89 replies to this topic

[Johnnybgood]

Nope, just new to me. I am going through and updating myself on what is happening with as many of these as possible. I have been behind the 8 ball.

[Molly B.]

Discussion continues in new thread started by ToddV.

[mauserme]

Molly B., on 14 October 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

Discussion continues in new thread started by ToddV.

I don't see anything terribly new there.   Are you anticipating something?

[Molly B.]

mauserme, on 14 October 2011 - 09:41 AM, said:

Molly B., on 14 October 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

Discussion continues in new thread started by ToddV.

I don't see anything terribly new there.   Are you anticipating something?

I would like to anticipate something!!  But no, I'm just helping to direct new members who are interested in following the case and thought the discussion ended back in August.

[mrmagloo]

Yeah, I was going to say, the judge is really dragging her fanny on this one!

[stm]

mrmagloo, on 14 October 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

Yeah, I was going to say, the judge is really dragging her fanny on this one!

I think that's Moore v. Madigan you're think of. Judge Sue Myerscough has been sitting on a ruling on a Preliminary Injunction in that case since the hearing on August 4th. I don't think there have been any hearings in this case yet.

When is the hearing scheduled in this case?

[abolt243]

stm, on 14 October 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

mrmagloo, on 14 October 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

Yeah, I was going to say, the judge is really dragging her fanny on this one!

I think that's Moore v. Madigan you're think of. Judge Sue Myerscough has been sitting on a ruling on a Preliminary Injunction in that case since the hearing on August 4th. I don't think there have been any hearings in this case yet.

When is the hearing scheduled in this case?

As posted in the other thread, the Judge has not asked for a hearing in this case.  He may well rule based on briefs with no verbal hearing.

At least that's what I understand.

AB

[Mark C.]

This case finally came out of hibernation today.

Regarding the Plaintiff Motion for a PI, that motion is DENIED due to being...."Moot".

Moot, because the Plaintiffs requested so! The case will now move forward on Merits/Pleadings alone. As long as its moving along, I guess I should be happy.

The Court also tidied house, clearing up a few outstanding issues. An Amicus from the NRA is coming, the Defendants will be submitting a Supplemental Authority brief that they requested back on 9/12/11. Yes, this Court is moving VERY slow and is completely impartial in that respect.

The Plaintiff's request for a PI was Doc 22 and was submitted on 7/8/11.


Quote:
11/16/2011 53 ORDER DENYING 22[RECAP] Motion for Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction as moot; DENYING 25[RECAP] Motion for Extension of Time filed by defendant Livesay as moot, defendant's brief having been filed; GRANTING 44 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief by National Rifle Association, and brief shall be filed instanter; GRANTING 50 Motion for leave to file supplemental authority. Signed by Judge William D. Stiehl on 11/16/2011. (jaf) (Entered: 11/16/2011)  

http://www.archive.o....52207.53.0.pdf
 53 Shepard Orders.pdf   10.58K   91 downloads

[mauserme]

Quote

Plaintiffs' motion for a hearing (Doc. 22) on the motion for preliminary injunction

is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs have advised the Court that a hearing is no longer

sought and the matters may proceed on the pleadings.

Seems at odds with plaintiff's 9/16/11 filing.

[TFC]

I get the sense that something else is going on.
The judge probably wanted the state to have plenty of time to address this legislatively and get it off of the docket. It didn't happen, so it's going forward.
Look for a ruling on some late afternoon before the end of the year. Either right around Thanksgiving or Christmas when the news cycle will be distracted by "shiny things."

Edited by TFC, 16 November 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[Tvandermyde]

the hearing on the motion of injunction is moot, not the motion or the injunction itself.

I've got a call on it tommorow, I'll know more then.

[tysonu74]

Sorry im a simpleton in regards to the Judicial system, but what does this mean?  (Just saw todds post, guess He will have more info tomorow)

[mauserme]

Tvandermyde, on 16 November 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:

the hearing on the motion of injunction is moot, not the motion or the injunction itself.

Well that's a very interesting piece of information...

[NakPPI]

mauserme, on 16 November 2011 - 10:30 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 16 November 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:

the hearing on the motion of injunction is moot, not the motion or the injunction itself.

Well that's a very interesting piece of information...

The motion for summary judgment moots having a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. There are a lot of reasons for doing this, the most important of which is the fact that the standards for summary judgment are completely different from an injunction. If we win a motion for summary judgment, the case is over and we win. A win on a preliminary injunction is just the tip of the iceberg. Look what happened in Ezell, they won the injunction and they are still arguing about irreparable harm, etc. There still isn't a judgment in Ezell. Thus, mooting your own motion for preliminary injunction avoids the legal bickering we currently have in Ezell and could actually move the case along faster in the long term... The end result would be the same, except that we have a "judgment" instead of a preliminary injunction order.

Edited by NakPPI, 16 November 2011 - 10:43 PM.

[milq]

Thanks for explaining what all that stuff really meant NakPPI!

[Drylok]

Tvandermyde, on 16 November 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:

the hearing on the motion of injunction is moot, not the motion or the injunction itself.

I've got a call on it tommorow, I'll know more then.

Hm that gives me warm fuzzy feelings.

[papa]

milq, on 16 November 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

Thanks for explaining what all that stuff really meant NakPPI!

I am glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand all the lawyer talk.

[Talonap]

papa, on 16 November 2011 - 11:59 PM, said:

milq, on 16 November 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

Thanks for explaining what all that stuff really meant NakPPI!

I am glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand all the lawyer talk.

The lawyers probably don't understand it either - they just make it up as they go along to look smart... (kidding)  

[bob]

TFC, on 16 November 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

I get the sense that something else is going on.
The judge probably wanted the state to have plenty of time to address this legislatively and get it off of the docket. It didn't happen, so it's going forward.
Look for a ruling on some late afternoon before the end of the year. Either right around Thanksgiving or Christmas when the news cycle will be distracted by "shiny things."

I see no way anything happens that quick. My guess is next summer. But like everyone else's speculation, it is just a guess.

[es503IL]

We could start a pool for dates that the decision comes out. Something like $5/date, winner gets half, half gets donated to some group that could use the money and supports the case.

[NakPPI]

Talonap, on 17 November 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

papa, on 16 November 2011 - 11:59 PM, said:

milq, on 16 November 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

Thanks for explaining what all that stuff really meant NakPPI!

I am glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand all the lawyer talk.

The lawyers probably don't understand it either - they just make it up as they go along to look smart... (kidding)  

A motion for summary judgment avoids a trial. The standard is "no genuine issue of material fact," which both sides should agree as being true. The "facts" are that Illinois prohibits the carrying of loaded firearms in public. The only issue left is a question of "law," which is whether these restrictions are constitutional and what standards apply.

A preliminary injunction order requires no adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm, etc. which we have discussed at length on this forum. If we had won this motion, as in Ezell, it would have forced the State to appeal and/or reconsider the law, HOWEVER, a win at this level wouldn't be the end of the case. Thus we have the current legal slapstick that is currently going on in Ezell.

A motion for summary judgment theoretically avoids the foolishness that is currently going on in Ezell, because a judgment order would be a final order, rather than a "preliminary" order. Which would then be appealed and hopefully affirmed by the 7th Circuit if we won at the trial level.  

[mstrat]

I don't understand what is moot about it. Anyone shed some light on this?

I thought I was reading the ezelle thread for a moment. In that case I can see a moot argument in response to a PI

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Tvandermyde]

my non-lawyer insight tells me we are in a state where a lot of judges are hiding behind other judges waiting for someone else to take the first step.

No one wants to be first and that may be what is slowing things down.

[NakPPI]

mstrat, on 17 November 2011 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't understand what is moot about it. Anyone shed some light on this?

I thought I was reading the ezelle thread for a moment. In that case I can see a moot argument in response to a PI

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

The thinking goes like this:
"Well, we aren't 100% sure that we can win under the preliminary injunction standards and even if we do win, it will result in months of legal bickering." (See Ezell)
"If we file a motion for summary judgment, we're basically conceding that the motion for preliminary injunction isn't a sure thing because this is an emerging area of law and the standards for a motion for summary judgment are much easier to meet."

An order of summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor still results in the agUUW/UUW laws being found unconstitutional, the statutes would simply be found unconstitutional under a different legal standard. Thus having a hearing on the motion for injunction is moot, as the summary judgment hearing would result in the same relief.

[Molly B.]

Posts about guessing when a decision might be heard have been moved to their own thread.

[bob]

Tvandermyde, on 17 November 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

my non-lawyer insight tells me we are in a state where a lot of judges are hiding behind other judges waiting for someone else to take the first step.

No one wants to be first and that may be what is slowing things down.

I would not be one bit surprised if that is not at least part of what is going on.

This is not something to rule on lightly. It has a lot of implications well beyond allowing average law abiding citizen to carry firearms for self protection. Most of us would be "happy" with a "reasonable" LTC situation. But the requirement to purchase a license from the state to engage in a constitutionally protected activity is a major problem. No judge wants to go there, but very few are willing to look at what the 2A actually says and rule that it means what it actually says. If they did that, it could well throw out the requirement to have any LTC at all, eventually nationwide. Even judges that respect the constitution are going to tread slowly.

[frankw438]

Found this posted today:

NRA Amicus Brief

Quote

Neither Plaintiff Mary Shepard nor the NRA has predicated the challenge to Illinois’s law on any argument that allowing carriage in public would reduce crime rates.  Whichever way the debate goes on that issue, the constitutional right to bear arms remains the same, and it cannot be trumped by policy considerations – especially on the basis of evidence that the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the literature, that of the National Research Council, has found to be too ambiguous and inconclusive to serve as a basis for firearms policy.

This is the conclusion after they thoroughly trash the Frady Bunch's so-called "statistics."

-- Frank

Edited by frankw438, 19 November 2011 - 06:36 PM.

[NakPPI]

frankw438, on 19 November 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

Found this posted today:

NRA Amicus Brief

Quote

Neither Plaintiff Mary Shepard nor the NRA has predicated the challenge to Illinois’s law on any argument that allowing carriage in public would reduce crime rates.  Whichever way the debate goes on that issue, the constitutional right to bear arms remains the same, and it cannot be trumped by policy considerations – especially on the basis of evidence that the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the literature, that of the National Research Council, has found to be too ambiguous and inconclusive to serve as a basis for firearms policy.

This is the conclusion after they thoroughly trash the Frady Bunch's so-called "statistics."

-- Frank

Heller specifically took "statistic analyzing" off the table. The Brady Bunch is trying to cloud the legal issues with statistics while arguing the dissenting opinions in Heller. They could basically cut and paste their legal briefs at this point.

[Mr. Fife]

Illinois- where you are only 3/5 human.

[stm]

I think their logic is that if intermediate scrutiny applies, they can present evidence (statistics) on why the state has a compelling interest in infringing upon our rights.