Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Oral Arguments are up: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/sk.17-2998.17-2998_09_20_2018.mp3

 

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this was an absolute train wreck. Our side has fallen right into the trap of arguing all the minutiae of the various state laws, even offering annual mental health exams in order to apply.

 

Why aren't we arguing that this is the same ban in Moore, Young, and the 19th Century cases cited in Heller, just for non-residents? It just isn't any more complicated than that, unless there's something I'm missing.

 

And it looks like Trump has whiffed on Michael Scudder's appointment to the 7th Circuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why anyone here is surprised.

 

Your two left-wing senators praised his appointment as well as the appointment of St. Eve. You know, the judge who thinks gun-free zones which extend 1,000 feet from schools are constitutional.

 

Here is a link to the Durbin, Duckworth joint statement praising the nomination of Scudder and St. Eve. -> https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/press-releases/durbin-duckworth-statement-on-nomination-of-michael-scudder-and-amy-st-eve-for-the-7th-circuit-court-of-appeals

 

“We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge St. Eve and Mr. Scudder. They both have the experience, integrity, and judgment that we look for in federal judges, and we expect them to serve with distinction on the Seventh Circuit. We appreciate the Administration’s willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well. We look forward to guiding these nominations through the Senate.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The illogic of legally allowing me (a law abiding, lcensed and fully trained citizen that TEACHES the Illinois CCL classes) to carry a gun virtually anywhere in Illinois EXCEPT while in public outside my car should be so obviously an undue burden on my right to keep and BEAR arms, that even Federal judges would understand it to be so. The greatest risks occur when you are NOT in your car, home or fixed place of business, but out on the streets.

I heard one of the judges desire for studies and research on such matters. With all due respect to Federal judges, who I presume to be highly intelligent, have they no ability to think, particularly when the State of Illinois' own regulations have no way to determine if their own residents are in continued compliance with their rules after they've received their license?

I know of Illinois CCL holders (two of which were students of mine) that have used their firearm to save their life while in Indiana outside their car or fixed place of business. It would be nice if I was afforded the same consideration while spending time in Illinois, but I'm not asking for that. Simply that I may apply for and obtain an Illinois license.

As it is now, I may drive to a class or work place in Illinois while carrying. I can carry while at work. I can carry when going home. I can carry when going to get gas. I just cannot carry when I get out of my car while actually punping gas, which is when I am most vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why anyone here is surprised.

 

Your two left-wing senators praised his appointment as well as the appointment of St. Eve. You know, the judge who thinks gun-free zones which extend 1,000 feet from schools are constitutional.

 

Here is a link to the Durbin, Duckworth joint statement praising the nomination of Scudder and St. Eve. -> https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/press-releases/durbin-duckworth-statement-on-nomination-of-michael-scudder-and-amy-st-eve-for-the-7th-circuit-court-of-appeals

 

“We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge St. Eve and Mr. Scudder. They both have the experience, integrity, and judgment that we look for in federal judges, and we expect them to serve with distinction on the Seventh Circuit. We appreciate the Administration’s willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well. We look forward to guiding these nominations through the Senate.”[/size]

Guess the Senate is still using the blue slips.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is ridiculous and I was disappointed Sigale didn't just tell the judges that it's not his client's problem that IL can't run what they deem is a proper background or monitoring check.

Exactly. I've stated many times that a regulatory system that is impossible is obviously an unreasonable burden, and can't even pass rational basis as far as a government regulation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I've stated many times that a regulatory system that is impossible is obviously an unreasonable burden, and can't even pass rational basis as far as a government regulation.

"Rational basis" doesn't mean what you may think it means. For judicial review of a law, rational basis just means the law has some reason to exist, even an unsubstantiated ideological assertion (e.g., "banning guns will eliminate crime"). It simply cannot be arbitrary or capricious (e.g., "ban guns because I don't like them").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have listened to the audio and the questioning was brutal but it was brutal on both sides. When questioning the attorney for the state, I felt the judges could possibly lean our way. It's hard to say, can't judge a judge by their questions.

 

We'll see! I'm not discouraged!

They often tear an attorney for one side apart, then rule in that side's favor. It's the questions asked by two judges going in the same direction that is often telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

It has been a while since orals. But now with SCOTUS hearing the NYSRPA case I'm wondering if the panel decides to hold off making a ruling until SCOTUS rules on that case.

We're entering what, the fifth year of this suit? What's another year or two in the overall scheme of things? Fighting cancer this past year I wasn't sure I'd be around for the end, but now that I'm in remission, I can hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It has been a while since orals. But now with SCOTUS hearing the NYSRPA case I'm wondering if the panel decides to hold off making a ruling until SCOTUS rules on that case.

 

We're entering what, the fifth year of this suit? What's another year or two in the overall scheme of things? Fighting cancer this past year I wasn't sure I'd be around for the end, but now that I'm in remission, I can hope.
I hope you see many more!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

It has been a while since orals. But now with SCOTUS hearing the NYSRPA case I'm wondering if the panel decides to hold off making a ruling until SCOTUS rules on that case.

We're entering what, the fifth year of this suit? What's another year or two in the overall scheme of things? Fighting cancer this past year I wasn't sure I'd be around for the end, but now that I'm in remission, I can hope.

 

 

 

Sorry to hear you were going through this. I am so thankful you are now in remission!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They often tear an attorney for one side apart, then rule in that side's favor. It's the questions asked by two judges going in the same direction that is often telling.
They tore into Illinois then ruled in favor of Moore. They tore into Shepard's counsel Thompson and ruled in favor of the state. I don't even try to predict anymore but the longer this is out, the better it is for Col. Culp. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They often tear an attorney for one side apart, then rule in that side's favor. It's the questions asked by two judges going in the same direction that is often telling.
They tore into Illinois then ruled in favor of Moore. They tore into Shepard's counsel Thompson and ruled in favor of the state. I don't even try to predict anymore but the longer this is out, the better it is for Col. Culp. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Typically this would mean a split decision one way or another with a long delay (7th circuit timing). But there's NYSRPA being taken by SCOTUS and one of the judges during orals suggesting the IL Supremes get a crack at interpreting the statute. So we wait.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
My issue is the laziness of the ISP to send out surveys. They should analyze the laws of the other states themselves and make a determination if they are substantially similar. They are the ones the at are required to do the work by statute, not the other states. An they are should make decisions based on the information provided, or the lack there of limit their liability.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7th Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs this past week. Two judges - Hamilton and Scudder against. One judge, Manion, offers dissenting opinion why plaintiffs should prevail in this case.

 

attachicon.gif48 - Opinion of 041219.pdf

 

Next step will be to determine whether to request en banc hearing or appeal to U.S. Supreme Court.

Odds are decent for en banc, so I'd try that first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yes--a petition for an en banc review was filed last week.

 

Additionally, the Missouri Attorney General filed an amicus brief on behalf of the states of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. The brief favors the plaintiffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 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...