840 replies to this topic

[mauserme]

es503IL, on 08 July 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

While I am all for Constitutional Carry, with a Permitting System available for reprocity for those who might wish to travel outside Illinois, tossing aside HB 148 might be a bit premature at this point. Even if the 7th Circuit issues the injunction, it can still be appealed. Nothing is final until it has been final for a couple of years. We should pursue both remedies at the same time. That way if one fails or is partially successful you are a couple of steps ahead on the other one.
If you think that the Brady Campaign is going to give up as soon as RTC is established in Illinois, you might want to rethink that position. First and foremost, is the money that Brady Campaign makes off of opposing the 2nd Amendment. This is a career for people and they are paid relatively well at the upper levels of the oganization. Secondly, as soon as some thing happens, they will redouble their efforts (look at AZ and Congresswoman Gifford). Imagine what the Brady Campaign would have pushed for if the NIU shooting had occurred right after RTC passed in Illinois.
The way we got ourselves into the mess we are currently in was by thinking that everything was fine and since we had Rights they could not be taken away through Legislation. Are we nearing the end of the main fight, Yes (optomistically) we are. Are we close to being done with this, absolutely not.

Theres still alot to be done (not a complete list);
-National Reprocity
-Abolish the FOID card (or at least make a CC Permit equal to a FOID)
-If you cannot get rid of FOID, at least make a change in the Legislation so you don't have to send in a photo w/ the application that simply gets thrown away
-Legalize Class III, SBR, SBS, Suppressors, AOW, DD for civilian ownership with "Shall Sign"
-Campus Carry

You make good points about needing legislation on the books but I will disagree with you a bit about HB148.

That bill was a very logical compromise written in a post-McDonald, but pre-Ezell, world.  It's logic is based upon the thought that law abiding citizens must demonstrate that they are qualified to excersiize a fundamental right and lays out a method by which that might occur.

With Ezell behind us (and yes, I understand the City has not responded yet), we must change our thinking to reflect the spirit of Ezell - that the rights of law abing citizens may not be infringed except when the state can factually demonstrate  an overwhelming need to limit the right and, even then, only in the least restrictive way possible.  Thus, we should now be insisting that we look only to disqualify individuals based upon specific unacceptable behaviors or attributes (such as mental illness).

Making the FOID the "Carry Card" ( I don't like to think in terms of a permit or license) by statute rather than by default makes a lot of sense to me at this moment in time.  It accomplishes our goals including protecting the right in the future.  And, I think the required 71 votes  downstate support is a given for this type of system.  Down the road, as reciprocity evolves across the nation, perhaps the FOID can be done away with.  For now I think its a very good option.


(Edited for clarity)

[es503IL]

Mauserme, I think you misunderstood the main point I was trying to make. I was saying that even with the Ezell decision at the current level, things can still change. What if tomorrow one of the SCOTUS Justices strokes out and dies and someone who is unfriendly to our cause is put into his/her place? This could cause SCOTUS to overrule the 7th. Then we are screwed. Due to this fact, it might not be a bad idea to keep working on HB148 while pursuing the Legal route at the same time.
If the Courts go our way, HB148 is simply scraped. If they don't, then HB148 is closer to the finish line.

[mauserme]

HB148 can be brought back if needed.  With Ezell on the books I think it gives away too much, but I do agree with you that we have to recognize the possibility that things can change.  As I said above, the City has not responded to this and I'm sure they won't remain silent forever.  Maybe we both agree that planning for all possibilities is always important even as we push forward with the results of Ezell thus far.

[XJCraver]

How long does the city have to file an appeal to SCOTUS?  At the moment, I'm too lazy to look it up....  

[es503IL]

mauserme, on 09 July 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

HB148 can be brought back if needed.  With Ezell on the books I think it gives away too much, but I do agree with you that we have to recognize the possibility that things can change.  As I said above, the City has not responded to this and I'm sure they won't remain silent forever.  Maybe we both agree that planning for all possibilities is always important even as we push forward with the results of Ezell thus far.

Thats exactly what I am saying. Pursue the best option, but have a Plan B.

[ishmo]

XJCraver, on 09 July 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

How long does the city have to file an appeal to SCOTUS? At the moment, I'm too lazy to look it up....

I don't think Chicago will file for cert on this. They haven't even figured out how to pay for their last misadventure at the SCOTUS.

Simple fact of the matter is, if a trip around the world was a quarter Chicago couldn't afford it.

[Tvandermyde]

plan B, C, D, E, F, G......

[BShawn]

markthesignguy, on 08 July 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Jeffrey, on 08 July 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

If the FOID is good enough for us to transport our guns, what difference is the transport if it is in a bag or on our person?

And whether or not it can be seen on our person, no less whether or not it is loaded.


Buy antacid stocks.

Ok, you purchase the antacid stocks, I will purchase the toilet paper stocks -- since so many people will be shi^^ing their pants  

[Milhouse86]

BShawn, on 11 July 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

markthesignguy, on 08 July 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Jeffrey, on 08 July 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

If the FOID is good enough for us to transport our guns, what difference is the transport if it is in a bag or on our person?

And whether or not it can be seen on our person, no less whether or not it is loaded.


Buy antacid stocks.

Ok, you purchase the antacid stocks, I will purchase the toilet paper stocks -- since so many people will be shi^^ing their pants  

HAHA nice!!!

[colt-45]

[quote name='Milhouse86' date='11 July 2011 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1310424471' post='281987']
[quote name='BShawn' date='11 July 2011 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1310421424' post='281979']
[quote name='markthesignguy' date='08 July 2011 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1310160623' post='281429']
[quote name='Jeffrey' date='08 July 2011 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1310150961' post='281365']
If the FOID is good enough for us to transport our guns, what difference is the transport if it is in a bag or on our person?
[/quote]

And whether or not it can be seen on our person, no less whether or not it is loaded.


Buy antacid stocks.
[/quote]

Ok, you purchase the antacid stocks, I will purchase the toilet paper stocks -- since so many people will be shi^^ing their pants  
[/quote]

HAHA nice!!!
[/quote]
LMAO.

[mauserme]

According to the attached motion, the State's response is likely due today.

Attached Files

•  Morre v Madigan Motion fo Enlargement of Time.pdf   31.16K   89 downloads

[05FLHT]

mauserme, on 27 July 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

According to the attached motion, the State's response is likely due today.

The States response to the Amended Complaint and response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction are both due today. Hopefully we have an inside guy (ahem, Todd) who will be able to post a copy as soon as they are filed.

[mauserme]

Or SAF, if they have the time...

[Molly B.]

Notice from  SAF attorney David Jensen:

Hearing on Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction set for August 4, 2011, at 10 AM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough.

[mauserme]

So reply due today and orals set for 8/4/2011??

[waynes]

Any bacground on the Judge?

W

[mauserme]

Appointed by the current president.

[05FLHT]

Molly B., on 27 July 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

Notice from  SAF attorney David Jensen:

Hearing on Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction set for August 4, 2011, at 10 AM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough.

Fan-f'in-tastic!

Sooner to the hearing, sooner to the decision.

[mauserme]

There seems to also be an 8/11/2011 response date for something.  Does anyone have a clue on that one?

[05FLHT]

[quote]Responses of Sue E. Myerscough Nominee to be United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois to the Written Questions of Senator Jeff Sessions http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/112thCongressJudicialNominations/upload/SueMyerscough-QFRs.pdf[/quote]

[quote]b. Do you believe a judge should consider his or her own values or policy preferences in determining what the law means?
Response: No.
i. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: None.
ii. Please identify any cases in which you have done so.
Response: None.
iii. If not, please discuss an example of a case where you have had to set aside your own values or policy preferences and rule based solely on the law.
Response: The mental health cases referenced in 2(a).
c. During her confirmation hearings, Justice Sotomayor rejected President Obama’s so-called “empathy standard” stating, “We apply the law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts.” Do you agree with Justice Sotomayor?
Response: Yes.[/quote]

[quote]4. Do you believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right? Please explain your answer.
Response: The Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) hold that the Second Amendment confers an individual right.
a. What standard of scrutiny do you believe is appropriate in a Second Amendment challenge against a Federal or State gun law?
2
Response: In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found a right under the Second Amendment must be treated in the same manner as any fundamental right identified in the Bill of Rights. [u]The Second Amendment right to bear arms should therefore not be treated as a “watered down right” subject to “judicial interest balancing.[/u]” See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2821;
McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047.[/quote]

[quote]5. What is your view of the role of a judge?
Response: The role of a judge is to apply the law to the facts.

9. Do these answers reflect your true and personal views?
Response: Yes.[/quote]

[Molly B.]

mauserme, on 27 July 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

There seems to also be an 8/11/2011 response date for something.  Does anyone have a clue on that one?

??

[mauserme]

Molly B., on 27 July 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

mauserme, on 27 July 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

There seems to also be an 8/11/2011 response date for something.  Does anyone have a clue on that one?

??

http://ia600603.us.a...015.docket.html

Quote

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 5 Amended Complaint, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , and alternatively MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. Responses due by 8/11/2011 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

This goes against the date in the motion to extend.

[stm]

mauserme, on 27 July 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

Quote

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 5 Amended Complaint, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , and alternatively MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. Responses due by 8/11/2011 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

This goes against the date in the motion to extend.

The motion for time extension asks for two extra days from 7/25 to 7/27, but it appears the plaintiffs have until 8/11 to respond to this motion for extra time.

Or am I reading this wrong? This legalspeak gives me a headache...

[mauserme]

But if the hearing is set for 8/4/2011, then the 11th is for what?

[Molly B.]

For naught?

[mauserme]

I don't know.  I just don't like loose ends but I suppose it doesn't reaaly matter if I understand the 11th as long as our attornies do.

[mauserme]

Response and memorandum in support of motion to dismiss are attached,

It looks like there might be more coming.

Attached Files

•  Moore v Madigan Response to Injunction.pdf   139.31K   82 downloads
•  Moore v Madigan Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss.pdf   118.62K   70 downloads

[bob]

mauserme, on 27 July 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

According to the attached motion, the State's response is likely due today.

Quote

4. This motion is made in good faith in order to properly respond to Plaintiffs’

Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and is not intended to cause undue dely.

Does the state no longer have spell checking available to it?

[mauserme]

Again they argue that Ezell was about possesson in the home when it was about possession and use at a range away from one's home.

[Tvandermyde]

the first one looks alomst like a cut and paste of Shepard, just tweeked a bit and reordered.