Jump to content

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


skinnyb82

Recommended Posts

Secondly, if any of these atrocities disguised as bills happen to pass during the veto session restaraunt carry, church carry etc. can another complaint be filed by either Sheppard or Moore or will it have to be actually enacted?

 

Posner made it pretty clear in orals that new law = new lawsuit.

 

But until he files his opinion isn't it still fluid? Myerscough hadn't ruled on Moore which was a joint case at the time of the initial ruling by the 7th. If he can take into account the Myerscough ruling and the GA continues to make the carrying of ready to us firearms even more burdensome and restrictive couldn't he also take that into account?

 

I understand what he was saying shot a new suit to challenge the implementation if the law, but in essence we are still talking about the rigt to carry being denied and even denied further before it is actually implemented. I don't know if this can be handled with Sheppard or maybe Moore needs to take over the complaint?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Posner will consider some of what Myerscough wrote, but I speculate that he won't entertain expanding scope of the existing suit to new laws, however onerous, at the request of the plaintiff.

 

I hope that is the way it goes, as it is Moore's relief was not granted by the FCCA so it's very possible that the State will have to revised FCCA to at minimum grant the relief in Mioore, than the new lawsuits can fly to pick apart the FCCA on the many other grounds that it violates...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure how the panel would even address the Moore FAC that Myerscough cited in her ruling. Posner and Flaum didn't address it in the Moore opinion and order, it's like they just completely disregarded the stun gun, taser, etc portion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure how the panel would even address the Moore FAC that Myerscough cited in her ruling. Posner and Flaum didn't address it in the Moore opinion and order, it's like they just completely disregarded the stun gun, taser, etc portion.

 

the stun gun and TASER thing appears to have been addressed as I pointed out in another post. take a look at the violations section of the FCCA. The FCCA prohibits punishment of licensees for violation of the two sections of IL law that actually prohibit carrying of stun guns or TASERs. unless there are other sections of the law that somehow also ban carrying stun guns or TASERs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure how the panel would even address the Moore FAC that Myerscough cited in her ruling. Posner and Flaum didn't address it in the Moore opinion and order, it's like they just completely disregarded the stun gun, taser, etc portion.

 

the stun gun and TASER thing appears to have been addressed as I pointed out in another post. take a look at the violations section of the FCCA. The FCCA prohibits punishment of licensees for violation of the two sections of IL law that actually prohibit carrying of stun guns or TASERs. unless there are other sections of the law that somehow also ban carrying stun guns or TASERs.

"Handgun" means any device which is designed to expel a

projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion,

expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held

and fired by the use of a single hand. "Handgun" does not

include:

(1) a stun gun or taser;

(2) a machine gun as defined in item (i) of paragraph

(7) of subsection (a) of Section 24-1 of the Criminal Code

(3) a short-barreled rifle or shotgun as defined in

item (ii) of paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of Section

24-1 of the Criminal Code of 2012; or

(4) any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun, or

B-B gun which expels a single globular projectile not

exceeding .18 inch in diameter, or which has a maximum

muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second, or which

expels breakable paint balls containing washable marking

colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use

of a weapon when he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any

vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except

when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal

dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in

the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with

that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or

taser or other firearm; or

 

tasers and stun guns are still banned all around. the preemption clauses does still cover it but illinois has not removed the section of law that bans them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure how the panel would even address the Moore FAC that Myerscough cited in her ruling. Posner and Flaum didn't address it in the Moore opinion and order, it's like they just completely disregarded the stun gun, taser, etc portion.

 

the stun gun and TASER thing appears to have been addressed as I pointed out in another post. take a look at the violations section of the FCCA. The FCCA prohibits punishment of licensees for violation of the two sections of IL law that actually prohibit carrying of stun guns or TASERs. unless there are other sections of the law that somehow also ban carrying stun guns or TASERs.

 

i think I may have read the section wrong. it seems to only apply to people actually convicted of violating the FCCA. What a strange thing to add. Does this mean they can still charge you with UUW in lieu of violating the FCCA? I don't think so but who knows what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly it took 3 or 4 months between the oral arguements and and the original ruling so I do not expect a ruling for at least 3 or 4 months.

 

by then at least one permit will have been issued.

Unless the ISP screws up making permits available.

 

my guess is they will start issuing permits to instructors in january just so they can claim they are issuing.

 

whether they issue to anyone else without making them wait the allowed 90 or 120 days is something on which we will just have to wait and see. my guess at this point is that since they have made no effort at all to do anything to date any faster than they are required to there is no reason to believe they will issue any licenses any faster than required.

 

who knows if the systems they bought to do the licenses will even work? this is Illinois after all, and there is no reason to believe that competence at putting a system like this together is actually required to get the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case was taken on an expedited basis. Expedited doesn't mean they publish an opinion immediately. The Court does have other cases....ones that are arguably higher up on the totem pole than Shepard. A huge batch of opinions will be published this week, well that's my prediction.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following case was argued 10-3-13 and was decided today. Does this give us any indication that we should expect a finding soon in Shepard?

13-1821 Mark Suesz v.

Med-1 Solutions, LLC civil 10/31/2013 Final

Opinion Flaum 13-1821 Mark Suesz v.

Med-1 Solutions, LLC civil 10/31/2013 Final

Opinion

Posner

dissents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting to be ridiculous! I know I know the courts march to their own drum, work at their own speed etc etc etc etc; but for us low life common folks, this is taking way to long. About time someone either dumps or gets off the pot!

 

Ok, I'll go back to sleep now

 

I agree. I keep checking three or four times per day and get disappointed every time. MAYBE SOON!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have an RSS reader app set up on my phone to sync to new opinions. It's not about WHEN it was argued, it's about which judge is drafting the opinion and some judges take longer than others. It also depends on the particular judge's caseload and the cases themselves. Posner clearly takes his time with every opinion which is not the worst thing in the world. I saw he drafted a couple opinions for cases argued on 9/24 and decided last week and then an opinion for a case argued on 9/12 was published today so there's no way to predict when it'll be. Settle down, we're just along for the ride.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have an RSS reader app set up on my phone to sync to new opinions. It's not about WHEN it was argued, it's about which judge is drafting the opinion and some judges take longer than others. It also depends on the particular judge's caseload and the cases themselves. Posner clearly takes his time with every opinion which is not the worst thing in the world. I saw he drafted a couple opinions for cases argued on 9/24 and decided last week and then an opinion for a case argued on 9/12 was published today so there's no way to predict when it'll be. Settle down, we're just along for the ride.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Thanks for the insight into the process. I am just anxious to see what he decides (like everyone else). :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have an RSS reader app set up on my phone to sync to new opinions. It's not about WHEN it was argued, it's about which judge is drafting the opinion and some judges take longer than others. It also depends on the particular judge's caseload and the cases themselves. Posner clearly takes his time with every opinion which is not the worst thing in the world. I saw he drafted a couple opinions for cases argued on 9/24 and decided last week and then an opinion for a case argued on 9/12 was published today so there's no way to predict when it'll be. Settle down, we're just along for the ride.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

Yeah I know; but I ain't gotta like it!!!!!!!

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...