339 replies to this topic

[NakPPI]

These issues cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss, it will be very easy for the judge to deny the motion.

[colt-45]

NakPPI, on 01 September 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

These issues cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss, it will be very easy for the judge to deny the motion.

well how many motions can she file than, this is what three motions to dismiss, what is the judge waiting for?

[pyre400]

colt-45, on 01 September 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

well how many motions can she file than, this is what three motions to dismiss, what is the judge waiting for?

More motions to dismiss?

[NakPPI]

colt-45, on 01 September 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

NakPPI, on 01 September 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

These issues cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss, it will be very easy for the judge to deny the motion.

well how many motions can she file than, this is what three motions to dismiss, what is the judge waiting for?

The other motions were requests to have individual defendants dismissed vs. having the entire action dismissed. Honestly, Quinn could be dismissed, he doesn't enforce or prosecute the laws in question.

[Getzapped]

NakPPI, on 01 September 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:

stm, on 01 September 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Madigan filed ANOTHER reply trying to get the case dismissed:

http://www.archive.o....52207.46.0.pdf

The attorney that wrote this got his license in 2009... He doesn't have a clue. The 630... ARDC number is a dead giveaway. The attorney general is letting him try to make a name for himself or practice, etc. they know this is a loser motion.

But the other attorney was licensed in 1985, don't they work together? I would imagine they all look over each others work.

[NakPPI]

Getzapped, on 01 September 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

NakPPI, on 01 September 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:

stm, on 01 September 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Madigan filed ANOTHER reply trying to get the case dismissed:

http://www.archive.o....52207.46.0.pdf

The attorney that wrote this got his license in 2009... He doesn't have a clue. The 630... ARDC number is a dead giveaway. The attorney general is letting him try to make a name for himself or practice, etc. they know this is a loser motion.

But the other attorney was licensed in 1985, don't they work together? I would imagine they all look over each others work.

Of course they do, which is why the young attorney gets to argue and draft the motion that has no chance of winning, while the experienced attorney works on the motion for summary judgment, which is much more important.

[lockman]

The legal theory presented in support of the motion to dismiss is 'since I found that back in the 1800's there was a state that violated the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, that is proof enough the right really does not exist'. The author also glosses over the terms "offensive", "breaks the peace" or "terror of the people" that refute his claim. His assertion that bearing arms was not common practice (an assertion which be valid within certain geographical regions of the U.S. and its territories) is touted as if not exercising a right should legally diminish future exercise of such rights. He offers no evidence why the lack of openly carrying arms would diminish or negate a fundamental right. Finally, assuming the cases cited do point to no right to bear arms in public, such decisions have been in my opinion overturned or limited by, Heller & McDonald.

[Getzapped]

[quote name='NakPPI' date='01 September 2011 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1314900081' post='289282']
[quote name='Getzapped' date='01 September 2011 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1314899403' post='289281']
[quote name='NakPPI' date='01 September 2011 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1314894002' post='289265']
[quote name='stm' date='01 September 2011 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1314890810' post='289255']
Madigan filed ANOTHER reply trying to get the case dismissed:

[url="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.46.0.pdf"]http://www.archive.o....52207.46.0.pdf[/url]
[/quote]

The attorney that wrote this got his license in 2009... He doesn't have a clue. The 630... ARDC number is a dead giveaway. The attorney general is letting him try to make a name for himself or practice, etc. they know this is a loser motion.
[/quote]


But the other attorney was licensed in 1985, don't they work together? I would imagine they all look over each others work.
[/quote]

Of course they do, which is why the young attorney gets to argue and draft the motion that has no chance of winning, while the experienced attorney works on the motion for summary judgment, which is much more important.
[/quote]

I get it.  So they let the inexperienced attorney "practice" while the others actually work on the important items.  Makes sense.

[mrmagloo]

Getzapped, on 01 September 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

I get it.  So they let the inexperienced attorney "practice" while the others actually work on the important items.  Makes sense.

Or more likely, he got stuck holding the short stick and was forced to take the hit looking like a retard with that nonsense.

[Tvandermyde]

late today they filed a motion to defer.

Looks like they are trying to drag this out.

Attached Files

•  Motion_to_Defer1.pdf   156.12K   126 downloads

[sirflyguy]

Tvandermyde, on 02 September 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

late today they filed a motion to defer.

Looks like they are trying to drag this out.

To delay the inevitable, of course.

[mstrat]

I've just barely started reading it.... but  

Quote

"Plaintiffs brought this action claiming that the Illinois Criminal Code unconstitutionally infringes upon the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights because Illinois law prohibits the carrying of loaded or readily loadable firearms in public." (emphasis added)

That's not what the plaintiff's are claiming? Is it?!
Tell me it isn't!?!  Because that would seem like legal suicide (as it permits the state to claim "enclosed and in a case is readily loadable")

[Tvandermyde]

we are arguing that there has to be some sort of carry law for loaded weapons. not a pueruta type thing from CA. Either open or concealed of a loaded weapon, state's choice

[mauserme]

No its a distortion.  So is this:

Quote

4. If the Court disagrees with defendants' analysis and believes that a higher
level of scrutiny is necessary, defendants must justify the statutes through the use of
statistics and expert testimony. Ezell v. City of Chicago, _ F.3d _, 2011 WL 2623511
at 17 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Ezell court actually said

Quote

To be appropriately respectful of the individual
rights at issue in this case, the City bears the burden of
establishing a strong public‐interest justification for its ban
on range training: The City must establish a close fit between
the range ban and the actual public interests it serves,
and also that the public's interests are strong enough
to justify so substantial an encumbrance on individual
Second Amendment rights. Stated differently, the City must
demonstrate that civilian target practice at a firing range
creates such genuine and serious risks to public safety that
prohibiting range training throughout the city is justified.
At this stage of the proceedings, the City has not
come close to satisfying this standard. In the district
court, the City presented no data or expert opinion to
support the range ban, so we have no way to evaluate
the seriousness of its claimed public‐safety concerns.

That's not a call for a statistical analysis or for expert testimony, its an observaiton that no evidence was presented by the City.  The State, I think, hopes to reduce strict scrutiny to a rational basis argument.

[colt-45]

what does (readily loadable firearms) mean?

[snubjob]

Drag it out?  Hmmm... imagine that!

[samy12386]

colt-45, on 02 September 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

what does (readily loadable firearms) mean?

I'm not a lawyer but I think thats touching on "california open carry" type thing where you can carry openly but unloaded but have loaded mags on the belt as well

[colt-45]

samy12386, on 02 September 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

colt-45, on 02 September 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

what does (readily loadable firearms) mean?

I'm not a lawyer but I think thats touching on "california open carry" type thing where you can carry openly but unloaded but have loaded mags on the belt as well

hope we don't get that ruling than.

[oneshot]

colt-45, on 02 September 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

samy12386, on 02 September 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

colt-45, on 02 September 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

what does (readily loadable firearms) mean?

I'm not a lawyer but I think thats touching on "california open carry" type thing where you can carry openly but unloaded but have loaded mags on the belt as well

hope we don't get that ruling than.

Chicago would rather have concealed than that, they'd make a legislative deal to prevent it.

[samy12386]

colt-45, on 02 September 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

samy12386, on 02 September 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

colt-45, on 02 September 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

what does (readily loadable firearms) mean?

I'm not a lawyer but I think thats touching on "california open carry" type thing where you can carry openly but unloaded but have loaded mags on the belt as well

hope we don't get that ruling than.

Not to get off topic but just wanted to add that when doing that in California (no onereally does it for protection just in groups as a making a point deal) you WILL get a man MWAG call and it's written in the law that police can check your weapon to make sure it's empty. Only posting this here because I would hate to see this in Illinois.

Edited because of iPhone auto correct

Edited by samy12386, 02 September 2011 - 04:27 PM.

[NakPPI]

While Peruta is a bad ruling it supports our claim. The California statute has a specific exception that allows the open carry of unloaded weapons,  which the judge used as an out to uphold the statute. Illinois has no such exception.

The delay motion is an attempt to avoid a hearing on the motion for injunction.

[samy12386]

NakPPI, on 02 September 2011 - 04:32 PM, said:

While Peruta is a bad ruling it supports our claim. The California statute has a specific exception that allows the open carry of unloaded weapons,  which the judge used as an out to uphold the statute. Illinois has no such exception.

The delay motion is an attempt to avoid a hearing on the motion for injunction.

Glad someone could clarify that thanks allot

[NakPPI]

Not to turn this into a "Peruta" discussion, but Peruta does bear mentioning in the context of the State's pleadings. The state is essentially arguing the same judicial balancing that was used in Peruta, i.e. intermediate scrutiny. However, what the State is failing to mention are the multitude of exceptions built into California's statute, which are non-existent in Illinois.

Quote

California Penal Code section 12031 generally restricts the open carry of loaded firearms in
public. The statute contains several exceptions, however, including specific exceptions for self-
defense and defense of the home.5 See Cal. Penal Code §§ 12031(j)(1)-(3). Section 12031(j)(1)
permits loaded open carry by “a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself
or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary
for the preservation of that person or property.” The term immediate refers to the “brief interval before
and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger
and before the arrival of its assistance.” Id. Section 12031(j)(2) permits loaded open carry by a person
who “reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis
of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been
found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety.” And Section 12031(l) expressly ensures the right
of self-defense in the home: “Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded
weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence
or campsite.” As a practical matter, should the need for self-defense arise, nothing in section 12031
restricts the open carry of unloaded firearms and ammunition ready for instant loading. See Cal. Penal
Code § 12031(g).

As for the intermediate scrutiny standard in Peruta: (again I disagree with this analysis, but it supports our case...)

Quote

In this case, Defendant has an important and substantial interest in public safety and in reducing
the rate of gun use in crime. In particular, the government has an important interest in reducing the
number of concealed weapons in public in order to reduce the risks to other members of the public
who use the streets and go to public accommodations. See Zimring Decl. The government also has
an important interest in reducing the number of concealed handguns in public because of their
disproportionate involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence, particularly in streets and other
public places. Id. Defendant’s policy relates reasonably to those interests. Requiring documentation
enables Defendant to effectively differentiate between individuals who have a bona fide need to carry
a concealed handgun for self-defense and individuals who do not.
The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ argument that many violent gun crimes, even a majority,
are committed by people who cannot legally have guns, and the ongoing dispute over the effectiveness
of concealed weapons laws. See Moody Decl. But under intermediate scrutiny, Defendant’s policy
need not be perfect, only reasonably related to a “significant,” “substantial,” or “important”
governmental interest. Marzzarrella, 614 F.3d at 98. Defendant’s policy satisfies that standard.

So the court said that prohibiting "how many" concealed weapon permits satisfied a substantial interest. The State of Illinois is basically forced to argue that the "how many" is "zero" and that satisfies the test...

Again, we argue that strict scrutiny or heightened scrutiny applies, based on Ezell (which is binding on our court) and that we are dealing with a BAN as apposed to a "how many" kind of restriction.Complete Peruta Decision

[junglebob]

NakPPI, on 02 September 2011 - 04:32 PM, said:

While Peruta is a bad ruling it supports our claim. The California statute has a specific exception that allows the open carry of unloaded weapons,  which the judge used as an out to uphold the statute. Illinois has no such exception.

The delay motion is an attempt to avoid a hearing on the motion for injunction.

California does allow open carry of firearms in rural areas, something not permitted in Illinois rural areas under AUUW.

[howards]

Any update???

[cshipley92]

howards, on 08 September 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

Any update???

I was wondering the same thing.  I believe someone said that there was a hearing/court on this case yesterday.  

[drdoom]

I don't know who said it here first, but I'm going to give that whoever Kudos right now for some excellent political calculus done right! At this point, we won't see that decision until Sept. 25th when the Gen. Ass. convenes for the fall veto session.

[ishmo]

drdoom, on 22 September 2011 - 07:54 AM, said:

I don't know who said it here first, but I'm going to give that whoever Kudos right now for some excellent political calculus done right! At this point, we won't see that decision until Sept. 25th when the Gen. Ass. convenes for the fall veto session.

I thought the veto session started Oct 25th, did I miss something? I know Quinn was talking about a special session but heard nothing about him calling one.

[dmefford]

Bump........ Anything new?

[abolt243]

dmefford, on 29 November 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Bump........ Anything new?

Waiting.