Jump to content


Photo

Shepard 9/12


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
88 replies to this topic

#1 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 12 September 2011 - 02:53 PM

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


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#2 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:12 PM

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 ...
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#3 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:36 PM

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.

#4 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:27 PM

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

That's their plan.
Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#5 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:33 PM


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.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#6 Getzapped

    Gunsmith Extraordinaire

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,930 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:33 PM

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

logoforum_zps0763fe59.png


#7 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:34 PM

they can cite the New York case all they want. We have the benefit of the Court of Appeals and Ezell.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#8 snubjob

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:38 PM


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.

#9 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:26 PM

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.

#10 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:36 PM


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.


Posted ImageLIKE...

#11 SteveW

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:07 PM


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.


Posted ImageLIKE... X2

#12 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:35 PM

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?
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#13 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,173 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 13 September 2011 - 05:06 AM

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...
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#14 blackhalo

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 11

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:06 AM

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

#15 oneshot

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,724 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 07

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:38 AM


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.


Posted Image

Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. - Andrew Fletcher 1698


#16 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:14 PM

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

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#17 Frank

    Formerly FrankW438

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,689 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 30 September 2011 - 05:46 PM

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

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#18 Mac

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 07

Posted 04 October 2011 - 09:51 AM

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.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. " Noah Webster

The founding fathers of this nation were very clear about the meaning of the second amendment and the Supreme Court has backed them up.-----Repeatedly.

The fiercest criminal the the citizen has to fear is a Government that becomes over-bearing.

Any right not exercised is a forgotten right.

#19 snubjob

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 11

Posted 04 October 2011 - 09:55 AM

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

#20 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:26 PM

When is the hearing for this case?

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#21 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,314 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 14 October 2011 - 02:33 PM

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
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#22 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 14 October 2011 - 04:56 PM

Thanks, AB!

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#23 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,654 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 15 January 2012 - 10:37 PM

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.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#24 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:08 PM

Lets hope Molly:thumbsup:

#25 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,666 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 16 January 2012 - 08:18 PM

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


________________________________________________________________________________

Illinois Gun Owners' Lobbying Day

March 5, 2014

Be there or everyone will see that you have four equal sides and four 90-degree angles!

________________________________________________________________________________


#26 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,314 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 16 January 2012 - 09:02 PM

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
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#27 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,297 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 16 January 2012 - 09:04 PM

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...

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#28 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,001 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 16 January 2012 - 09:09 PM

Time to ramp up the pressure on the ILGA.

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

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#29 Len S

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 08

Posted 17 January 2012 - 11:57 AM

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.
Air goes in and out
Blood goes round and round
Any deviation of the above is a bad thing.

Class motto in Paramedic class 1994

#30 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,149 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:22 PM

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.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF