339 replies to this topic

[Davey]

Sigma, on 13 July 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

If they cant use the "we have a duty to protect the people" line what do they have? 300 ccw ppl killed someone?

I'm sure the lawyers on our side will, if not already, put each one of those supposed concealed carry killers under a microscope debunking as many as possible with simple facts.

I've read mumblings of many of those 300 being acquitted, suicides, and the like.

[CraigC]

Davey, on 13 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

Sigma, on 13 July 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

If they cant use the "we have a duty to protect the people" line what do they have? 300 ccw ppl killed someone?

I'm sure the lawyers on our side will, if not already, put each one of those supposed concealed carry killers under a microscope debunking as many as possible with simple facts.

I've read mumblings of many of those 300 being acquitted, suicides, and the like.

If I recall correctly there were even a few cases where a firearm wasn't the weapon used.

[NakPPI]

CraigC, on 13 July 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:

Davey, on 13 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

Sigma, on 13 July 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

If they cant use the "we have a duty to protect the people" line what do they have? 300 ccw ppl killed someone?

I'm sure the lawyers on our side will, if not already, put each one of those supposed concealed carry killers under a microscope debunking as many as possible with simple facts.

I've read mumblings of many of those 300 being acquitted, suicides, and the like.

If I recall correctly there were even a few cases where a firearm wasn't the weapon used.

The violence policy center numbers include car accidents and such, always need to know the source of your data.

[Tvandermyde]

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.

Attached Files

•  08-1521-bsac-state-of-illinois.pdf   229.83K   149 downloads

[TyGuy]

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.

If they don't respond does the injunction automatically take effect?

[colt-45]

TyGuy, on 14 July 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

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.

If they don't respond does the injunction automatically take effect?

that would be my next ?. but TYGUY asked first.

[abolt243]

colt-45, on 14 July 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

TyGuy, on 14 July 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

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.

If they don't respond does the injunction automatically take effect?

that would be my next ?. but TYGUY asked first.

The Judge still has to consider the merits and rule on the motion.

Todd, have they been denied an extension or might they ask for it by the 22nd?

AB

[Tvandermyde]

the judge said no more extensions unless for an emergency.

Like many governemnt types, I bet the AG's people don't take it seriously until there is a real deadline. they knew they could get 2 extensions so why rush. Now they have a "hard" deadline of sorts.

they maybe pushing their luck if they try again. once filed, we will be entitled to a response and we have asked for a hearing on the PI. Now, the deadline applies tot he orginal complaint. Not the motion for injunction. so the AG could try and split them and then argue that they need more time to respnd to the motion, but they are really one and the same issue. So it is then up tot he judge what he wants to do. hearing, more briefs, issue an opinion, rule on the motion.

it's all up to him.

[colt-45]

Tvandermyde, on 14 July 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

the judge said no more extensions unless for an emergency.

Like many governemnt types, I bet the AG's people don't take it seriously until there is a real deadline. they knew they could get 2 extensions so why rush. Now they have a "hard" deadline of sorts.

they maybe pushing their luck if they try again. once filed, we will be entitled to a response and we have asked for a hearing on the PI. Now, the deadline applies tot he orginal complaint. Not the motion for injunction. so the AG could try and split them and then argue that they need more time to respnd to the motion, but they are really one and the same issue. So it is then up tot he judge what he wants to do. hearing, more briefs, issue an opinion, rule on the motion.

it's all up to him.

thanks todd.

[Scots]

"If petitioners prevail, nearly every firearms law will become the subject of a constitutional challenge..."

If it violates the Constitution, then DARN RIGHT it will be challenged!!!

[Dilbert]

Tvandermyde, on 08 July 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

today a motion for an injunction against the enforcement of the UUW and AgUUW statutes was filed in the case of Shepard v. Madigan

release to follow.

attached is the motion

After reading the response, I have a few observations.

Page 23, Paragraph 2…
“First, the history of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments shows that the framers viewed the right to bear arms as a check on federal, not state, power.”

NEGATIVE Madigan! If the states regulated guns to the extent of complete prohibition, the federal government would inherit complete control by default. Hence the need for the 2A.The states have the authority to enact laws more strict than the federal government ONLY in areas that are not protected by the amendments to the constitution. Stricter drug enforcement, capital punishment for murder, etc., NOT GUN CONTROL that violates the Second Amendment. 2A was incorporated to guarantee that the country/government (ALL LEVELS) remains in the hands of the people. To think that the state can trump federal authority or the US constitution is the ultimate expression of arrogance.

Page 34, Section II, Paragraph 1…

“The Second Amendment is different from other enumerated rights because it protects conduct that by its nature may injure or kill others. And the States have proven themselves capable at addressing the dangers inherent in the right to bear arms while protecting legitimate interests of gun owners.”

Where do I start? There is so much here I can hardly compose myself. These IDIOTS think so little of the law abiding citizens of this state that the simple possession of a firearm will cause the death of others. And that the states are the only authority that possesses the moral capacity to determine how it citizens behave. In other words, they are saying, “You people are too ignorant and we are the only ones smart enough to know what is best. Now shut up and do as we say.” “Proven themselves capable at addressing the dangers”, are you kidding me? The death toll each year from gun violence in Chicago alone surpasses the US solder deaths in Iraq. MADIGAN, CLUE PHONE, IRAQ IS A WAR ZONE! What does that make Chicago?

“I see stupid people all around me and they don’t know they are stupid. “ Modified from the movie “The Sixth Sense”

I have to quit. My meds aren’t helping any more.

I’d like to thank IllinoisCarry.com for the opportunity to express my frustration on this matter. I’d like to also thank all of you for reading and replying. We will prevail.

[mauserme]

The document Todd attached in Post #64 is as amicus brief filed in McDonald v Chicago. It was rejected by the court last year.

Perhaps you took it as a response in Shepard v Madigan but it isn't that.

[bob]

mauserme, on 14 July 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

The document Todd attached in Post #64 is as amicus brief filed in McDonald v Chicago. It was rejected by the court last year.

Perhaps you took it as a response in Shepard v Madigan but it isn't that.

It looks like a weak argument, and it is, but it is not weak because of the lawyers involved. It is just the best they could put forward.

If they are smart this time around they won't try to suggest the 2A is meaningless as they did in this brief but come up with some excuse the courts can hang their hats on to limit the scope of the ruling. I don't know what direction they could take though. I can't see them being dumb enough to regurgitate the same crap again that has previously failed, but what else have they got?

[mauserme]

bob, on 14 July 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

.. what else have they got?

I imagine they're trying to answer that same queston about now.

[Sigma]

They will reargue Heller, wanna bet?

[Tvandermyde]

they will try to argue the Brady line that Heller/McDonald only apply to the Home.

the will argue the alowance of laws against carrying guns in public in the old west.

And any other POS thing they can think of.

[bob]

Sigma, on 14 July 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

They will reargue Heller, wanna bet?

The state has some of the best legal talent available. I doubt they will willingly try to regurgitate a failed legal argument. But, Lisa is not the brightest light in the room. She may insist they go that route, which may or may not be in our favor. There will no doubt be a lot of people weighing in and even if there is a weak argument from the state the judge is not going to rely on any weak argument for the totality of his decision.

My guess is that the judge is going to be looking for anything that lets him avoid giving us what is being asked for, but is going to have a tough time framing a decision that can stand up to a higher court's review that does not give us some kind of victory.

Or he may just decide it is above his paygrade and let a higher court take it on. That seems to me to be sort of what the appeals court did in McDonald. They did not want to be the people trying to guess what precedent SCOTUS was willing to set. Things seem a bit clearer now though. But even so there just is no case law on carrying outside the home as some kind of right to rely on. Lower courts often do not want to open this kind of can of worms. But I think the unassailable logic of the case is going to make not giving us something very hard for the trial judge.

[PPK]

bob, on 14 July 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:

My guess is that the judge is going to be looking for anything that lets him avoid giving us what is being asked for, but is going to have a tough time framing a decision that can stand up to a higher court's review that does not give us some kind of victory.

Do you have a source for this insight on the judge? What, exactly, makes you think he's not pro 2A?

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 14 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

they will try to argue the Brady line that Heller/McDonald only apply to the Home.

the will argue the alowance of laws against carrying guns in public in the old west.

And any other POS thing they can think of.

Todd is exactly right...as pathetic as it may be, it's all they have.

[Tvandermyde]

05 -- I completely agree with your very astute acessment  

[colt-45]

Tvandermyde, on 15 July 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

05 -- I completely agree with your very astute acessment  

+1

[BadWaterBill]

At this time I think there is no where they can go. 49 states allow CCW of some sort and it has been listed as a civil wright. The thing to worry about is how many restrictions we will have to overcome before we can carry in Illinois.

[Tvandermyde]

The state of Maryland filed their reply to the petition for Cert in the Williams case.

i will take up the aspects of their petition later but to note, they use Ezell and it shows that Ezell will have long standing implications in the debate, and that they do not have a ban on carrying, but a permiting system. They threw Illinois under the bus with this brief. And i seem to recall we they not one fo the three states to sign on to Lisa's amici to SCOTUS on McDonald??????

Attached Files

•  WILLIAMS_opposition_from_MD.pdf   801.36K   111 downloads

[05FLHT]

It's funny the Maryland State Supreme called out SCOTUS to ' say so more plainly,' then the State Responds that SCOTUS should deny Cert.

This should be an entertaining read.

[bob]

PPK, on 15 July 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

bob, on 14 July 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:

My guess is that the judge is going to be looking for anything that lets him avoid giving us what is being asked for, but is going to have a tough time framing a decision that can stand up to a higher court's review that does not give us some kind of victory.

Do you have a source for this insight on the judge? What, exactly, makes you think he's not pro 2A?

it is not about whether he is pro or anti. Most judges are quite conservative in the way they apply the law, most of the time. They want to rely on existing case law. If there is not much on point, they do not want to be the guy sticking his legal thinking out on a limb.

[lockman]

Tvandermyde, on 14 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

they will try to argue the Brady line that Heller/McDonald only apply to the Home.

the will argue the alowance of laws against carrying guns in public in the old west.

And any other POS thing they can think of.

Were they even states at the time? I can also cite thousands of local ordinaces across this country that prohibit or restrict firearms, but are also in violation of state and federal laws. I wonder what ones they will pull out of their a**.

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 15 July 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

The state of Maryland filed their reply to the petition for Cert in the Williams case.

i will take up the aspects of their petition later but to note, they use Ezell and it shows that Ezell will have long standing implications in the debate, and that they do not have a ban on carrying, but a permiting system. They threw Illinois under the bus with this brief. And i seem to recall we they not one fo the three states to sign on to Lisa's amici to SCOTUS on McDonald??????

MD admitted to the court in Wollard that a permit is all but impossible for a 'regular' citizen to obtain. The argument in the WIlliams Cert. response that because he (Williams) did not apply for a permit is irrelevant, the State would not have issued him one anyways. I doubt the SCOTUS is going to be fooled into thinking that an unobtainable permit to exercise a fundamental right passes muster.

As far as throwing Illinois under the bus, as long as the SCOTUS rules that bearing arms outside of the home is core to the 2A (which we know it is), we here in Illinois will be just fine.

[Tvandermyde]

05FLHT, on 15 July 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

As far as throwing Illinois under the bus, as long as the SCOTUS rules that bearing arms outside of the home is core to the 2A (which we know it is), we here in Illinois will be just fine.

My comment is that Maryland was on the brief with Illinois about the scope fo the right. Now to save their skin they try to save themselves by saying if you have a permit system, then there is no problem. ILLINOIS doesn't have ANY permit system. So they tossed lisa under the bus and cut her argument off at the knees. They didn't even argue that the right does not apply outside the home.

They cut and ran. They know the Illinois position is a losing one.

[Sigma]

I see your point now todd, the contradict themselves.

[JackTripper]

Had not read anything on Williams, but seriously, if the Maryland brief is even remotely true, Williams' claim does not pass the smell test.

If there was a permit system in place (however unjust) and you fail to apply, but decide to pack a gun, you are just another thug in my book.