, and how, if FOID carry were allowed in the meantime, that his plaintiffs would be unhappy at having to go back and get their permits later.

 

Would simultaneous lawsuits in Federal and state district courts help keep the expected timeline for permit issuance intact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find some of Posner's statements quite confusing, like repeatedly asking Thompson how many hours police training lasts, and how, if FOID carry were allowed in the meantime, that his plaintiffs would be unhappy at having to go back and get their permits later.

 

Would simultaneous lawsuits in Federal and state district courts help keep the expected timeline for permit issuance intact?

He actually said a couple of times that people wouldn't be happy if they had to give up their "guns" if they failed to receive a CCL permit. When in fact what I think the judge meant was that they wouldn't be happy to give up their right to carry at a later date if FOID carry was allowed right now.

 

Mr. Thompson correctly answered (since he didnt get cut off by Posner) yes they would be unhappy about that but that would be the individual's problem if they were denied a CCL permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find some of Posner's statements quite confusing, like repeatedly asking Thompson how many hours police training lasts, and how, if FOID carry were allowed in the meantime, that his plaintiffs would be unhappy at having to go back and get their permits later.

 

Would simultaneous lawsuits in Federal and state district courts help keep the expected timeline for permit issuance intact?

He actually said a couple of times that people wouldn't be happy if they had to give up their "guns" if they failed to receive a CCL permit. When in fact what I think the judge meant was that they wouldn't be happy to give up their right to carry at a later date if FOID carry was allowed right now.

 

Mr. Thompson correctly answered (since he didnt get cut off by Posner) yes they would be unhappy about that but that would be the individual's problem if they were denied a CCL permit.

 

Just because you make FOID carry legal doesn't mean everyone with a FOID card would run home to get their gun and start carrying it. Those of us who already have carry permits might, but I doubt every FOID holder would. Plus, they would know that they would either have to qualify or give it up once licensing starts. So what would be so terribly wrong if people carried to protect themselves? I remember Posner telling the tale of his relatives carrying while riding horses in the Wild West. I don't recall him riding his horse to the police academy every day or wearing a badge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Posner sounds more like an attorney arguing his case than an impartial judge hearing a case.

 

Be happy you actually went to work today...as in earned money instead of jaw dropped within 15 seconds of orals beginning.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Posner sounds more like an attorney arguing his case than an impartial judge hearing a case.

 

Be happy you actually went to work today...as in earned money instead of jaw dropped within 15 seconds of orals beginning.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

That's what it sounds like. It almost sounds like Judge Posner is regretting the opinion he wrote last December.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find some of Posner's statements quite confusing, like repeatedly asking Thompson how many hours police training lasts, and how, if FOID carry were allowed in the meantime, that his plaintiffs would be unhappy at having to go back and get their permits later.

 

Would simultaneous lawsuits in Federal and state district courts help keep the expected timeline for permit issuance intact?

He actually said a couple of times that people wouldn't be happy if they had to give up their "guns" if they failed to receive a CCL permit. When in fact what I think the judge meant was that they wouldn't be happy to give up their right to carry at a later date if FOID carry was allowed right now.

 

Mr. Thompson correctly answered (since he didnt get cut off by Posner) yes they would be unhappy about that but that would be the individual's problem if they were denied a CCL permit.

 

Just because you make FOID carry legal doesn't mean everyone with a FOID card would run home to get their gun and start carrying it. Those of us who already have carry permits might, but I doubt every FOID holder would. Plus, they would know that they would either have to qualify or give it up once licensing starts. So what would be so terribly wrong if people carried to protect themselves? I remember Posner telling the tale of his relatives carrying while riding horses in the Wild West. I don't recall him riding his horse to the police academy every day or wearing a badge.

I wasn't agreeing with him Mr. Fife, just giving my opinion on what I believe he was TRYING to say. Certainly not defending the man because I totally disagree with his position. In my mind he was deflecting.

 

1/2 the people I know that have FOIDs only own rifles and shotguns. And I'd say only 50% of my friends with FOID will carry. So you are right about that. it's a much smaller percentage than he realizes yet he made a very big deal about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I listened to the entire thing.

 

I think Posner in particular was ticked off that the case was brought at all, and felt that it was a waste of the Court's time. There was a certain, "I gave you what you wanted in the main decision, and now you're complaining because you didn't get it quite as fast as you want it?" quality to the entire first two-thirds of the session. For sure he was doing a lot of work for the State's lawyer...

 

I hope that this episode doesn't in some way influence him, and other 7th Circuit judges, in an adverse manner as our other cases mature and come before them.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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