339 replies to this topic

[Howard Roark]

I think the long gun versus hand gun issue is that both Washington D.C. and Chicago argued that it was OK for them to ban handguns because they had not yet banned long guns. And court said "not good enough" because hand guns are in common use for self defense (and have been since colonial times in America). Yet I don't see how that failed argument is relevant to Shepard v. Madigan, although it seems very relevant to the Wilson v. Cook County case which is at the Illinois Supreme Court.

[bob]

NakPPI, on 19 July 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

There is also an equal protection argument to invalidate FOID, the act it's really just a poll tax by a different name.

There has been an argument made that requiring state ID to vote violates one's right to vote because it costs money to get a state ID card. Don't recall just how far that argument got, but that would seem to be an on point analogy.

[NakPPI]

Sigma, on 19 July 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

Can you help me understand where Heller spoke about long guns. Im confused because the lower courts said that an Assault Weapon Ban is ok.
Are you speaking of where it talks about firearms in common use?

In Heller, DC tried to argue that because it was ok to have a long gun in your home, it was ok that they banned handguns. Maryland is trying to say that because you can open carry a loaded long gun, it's ok for them to ban the possession of a handgun in public, which is related to "common use" as well, the "Miller" issue discussed in Heller extensively referring to whether a sawed off shotgun is constitutionally protected.

[NakPPI]

bob, on 19 July 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:

NakPPI, on 19 July 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

There is also an equal protection argument to invalidate FOID, the act it's really just a poll tax by a different name.

There has been an argument made that requiring state ID to vote violates one's right to vote because it costs money to get a state ID card. Don't recall just how far that argument got, but that would seem to be an on point analogy.

Fair enough, but there are other issues with FOID as well. Could you imagine the state requiring a "First Amendment" ID to hand out flyers and such?

[NakPPI]

Davey, on 19 July 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:

TyGuy, on 19 July 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Has a response been filed, or are we still waiting for the 22nd of July to pass?

What happens July 22?

After the response is filed, the court will likely set a hearing date for oral argument.

[stm]

Tvandermyde, on 14 July 2011 - 08:48 AM, said:

they have till the 22nd to respond to 8 more days.

If you want to see the quality of their work, here is the Brief filed by Lisa and Co on McDonald.

When and where can we expect to read the defendant's response? Assuming they don't get an emergency extension, how long until the response is available to us?

[bob]

NakPPI, on 19 July 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

bob, on 19 July 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:

NakPPI, on 19 July 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

There is also an equal protection argument to invalidate FOID, the act it's really just a poll tax by a different name.

There has been an argument made that requiring state ID to vote violates one's right to vote because it costs money to get a state ID card. Don't recall just how far that argument got, but that would seem to be an on point analogy.

Fair enough, but there are other issues with FOID as well. Could you imagine the state requiring a "First Amendment" ID to hand out flyers and such?

There are plenty of place were door to door solicitors have to buy a permit.

You have to look at this from the court's perspective to understand it. A dollar a year is not likely to break anyone or prevent someone from buying or owning a gun. How would you feel about it if the dollar a year fee was waived?

The fee side of it is going to be hard to attack IMO. Better to attack it as prior restraint. And given the NICS system, it is going to be hard to claim it serves any useful purpose if we get strict scrutiny.

[Tvandermyde]

As sson as they file tommorow, and I receive a copy of the PDF I will post it here.

BTW news from the court room in Woolard v. Maryland is that orals went very well for our side and very badly for the state arguing to uphold the "just cause" of their may issue permitting system.

[stm]

Thanks, Todd. Things are looking very promising indeed.

[colt-45]

stm, on 21 July 2011 - 07:39 PM, said:

Thanks, Todd. Things are looking very promising indeed.

+1

[JackTripper]

Tvandermyde, on 21 July 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

BTW news from the court room in Woolard v. Maryland is that orals went very well for our side and very badly for the state arguing to uphold the "just cause" of their may issue permitting system.

Write up from someone in the courthouse

http://www.mdshooter...&postcount=3207
http://www.mdshooter...&postcount=3216

[Sigma]

"If we held a Constitutional Convention today, we could recognize the urbanized society we live in today and make changes that make sense. If we were all delegates to that convention, we could do things differently....but we are not there. The state's interest is not to uphold the best policy, but to uphold the Constitution. Whether that is the best policy or even unwise, that is not ours to decide."


Thats all I ask of any judge

[colt-45]

did madigan file today?

[Tvandermyde]

nothing yet

[colt-45]

Tvandermyde, on 22 July 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

nothing yet

do they have tell monday or just today?

[FF17]

Tvandermyde, on 22 July 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

nothing yet

What does that mean?   An extension?

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 22 July 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

nothing yet

Quote

Defendants Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn, David Livesay answer due 7/22/2011. No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Did somebodies dog eat it?

[Tvandermyde]

the deadline was today. But they have till midnight with the electronic filing.

Some say that Government type lawyers think that if they get it in on say monday, it's close enough.

We will see what they do in the coming hours.

[mauserme]

05FLHT, on 22 July 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 22 July 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

nothing yet

Quote

Defendants Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn, David Livesay answer due 7/22/2011. No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Did somebodies dog eat it?

Maybe they're still trying to find "yada, yada, yada" in Blackstone.

[stm]

I know this is hypothetical, but if Madigan et al fail to file a timely response, what happens? Default judgment?

[Ritte]

Would it be better for us if they don't file till Monday or Tuesday?
Wouldn't that show that the state holds nothing but contempt for this process?
I don't know, but that's how I would look at it if I were a judge.

[stm]

I just saw that Sheriff Livesay filed a motion to have the complaint against him dismissed on 11th Amendment grounds because he is just an "agent of the state." He also requested an extension to respond to the preliminary injunction.

[NakPPI]

Resposne to Injunction

Objection to Injunction

[NakPPI]

"Assuming that “qualified to possess” means possessing a FOID

card (and plaintiffs do not otherwise define the term) plaintiffs’ requested injunction would

permit the carrying of any firearm by any person who possessed a FOID card without

regard to their training or intent to use the weapon for crimes of violence, without regard

to whether the person was intoxicated, and without limitation as to the nature of the public

place. Thus, the State would be compelled to allow weapons to be carried into

courthouses; government offices; churches; schools; and public businesses, including bars

and banks. In short, the requested injunctive relief would extend into areas the Heller court

acknowledged are constitutionally subject to state regulation."


Yup. Which is exactly what I warned Karen May about. Which is why the legislature should have passed HB 148 when they had the chance. Oh well, you reap what you sow. Of course the response to this is that Vermont allows the open carrying of firearms without a license and the sky is not falling...

[Sigma]

boy is that a bunch of crap.

I cant get past

...every Murderer, robber, rapist and fell into the definition of law abiding citizen at some point in their life

wow

[NakPPI]

This whole response is comical, how could one seriously argue that carrying a weapon outside the home is not protected by the second amendment? Where pray-tell would a "militia" use its weapons then? "Bear" means carry in one's home? Seriously??? There's a lot of arguments in here that won't hold up at oral argument. Plus the citation to violence policy center is just icing on the cake, they REALLY should have read Alan Gura's briefs in Woollard v. Sheridan instead of cherry picking choice phrases from Masciandaro. The Judge in Wollard seems to be applying intermediate scrutiny to a "may issue" permit scheme, how in the world can  the State argue that an outright "ban" would pass the same test? (See the "questions" issued by the Judge in Woollard prior to hearing)

[05FLHT]

The States response has more holes than swiss cheese, not to mention the misquotes (straight out lies) and quotes taken out of context.

There really is too much fail in this to even being going through now. The State glossed over Ezell, tries to pass off Masicandaro as binding precedent, and is hoping English law from the 1600's is going to save their rear ends.

Finally, if the State really has a problem with 'sensitive places' they better get off their cans and do something about it. Closing their eyes and plugging their ears while wishing Heller did not happen is not going to work.

[NakPPI]

"The Ezell court made passing reference to “the core right to possess firearms
for self-defense.” 2011 WL 2623511, at *17. But this appears to be shorthand for the
right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home — the right at issue in that case
and the one discussed throughout the rest of the opinion. See, e.g., id. at *1, 7, 9, 11,
13-14."

I call BS on this one... Oh and just for added measure Ezell controls this case, not Masicandaro, wrong district, wrong State Ms. Madigan...

What Ezell ACTUALLY said:

"First, a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of armed self‐defense will require
an extremely strong public‐interest justification and a close fit between the government’s means and its end." (Most notably in the Home, per Heller, "most notably" does not mean ONLY!)

[TTIN]

Sigma, on 22 July 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

boy is that a bunch of crap.

I cant get past

...every Murderer, robber, rapist and fell into the definition of law abiding citizen at some point in their life

wow

You could add lawyer or politician to that list too......

[colt-45]

so you think the judge will be in our favor?