840 replies to this topic

[mrpapageorgio]

TFC, on 09 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I was listening to the oral arguments again. Was the panel "signaling" to the plaintiffs to "advise" the defendants on what the CCW law "should" be?

I don't know if I'd call it signaling, it just seemed more that they were trying to prod what the plaintiffs thought was their definition of reasonable regulation. My definition would be, it's allowed everywhere not prohibited by federal law. Businesses do have the right to say they don't allow it on their property, but they are liable for the safety of their customers if they ban it and must have clear signage that they ban it at all entrances. Public colleges that receive public funds must allow it on campus, private colleges can restrict it, however they are liable for the safety of their students and must also have clear signage. This would also apply to state and local government buildings.

Referring to the arguments made in court, I understand that alcohol and guns don't mix, but not every person that goes to a bar, drinks. There's a lot of people there that are designated drivers for their groups. A lot of people also like to go to socialize and not have alcohol (which is why in Champaign they allow you to be 18 to enter bars, they just can't drink). I think a BAC limit of .08 is reasonable to have if you're carrying. We don't ban people from driving to/from a bar. We just tell them they must limit how much they drink so they can still operate a vehicle responsibly and the same should apply to carrying a firearm. A person is just as likely to be mugged walking to their car from a bar as they are walking to their car from the store.

[Tvandermyde]

Psner like to be a super legislator and tell them how to "fix" things from what I here from lawyers.

I also know one who's law professor clerked for him, and said he like to write law review articles and drop them in the middle of a opinion.

Posner came out and asked Gura, what suggestions should they give the legislature I think he used the word advise.

I think they may write an opinion opposite of Wollard that May issue would get the state out of the pickle they are in. That there can be different rules for different areas, such as Chicago vs Peoria. Good and moral character or just cuase is OK. This will put it at odds with Wollard and potentially keep a split in the circuits for SCOTUS which is good for us. I think the line from Justice Legg that the "eisitance of the right is all that is needed should become a mainstay in all the briefs going forward.

[Mr. Fife]

If I live in Chicago and am not allowed to defend myself outside the home while someone in Peoria is, how does that not violate my Constitutional Right?

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 10 June 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Psner like to be a super legislator and tell them how to "fix" things from what I here from lawyers.

I also know one who's law professor clerked for him, and said he like to write law review articles and drop them in the middle of a opinion.

Posner came out and asked Gura, what suggestions should they give the legislature I think he used the word advise.

I think they may write an opinion opposite of Wollard that May issue would get the state out of the pickle they are in. That there can be different rules for different areas, such as Chicago vs Peoria. Good and moral character or just cuase is OK. This will put it at odds with Wollard and potentially keep a split in the circuits for SCOTUS which is good for us. I think the line from Justice Legg that the "eisitance of the right is all that is needed should become a mainstay in all the briefs going forward.

The 2nd was incorporated against the States under under the 14th. G&S does not and will not pass muster. A decision endorsing or even hinting at a discriminatory system would be at odds with the amendment itself. A Federal Appellant Judge should already know this.

[dmefford]

Bump!  Any news?

Regards, Drd

[pyre400]

Lots of nuthin...

http://illinoiscarry...ic=30330&st=960

[lockman]

So much for Posner's comments about no more delays. I'll reserve further comment about this until after the close of the session.

[boog]

lockman, on 08 August 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

So much for Posner's comments about no more delays. I'll reserve further comment about this until after the close of the session.

Me too
Boog

[Gray Peterson]

Tvandermyde, on 10 June 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Psner like to be a super legislator and tell them how to "fix" things from what I here from lawyers.

I also know one who's law professor clerked for him, and said he like to write law review articles and drop them in the middle of a opinion.

Posner came out and asked Gura, what suggestions should they give the legislature I think he used the word advise.

I think they may write an opinion opposite of Wollard that May issue would get the state out of the pickle they are in. That there can be different rules for different areas, such as Chicago vs Peoria. Good and moral character or just cuase is OK. This will put it at odds with Wollard and potentially keep a split in the circuits for SCOTUS which is good for us. I think the line from Justice Legg that the "eisitance of the right is all that is needed should become a mainstay in all the briefs going forward.

I think the more likely situation, listening to the oral arguments, is that it'll be a 3-0 decision, with a concurring opinion by Judge Posner making potentially that suggestion of a may-issue non-home rule preempted carry bill.  Williams and Flaum, at least from what research I've gleaned of judicial acumen, will stick to the issue of text, tradition, and history and the bare facts, and won't go into expositions on what law would satisfy.  The most you'd get is the discussion about anti-stalking order laws (the state they were thinking of is California, btw) which allow carry to show how extreme it is, without much discussion.  If they do, it will be an Ezell style ruling which extensively discusses the right to carry, which would be a good thing for us.   I think Williams will write it.

That all being said, I'm not betting money, and it'll be up to you guys to react to whatever language and to keep the Chicago machine from pushing a bad bill.

[XJCraver]

Gray Peterson, on 11 August 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

That all being said, I'm not betting money, and it'll be up to you guys to react to whatever language and to keep the Chicago machine from pushing a bad bill.

And that, is the scariest part of this whole ruling.  The stuff of nightmares, right there....  

[Mr. Fife]

I have a feeling that today is the day!

Edited by Mr. Fife, 01 October 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[oneshot]

Mr. Fife, on 01 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

I have a feeling that today is the day!

No soup for you.  

[Mr. Fife]

oneshot, on 01 October 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Mr. Fife, on 01 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

I have a feeling that today is the day!

No soup for you.  

It's a little early for soup.

[C0untZer0]

I listened to the orals  TWICE yesterday  (because daplumber's thread "Container Carry Legal confirmation, VIA Testimony by AG Attorney at Moore v Madigan Hearing June 8th)

http://illinoiscarry...30

Listening the the orals again, I'm actually pretty encouraged that we'll get a good ruling.

Hopefully today  

And listening to the oral arguments helps pass the time...

[C0untZer0]

Nothing posted...  and unless it's a Friday, I don't think they post stuff in the late afternoon.

[boomersand]

Think Palmer in DC might have an effect on this, or not?   Do you even think the response has been written on this case yet

[Mr. Fife]

Is it soup yet?

[souless1027]

Mr. Fife, on 02 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

Is it soup yet?

No soup for you come back one year!

[GarandFan]

Unsubscribe

[Mr. Fife]

Soup come soon.

[oneshot]

Aroma from kitchen smells burnt.  

[C0untZer0]

.

Quote

Think Palmer in DC might have an effect on this, or not?

The last I check, Palmer was on indefinate hold...

.

Quote

08/20/2012 TEXT SCHEDULING NOTICE CANCELLING ORAL ARGUMENT for 6[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 5[RECAP] MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 33[RECAP] Supplemental Memorandum. Motion Argument set for 8/29/2012 before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. is adjourned without date due to a conflict in the Court's calendar. Counsel will be notified when future dates become available. The motion remains on submit. (Scullin, Frederick) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

[ishmo]

Got this in an email alert earlier.  Not quite sure how to interpret the thinking though as I only see a thin connection to Moore.

Quote

The Woollard case, which challenged the Free State statute denying permit applications absent a showing of “good cause,” has gone the furthest with oral arguments beginning Oct. 24 before the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Gun-rights advocates predict that the high court will take up the Woollard and Moore cases together so that it can rule simultaneously on whether a state can ban all rights and, if not, what limitations can be set.

Read more: MILLER: Gun carry in the Obama era - Washington Times http://www.washingto.../#ixzz289pV7XxR

[Chicago Guy 77]

ishmo, on 02 October 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Got this in an email alert earlier.  Not quite sure how to interpret the thinking though as I only see a thin connection to Moore.

Quote

The Woollard case, which challenged the Free State statute denying permit applications absent a showing of “good cause,” has gone the furthest with oral arguments beginning Oct. 24 before the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Gun-rights advocates predict that the high court will take up the Woollard and Moore cases together so that it can rule simultaneously on whether a state can ban all rights and, if not, what limitations can be set.

Read more: MILLER: Gun carry in the Obama era - Washington Times http://www.washingto.../#ixzz289pV7XxR

So, is the high court going to take the Moore case away from the 7th?

[ishmo]

Chicago Guy 77, on 02 October 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

ishmo, on 02 October 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Got this in an email alert earlier.  Not quite sure how to interpret the thinking though as I only see a thin connection to Moore.

Quote

The Woollard case, which challenged the Free State statute denying permit applications absent a showing of "good cause," has gone the furthest with oral arguments beginning Oct. 24 before the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Gun-rights advocates predict that the high court will take up the Woollard and Moore cases together so that it can rule simultaneously on whether a state can ban all rights and, if not, what limitations can be set.

Read more: MILLER: Gun carry in the Obama era - Washington Times http://www.washingto.../#ixzz289pV7XxR

So, is the high court going to take the Moore case away from the 7th?

I have no idea and my legal understanding of how the courts work isn't such that I'd venture a guess.  Maybe some of the legal folks will be along with an opinion.

[scough]

The plot thickens.  How can they know in advance of the Shepard / Moore decision?

BTW, why is it that the Shepard case, which I felt was the strongest, or at least the most compelling and sympathic, has been largely substituted by Moore? The entire Shepard story is getting diluted in the public eye, and we're loosing from the publicity stand-point a very compelling story.  Why?

[Gray Peterson]

scough, on 02 October 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

The plot thickens.  How can they know in advance of the Shepard / Moore decision?

BTW, why is it that the Shepard case, which I felt was the strongest, or at least the most compelling and sympathic, has been largely substituted by Moore? The entire Shepard story is getting diluted in the public eye, and we're loosing from the publicity stand-point a very compelling story.  Why?

If you ask the two sides on the issue, you get a different story.  Illinois Carry is part of the Moore case.  There's a lot of bad blood between SAF & NRA-ILA on litigation issues because of Seegars in the DC Circuit, along with numerous attempts to scuttle the case before it got to SCOTUS and then the Chicagoland litigations right after Heller (Suing Chicago when SAF already had Chicago handled, for example).

I don't know the real story as to why Mary Shepard wouldn't go with the SAF case, or if "southern district" case was first or follow on later to hearing about Moore. I don't exactly have her phone number to ask her directly.  This is, however, a bloodsport, and plaintiffs, while important and sympathetic, is secondary to doing excellent litigation work.

[oneshot]

Infighting among two major 2A groups, just what we need.  

[colt-45]

Chicago Guy 77, on 02 October 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

ishmo, on 02 October 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Got this in an email alert earlier.  Not quite sure how to interpret the thinking though as I only see a thin connection to Moore.

Quote

The Woollard case, which challenged the Free State statute denying permit applications absent a showing of "good cause," has gone the furthest with oral arguments beginning Oct. 24 before the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Gun-rights advocates predict that the high court will take up the Woollard and Moore cases together so that it can rule simultaneously on whether a state can ban all rights and, if not, what limitations can be set.

Read more: MILLER: Gun carry in the Obama era - Washington Times http://www.washingto.../#ixzz289pV7XxR

So, is the high court going to take the Moore case away from the 7th?

i hope they do.

[C0untZer0]

Moore and Shepard were combined at orals.  They're almost identical cases and I don't see one being a better plaintiff than the other.

Wasn't Judge Legg's ruling in Woolard cited as authority in Moore before the 7th cir ?