88 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

Since the oter thread in Shepard and Moore are getting long with the "ANy news yet?"

today the Agf filed a motion asking the court to consider the NY ruling.

Attached Files

•  AG_motion_suppliment_NY.pdf   3.18MB   179 downloads

[GarandFan]

Whatever they think will help their cause.

It's interesting how they are citing supplemental authority ... some district court in southern New York ... when they ought to be citing the authority of of the SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald, and the 7th Circuit in Ezell!

But no one will be surprised if that IL district court issues a ruling similar to that in Kachalsky.

Lower courts exist, it often seems, in part to kick the can down the road.

Thanks for posting this, Todd.  It reminds me of how little the IL AG has to stand on.

Madigan: "The approach to Second Amendment issues taken by the Kachalsky court tracks the approach the defendants have urged this Court to adopt."

Yeah, and that approach is clearly on the wrong track and will soon be stuck in the mud.  Go ahead, Lisa.  Put your eggs in the Kachalsky basket.  He he ...

[mrmagloo]

Jeez, are they going to allow them to keep 'motioning' this until the next decade? God, this wait is excruciating, and you would hope that the judge would want to make a strong statement after all of this ridiculous non-sense.

[BigJim]

mrmagloo, on 12 September 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Jeez, are they going to allow them to keep 'motioning' this until the next decade?

That's their plan.

[bob]

BigJim, on 12 September 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:

mrmagloo, on 12 September 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Jeez, are they going to allow them to keep 'motioning' this until the next decade?

That's their plan.

They would be remiss in their duty to defend current state law if they did not take every opportunity to make the court aware of new case law that supports their position.

It does seem like a very long time for a judge to take to decide on a PI. They usually seem to go pretty quick, although admittedly my sample size of such things is small being limited to things I both care about and happen to notice.

I somehow find it hard to believe the judge would not know about the case anyway.

[Getzapped]

So they filed the same motion in the Moore case also?

[Tvandermyde]

they can cite the New York case all they want. We have the benefit of the Court of Appeals and Ezell.

[snubjob]

BigJim, on 12 September 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:

mrmagloo, on 12 September 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Jeez, are they going to allow them to keep 'motioning' this until the next decade?

That's their plan.

Yes that is their plan. And they plan to see it through.

[ishmo]

Tvandermyde, on 12 September 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

they can cite the New York case all they want. We have the benefit of the Court of Appeals and Ezell.

I find it interesting that Illinois is advocating following the lead of a different district court in a state that at least has a CCW law as opposed to Illinois where almost any form of carry is a crime. After reading some of the other motions I think princess Lisa has stepped into a large pile of sh!t with this motion which someone is going to pile on her plate. Whether they put salt and pepper on it before she eats it I don't know.

[colt-45]

ishmo, on 12 September 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 12 September 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

they can cite the New York case all they want. We have the benefit of the Court of Appeals and Ezell.

I find it interesting that Illinois is advocating following the lead of a different district court in a state that at least has a CCW law as opposed to Illinois where almost any form of carry is a crime. After reading some of the other motions I think princess Lisa has stepped into a large pile of sh!t with this motion which someone is going to pile on her plate. Whether they put salt and pepper on it before she eats it I don't know.

LIKE...

[SteveW]

ishmo, on 12 September 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 12 September 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

they can cite the New York case all they want. We have the benefit of the Court of Appeals and Ezell.

I find it interesting that Illinois is advocating following the lead of a different district court in a state that at least has a CCW law as opposed to Illinois where almost any form of carry is a crime. After reading some of the other motions I think princess Lisa has stepped into a large pile of sh!t with this motion which someone is going to pile on her plate. Whether they put salt and pepper on it before she eats it I don't know.

LIKE... X2

[NakPPI]

The NY case favors our position, I'm glad madigan is this dumb, it gives me warm fuzzies. NY is another example of regulated carry, not a ban. Madigan's pleadings admit that illinois has a ban and the NY opinion supports the idea that a ban is unconstitutional, and specifically discusses the issue. Did the attorney even read the damn case before shoving it into the record?

[Hatchet]

NakPPI, on 12 September 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

The NY case favors our position, I'm glad madigan is this dumb, it gives me warm fuzzies. NY is another example of regulated carry, not a ban. Madigan's pleadings admit that illinois has a ban and the NY opinion supports the idea that a ban is unconstitutional, and specifically discusses the issue. Did the attorney even read the damn case before shoving it into the record?

no all they saw was. Gun lobby lost...

[blackhalo]

NakPPI, on 12 September 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

The NY case favors our position, I'm glad madigan is this dumb, it gives me warm fuzzies. NY is another example of regulated carry, not a ban. Madigan's pleadings admit that illinois has a ban and the NY opinion supports the idea that a ban is unconstitutional, and specifically discusses the issue. Did the attorney even read the damn case before shoving it into the record?

+1

[oneshot]

ishmo, on 12 September 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 12 September 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

they can cite the New York case all they want. We have the benefit of the Court of Appeals and Ezell.

I find it interesting that Illinois is advocating following the lead of a different district court in a state that at least has a CCW law as opposed to Illinois where almost any form of carry is a crime. After reading some of the other motions I think princess Lisa has stepped into a large pile of sh!t with this motion which someone is going to pile on her plate. Whether they put salt and pepper on it before she eats it I don't know.

[bob]

I don't think it will make any difference in the ruling here, either on the PI or anything down the road.

[frankw438]

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY was filed Monday. Shepard's attorney's make a good argument that Kachalsky actually supports their position that an absolute ban on carrying (bearing) arms is unconstitutional.

-- Frank

[Mac]

The Illinois AG is more than willing to file motions after motions on a case since she does not have any clue as to the legal aspect of the 2nd amendment. She only knows what has been pounded into her head by the self rule city government of Chicago. Chicago is in no way the same or even close to the same situation as New York City. New York does have a form of Conceal Carry, Illinois has nothing. Why if Madigan had a brain, would she try to get the courts to rule with the city that has a carry law? I truly wish Chicago law would stay in Chicago and leave the rest of the state to live under the U. S. Constitution.

[snubjob]

Mac, on 04 October 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

The Illinois AG is more than willing to file motions after motions on a case since she does not have any clue as to the legal aspect of the 2nd amendment. She only knows what has been pounded into her head by the self rule city government of Chicago. Chicago is in no way the same or even close to the same situation as New York City. New York does have a form of Conceal Carry, Illinois has nothing. Why if Madigan had a brain, would she try to get the courts to rule with the city that has a carry law? I truly wish Chicago law would stay in Chicago and leave the rest of the state to live under the U. S. Constitution.

+1

[stm]

When is the hearing for this case?

[abolt243]

stm, on 14 October 2011 - 02:26 PM, said:

When is the hearing for this case?

The Judge has not asked for a hearing.  He may rule based on briefs with no public hearing.

That's the way I understand it.

AB

[stm]

Thanks, AB!

[Molly B.]

Talked with a someone this weekend who has experience in federal court in the southern district.
He went online to look at the case.  It's his opinion that the "delay" looks like routine scheduling between
filings and then 30-60 day periods for the opposing side to respond. Looking at the last filing he thinks, if there
aren't any more filings/motions, we could hear something from the court in February or sooner. One man's opinion.

[colt-45]

Lets hope Molly:thumbsup:

[Don Gwinn]

I'll get my hopes up, but not be surprised if another motion trickles in.

[abolt243]

Don Gwinn, on 16 January 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

I'll get my hopes up, but not be surprised if another motion trickles in.

I ain't moving my hopes 'till I see the decision posted here.  Just lazy that way I guess!!

Tim

[Federal Farmer]

Don Gwinn, on 16 January 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

I'll get my hopes up, but not be surprised if another motion trickles in.

That's life since the 'Reagan Revolution'...waiting to get trickled on...

[Bud]

Time to ramp up the pressure on the ILGA.

The decision's coming down and it will be in our favor.

[Len S]

I am not meaning to be a downer her but there are some things we may be over looking. Out opposition is not stupid. Could they be laying the groundwork for strict rules,such as New York has.  This would go well with the politics in IL.  Those who are connected get what they want. The rest of us get nothing.  No I have not read it all,I am in the last weeks of getting my BSN and just passed the HESI which is an exit exam and next up is the license test so I have to be selective in what I reading I wade into.  I have to say I have always been told NOT to underestimate my opponent so I am little concerned when I see so many say "that is just what we wanted them to do" I may be wrong but we should try to look at what other ways to look at this might be.  Princess Lisa may be arrogant  but I do not think she and her whole staff are stupid.  They did pass Law school and the Bar exam, yes I know short shanks did also but it took multiple times from what I was told, so what is the other side of what they did. How can it work for them? To quote my favorite character on NCIS LA, this is not a sprint it is a marathon.  As I said I am not a legal scholar but I do not think that our opponents are as stupid as we would like.

[lockman]

Len, I do not believe we are any worse off either way the case goes. If we win the injunction, The legislature would have to act to modify or create a legislative scheme to "technically" comply with the order and yet effectively prohibit carry. I do not believe they have enough support to pass both chambers on a majority vote to impose it. especially in lite of the current climate of Illinois standing alone. If we don't get the injunction the case moves on and the legislative efforts continue.