38 replies to this topic

[es503IL]

So I just looked at the electronic docket for Moore v. Madigan and saw this;
"NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Proceedings held on August 4, 2011" - posted on 01Dec2011

What does this mean? Does it mean that the case is about to start moving again or is this just a procedural issue of the Court?

http://ia600603.us.a...015.docket.html

Edited by es503IL, 03 December 2011 - 11:25 AM.

[xbaltzx]

es503IL, on 03 December 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

So I just looked at the electronic docket for Moore v. Madigan and saw this;
"NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Proceedings held on August 4, 2011" - posted on 01Dec2011

What does this mean? Does it mean that the case is about to start moving again or is this just a procedural issue of the Court?

http://ia600603.us.a...015.docket.html

Looks like a procedural issue to me. I hope I am wrong and there will be some movement soon.

[colt-45]

xbaltzx, on 03 December 2011 - 11:52 AM, said:

es503IL, on 03 December 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

So I just looked at the electronic docket for Moore v. Madigan and saw this;
"NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Proceedings held on August 4, 2011" - posted on 01Dec2011

What does this mean? Does it mean that the case is about to start moving again or is this just a procedural issue of the Court?

http://ia600603.us.a...015.docket.html

Looks like a procedural issue to me. I hope I am wrong and there will be some movement soon.

i hope there is some movement.

[Molly B.]

It is a public filing of the transcript of the hearing back on August 4, 2011.

 Moore vs Madigan transcript.pdf   177.08K   156 downloads

[Xwing]

Molly B., on 03 December 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

It is a public filing of the transcript of the hearing back on August 4, 2011.

Moore vs Madigan transcript.pdf

Thanks for sharing.  Just read the whole thing.  Interesting that it's dated 12/1/11.  So it took almost 4 months for the court to prepare the transcripts?  Or am I missing something?

[NakPPI]

1/19/2012
Judge granted motions to clarify and motion to cite supplemental authority.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[FF17]

For us non-legal types, what does that mean?

[NakPPI]

The judge cleaned up the docket. All that is left is defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for injunction. I think we will be getting a ruling shortly...

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[colt-45]

how shortly? in the next week or month?

[JackTripper]

Your answer awaits:
http://www.ask8ball.net/

[NakPPI]

Everything points to the judge wanting to make a decision. The miscellaneous motions have been resolved. The official transcript of the hearing is prepared.

All that is missing is a court order that:
1. Denies or grants defendants' motion to dismiss (Certain parties such as Gov. Quinn will probably be dismissed, so don't be shocked if this motion gets granted at least in part)
2. Denies or Grants the motion for preliminary injunction

Then it's on to the appellate court, win or lose.

[colt-45]

but nothing will change if we win right? we still have to go by the wild life code and they can still get you on a uuw and a auuw or is that going to change as well? just asking.

[abolt243]

colt-45, on 23 January 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

but nothing will change if we win right? we still have to go by the wild life code and they can still get you on a uuw and a auuw or is that going to change as well? just asking.

You see that 8-ball site linked above?? Use it.  

Nobody knows until the actual opinion comes down and we see how it's worded.  

Patience.

T

[blackhalo]

Thanks, NakPPI, for keeping a close eye on the docket...  *fingers crossed*

[bob]

colt-45, on 23 January 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

but nothing will change if we win right? we still have to go by the wild life code and they can still get you on a uuw and a auuw or is that going to change as well? just asking.

It seems doubtful anything will change regardless of the decision. Either way it goes it will get appealed. It is also possible we win some very hollow or limited victory that gives us almost nothing but something to use in future court cases. My guess is nothing really means anything in any practical terms court wise until SCOTUS says something, and even then it may take a long time to work out the details.

[Bud]

bob, on 24 January 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

It seems doubtful anything will change regardless of the decision. Either way it goes it will get appealed. It is also possible we win some very hollow or limited victory that gives us almost nothing but something to use in future court cases. My guess is nothing really means anything in any practical terms court wise until SCOTUS says something, and even then it may take a long time to work out the details.

You are basing this on.....what?

If they lose, why do you think they will appeal? They are being attacked on several different fronts, a B ill is pending in the House that probably is gaining enough support to pass this Spring and they have and will continue to put up a non-existent defense. Have you read the transcript? If so, do you think they put up a spirited, coherent and well thought out defense? If you have read it, you apparently glossed over the Judge's remarks which seems to indicate that the bench is leaning towards granting an injunction.

If the injunction is granted, what effect do you think thius might have on the ILGA? If the injunction is granted, don't you think the pro-gun legislators are going to join with the anti-gun legislators to swiftly to put something in place?  HB 148, a Bill written by both parties and written as a compromise, is already there and waiting. It has strong support from both sides of the aisle and is being supported by numerous professional groups.

Your constant negativity woulkd be appreciated if it was based on any sense of reality, but it is not.

There is concerted, organized and multi-phased attack being delivered to get this law changed and we are right on the edge of seeing a victory. I pity the fact that you cannot see that.

[Uncle Harley]

colt-45, on 23 January 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

but nothing will change if we win right? we still have to go by the wild life code and they can still get you on a uuw and a auuw or is that going to change as well? just asking.

why would the wildlife code involve you unless you were engaged in the activities of taking wildlife?

[XJCraver]

Incorrect.  The WC is state statute, just like any other law.  Break it, regardless what activity you are engaged in, and get charged with a UUW/AUUW.  Any ruling that does not remove the pertinent parts of the Wildlife Code does nothing for us as gun owners.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

[stm]

BudMan5, on 24 January 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

bob, on 24 January 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

It seems doubtful anything will change regardless of the decision. Either way it goes it will get appealed. It is also possible we win some very hollow or limited victory that gives us almost nothing but something to use in future court cases. My guess is nothing really means anything in any practical terms court wise until SCOTUS says something, and even then it may take a long time to work out the details.

You are basing this on.....what?

If they lose, why do you think they will appeal? They are being attacked on several different fronts, a B ill is pending in the House that probably is gaining enough support to pass this Spring and they have and will continue to put up a non-existent defense. Have you read the transcript? If so, do you think they put up a spirited, coherent and well thought out defense? If you have read it, you apparently glossed over the Judge's remarks which seems to indicate that the bench is leaning towards granting an injunction.

If the injunction is granted, what effect do you think thius might have on the ILGA? If the injunction is granted, don't you think the pro-gun legislators are going to join with the anti-gun legislators to swiftly to put something in place?  HB 148, a Bill written by both parties and written as a compromise, is already there and waiting. It has strong support from both sides of the aisle and is being supported by numerous professional groups.

Your constant negativity woulkd be appreciated if it was based on any sense of reality, but it is not.

There is concerted, organized and multi-phased attack being delivered to get this law changed and we are right on the edge of seeing a victory. I pity the fact that you cannot see that.

+1

[Sidartha]

colt-45, on 23 January 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

but nothing will change if we win right? we still have to go by the wild life code and they can still get you on a uuw and a auuw or is that going to change as well? just asking.

It's my understanding(and I'm not a lawyer) that the Wildlife Code was only applicable to the Cook Co assault weapon ban because the Wildlife Code is a State Law(with local preemption I presume) that allows the use of assault weapons to hunt in Cook Co.
So. Because the Wildlife Code allows banned guns to be used for hunting then Cook Co can't override the Code.

The (A)UUW law is also State Law but it is in violation of the Federal Constitution and so if it is struck down the way we feel it should be, then the only thing left is "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

But of course the court could do almost anything they want.

[Tvandermyde]

XJCraver, on 24 January 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Incorrect.  The WC is state statute, just like any other law.  Break it, regardless what activity you are engaged in, and get charged with a UUW/AUUW.  Any ruling that does not remove the pertinent parts of the Wildlife Code does nothing for us as gun owners.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

for the last time, YOUR WRONG. I can't be changred with a Wildlife code violation for transporting a firearm if I am not engaged in the activity of hunting, trapping or fishing. That would be the same as charging me for not having a hunting license while shooting on my friends farm, even though no hunting was involved.

I don't know where all the tinfoil hats come from thinking that the Wildlife Code overrides the criminal code. If that were the case, Cook County would already have the means to charge us for not using a firearms case when transporting. You guys who continue to perpetuate this Bull @#%& need to get some fresh air and have your head examined.

If that were the case, then why when I drive around with a 1911 on the front seat in a case, do I not get charged with a Wildlife Code Violation? and i have been pulled over and asked about my gun more than once.

Why did the Supreme Court of Illinois REJECT the Cook County arguement of adopting the Wildlife Code definition in Diggins?

because the Wildlife Code does NOT apply.

Sidartha, on 24 January 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

colt-45, on 23 January 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

but nothing will change if we win right? we still have to go by the wild life code and they can still get you on a uuw and a auuw or is that going to change as well? just asking.

It's my understanding(and I'm not a lawyer) that the Wildlife Code was only applicable to the Cook Co assault weapon ban because the Wildlife Code is a State Law(with local preemption I presume) that allows the use of assault weapons to hunt in Cook Co.
So. Because the Wildlife Code allows banned guns to be used for hunting then Cook Co can't override the Code.

The (A)UUW law is also State Law but it is in violation of the Federal Constitution and so if it is struck down the way we feel it should be, then the only thing left is "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

But of course the court could do almost anything they want.

Now this is going to seem like a contridiction to my above rant, but please try to follow along.

The Wildlife Code says that the regulating the taking of game is an exclusive function of the state, and therefore preempted. Any issue pertaining to the taking of game is not a matter for local regulation.

We put forward the arguement that this preemption also applies to the banning of guns.

The County could no more set different dates, times or bag limits or bans on the types of animals hunted therefore they can not regulate the types of guns used in those activities. They are protected from any municipal bans, becuase they are lawful under the Preemption -- for what ever reason. Threfore Cook's arguments are irrelevent , same for any other attmpts to qualify their use under the Wildlife Code, they are protected. And lets not forget Coyote season is open 365 days a year in Cook County. And you can use anything from a .22 derringer to a Barret 50.

Edited by Tvandermyde, 24 January 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[colt-45]

Thanks for answering my question Todd.

[XJCraver]

Tvandermyde, on 24 January 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

XJCraver, on 24 January 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Incorrect.  The WC is state statute, just like any other law.  Break it, regardless what activity you are engaged in, and get charged with a UUW/AUUW.  Any ruling that does not remove the pertinent parts of the Wildlife Code does nothing for us as gun owners.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

for the last time, YOUR WRONG. I can't be changred with a Wildlife code violation for transporting a firearm if I am not engaged in the activity of hunting, trapping or fishing. That would be the same as charging me for not having a hunting license while shooting on my friends farm, even though no hunting was involved.

I don't know where all the tinfoil hats come from thinking that the Wildlife Code overrides the criminal code. If that were the case, Cook County would already have the means to charge us for not using a firearms case when transporting. You guys who continue to perpetuate this Bull @#%& need to get some fresh air and have your head examined.

If that were the case, then why when I drive around with a 1911 on the front seat in a case, do I not get charged with a Wildlife Code Violation? and i have been pulled over and asked about my gun more than once.

Why did the Supreme Court of Illinois REJECT the Cook County arguement of adopting the Wildlife Code definition in Diggins?

because the Wildlife Code does NOT apply.

I apologize for saying you could be charged with UUW/AUUW, as that is incorrect.  My apologies for that, I should quit posting when I'm on my phone and in a hurry.  However, the argument that the Wildlife Code doesn't override the criminal code is flawed, because the W.C. IS the criminal code.  The "ILCS" stands for "Illinois Compiled Statutes", after all.  A law is a law.

See here --->  http://www.ilga.gov/...=43  That's the entirety of the Wildlife Code.  The pertinent pieces of it are below:

(520 ILCS 5/1.15) (from Ch. 61, par. 1.15) states that "All authorized employees of the Department, duly accredited officers of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and all sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and other peace officers shall be empowered to arrest any person detected in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, including administrative rules. , etc."

(520 ILCS 5/1.16) (from Ch. 61, par. 1.16) states that all State's Attorneys shall enforce the provisions of the Wildlife code

(520 ILCS 5/2.33) (from Ch. 61, par. 2.33) (n) states that "It is unlawful for any person, except persons who possess a permit to hunt from a vehicle as provided in this Section and persons otherwise permitted by law, to have or carry any gun in or on any vehicle, conveyance or aircraft, unless such gun is unloaded and enclosed in a case, except that at field trials authorized by Section 2.34 of this Act, unloaded guns or guns loaded with blank cartridges only, may be carried on horseback while not contained in a case, or to have or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle unless such bow or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a case, or otherwise made inoperable."


Now, what would a rational person believe, with regard to these three sections of the act?  I believe he would believe that (per 1.15) cops are cops and can arrest you.  He would believe that (per 1.16) the State's Att'y will prosecute you.  And he would further believe that (per 2.33) if he had a weapon in his vehicle that was not unloaded and in a case, he would be charged with a crime if a police officer caught him.  ANY peace officer could make the arrest, which is a fairly important point here.

So, imagine that the judge in this case rules in our favor, the state doesn't appeal, and we are granted de-facto carry (at least until the legislature acts).  Show me where I'm wrong when I say that we are still going to be arrested for violating 520 ILCS 5/2.33.  Nothing I've read in the Wildlife Code says you have to be physically engaged in the act of hunting at the time of arrest for the above statute.  

And, in regards to this particular sentence of your post:  "If that were the case, then why when I drive around with a 1911 on the front seat in a case, do I not get charged with a Wildlife Code Violation? and i have been pulled over and asked about my gun more than once."  Why would you be charged with anything?  You can have any weapon in any vehicle so long as it's unloaded and encased, I drive around with one in my truck very legally every day; I'm missing your point with that sentence.

I'm not trying to be a ____, really.  I've read the W.C. over and over and don't see what I'm missing.  I just want someone to explain it to me.  And I'd really appreciate it if they did it without the tin-foil-hat and bovine excrement references.  If I want to be talked down to, I'll talk to my mother in law...

Edited by XJCraver, 24 January 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[lockman]

Quote

(520 ILCS 5/2.33) (from Ch. 61, par. 2.33) (n) states that "It is unlawful for any person, except persons who possess a permit to hunt from a vehicle as provided in this Section and persons otherwise permitted by law, to have or carry any gun in or on any vehicle, conveyance or aircraft, unless such gun is unloaded and enclosed in a case, except that at field trials authorized by Section 2.34 of this Act, unloaded guns or guns loaded with blank cartridges only, may be carried on horseback while not contained in a case, or to have or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle unless such bow or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a case, or otherwise made inoperable."

If the law of the land and the courts agree that self defense is a lawful right, then you would certainly fall under otherwise permitted by law.

Under such a broad sweep persons using unplugged shotguns shooting clays on rural land can be cited for violation of the game code. "But officer we were not hunting", officer: "doesn't matter all the hunting regulations apply even when your not hunting".

[abolt243]

XJCraver, on 24 January 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 24 January 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

XJCraver, on 24 January 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Incorrect.  The WC is state statute, just like any other law.  Break it, regardless what activity you are engaged in, and get charged with a UUW/AUUW.  Any ruling that does not remove the pertinent parts of the Wildlife Code does nothing for us as gun owners.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

for the last time, YOUR WRONG. I can't be changred with a Wildlife code violation for transporting a firearm if I am not engaged in the activity of hunting, trapping or fishing. That would be the same as charging me for not having a hunting license while shooting on my friends farm, even though no hunting was involved.

I don't know where all the tinfoil hats come from thinking that the Wildlife Code overrides the criminal code. If that were the case, Cook County would already have the means to charge us for not using a firearms case when transporting. You guys who continue to perpetuate this Bull @#%& need to get some fresh air and have your head examined.

If that were the case, then why when I drive around with a 1911 on the front seat in a case, do I not get charged with a Wildlife Code Violation? and i have been pulled over and asked about my gun more than once.

Why did the Supreme Court of Illinois REJECT the Cook County arguement of adopting the Wildlife Code definition in Diggins?

because the Wildlife Code does NOT apply.

I apologize for saying you could be charged with UUW/AUUW, as that is incorrect.  My apologies for that, I should quit posting when I'm on my phone and in a hurry.  However, the argument that the Wildlife Code doesn't override the criminal code is flawed, because the W.C. IS the criminal code.  The "ILCS" stands for "Illinois Compiled Statutes", after all.  A law is a law.

See here --->  http://www.ilga.gov/...29&ChapterID=43  That's the entirety of the Wildlife Code.  The pertinent pieces of it are below:

(520 ILCS 5/1.15) (from Ch. 61, par. 1.15) states that "All authorized employees of the Department, duly accredited officers of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and all sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and other peace officers shall be empowered to arrest any person detected in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, including administrative rules. , etc."

(520 ILCS 5/1.16) (from Ch. 61, par. 1.16) states that all State's Attorneys shall enforce the provisions of the Wildlife code

(520 ILCS 5/2.33) (from Ch. 61, par. 2.33) (n) states that "It is unlawful for any person, except persons who possess a permit to hunt from a vehicle as provided in this Section and persons otherwise permitted by law, to have or carry any gun in or on any vehicle, conveyance or aircraft, unless such gun is unloaded and enclosed in a case, except that at field trials authorized by Section 2.34 of this Act, unloaded guns or guns loaded with blank cartridges only, may be carried on horseback while not contained in a case, or to have or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle unless such bow or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a case, or otherwise made inoperable."


Now, what would a rational person believe, with regard to these three sections of the act?  I believe he would believe that (per 1.15) cops are cops and can arrest you.  He would believe that (per 1.16) the State's Att'y will prosecute you.  And he would further believe that (per 2.33) if he had a weapon in his vehicle that was not unloaded and in a case, he would be charged with a crime if a police officer caught him.  ANY peace officer could make the arrest, which is a fairly important point here.

So, imagine that the judge in this case rules in our favor, the state doesn't appeal, and we are granted de-facto carry (at least until the legislature acts).  Show me where I'm wrong when I say that we are still going to be arrested for violating 520 ILCS 5/2.33.  Nothing I've read in the Wildlife Code says you have to be physically engaged in the act of hunting at the time of arrest for the above statute.  

And, in regards to this particular sentence of your post:  "If that were the case, then why when I drive around with a 1911 on the front seat in a case, do I not get charged with a Wildlife Code Violation? and i have been pulled over and asked about my gun more than once."  Why would you be charged with anything?  You can have any weapon in any vehicle so long as it's unloaded and encased, I drive around with one in my truck very legally every day; I'm missing your point with that sentence.

I'm not trying to be a ____, really.  I've read the W.C. over and over and don't see what I'm missing.  I just want someone to explain it to me.  And I'd really appreciate it if they did it without the tin-foil-hat and bovine excrement references.  If I want to be talked down to, I'll talk to my mother in law...

Try this, yes, the WC is statute, but it's not part of the criminal code.  Criminal code is 720 ILCS/5.  Chapter 720.  The Wildlife Code is  520 ILCS/5.  Chaper 520 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.  Different topics, different chapters.  Different laws for different situations.  There is no provision for local preemption of the WC, by any local municipality.  And the UUW/AUUW is preempted by a person with a valid license while engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing.  720 ILCS/5 24-2 (damned smileys! b (3).

Hope this helps.  

Tim

[Uncle Harley]

So, imagine that the judge in this case rules in our favor, the state doesn't appeal, and we are granted de-facto carry (at least until the legislature acts). Show me where I'm wrong when I say that we are still going to be arrested for violating 520 ILCS 5/2.33. Nothing I've read in the Wildlife Code says you have to be physically engaged in the act of hunting at the time of arrest for the above statute.


If the wildlife code applied to non hunting situations, Diggins wouldn't apply. Unless the console of a car is a case " designed for a firearm" as stated in the wildlife code.

[Uncle Harley]

How do the differences in these two laws affect me for the purposes of the Unlawful Use of
Weapons law?
It is recommended that persons transport their firearms only unloaded and in a case in order to be fully
compliant with all statutes. A firearm transported in a container other than a case while engaged in activities
covered by the Wildlife Code could subject an individual to a charge of Class B Misdemeanor under the Wildlife
Code but would not be considered Unlawful Use of Weapons if the container were a “firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container” as provided in the Criminal Code.

source: www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf

[abolt243]

Uncle Harley, on 24 January 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

How do the differences in these two laws affect me for the purposes of the Unlawful Use of
Weapons law?
It is recommended that persons transport their firearms only unloaded and in a case in order to be fully
compliant with all statutes. A firearm transported in a container other than a case while engaged in activities
covered by the Wildlife Code could subject an individual to a charge of Class B Misdemeanor under the Wildlife
Code but would not be considered Unlawful Use of Weapons if the container were a "firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container" as provided in the Criminal Code.

source: www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf

Notice the reference to two different "codes".  Oh, and according to Diggens, a console is a 'case' as provided in the Criminal Code.

[Tvandermyde]

what you are missing is the application of the law.

"shall be empowered to arrest any person detected in violation of any of the provisions of this Act"

"(n) states that "It is unlawful for any person, except persons who possess a permit to hunt from a vehicle as provided in this Section and persons otherwise permitted by law, to have or carry any gun in or on any vehicle...or to have or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle unless such bow or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a case, or otherwise made inoperable."

Sec. 1.3. The Department shall have the authority to manage wildlife and regulate the taking of wildlife for the purposes of providing public recreation and controlling wildlife populations. The seasons during which wildlife may be taken, the methods for taking wildlife, the daily bag limits, and the possession limits shall be established by the Department through administrative rule, but the Department may not provide for a longer season, a larger daily bag limit, or a larger possession limit than is provided in this Code.

Sec. 1.4. The Department is authorized to make rules and regulations for carrying out, administering and enforcing the provisions of this Act.

it is the application. They are empowered to enforce the Wildlife Code. Not remake the Criminal Code. Not engaged hunting activities, those other sections don't apply.

imagine this, they don't need a warrant to come onto your land to check for a violation. So what if the cops applied this part of the Wildlife Code to all searches, just have a twig pig with the local swat team and no warrant needed. some one called in to say they were poaching copyotes out the back door.

Do you think it would hold up?

really don't read more into the law than is there

[Uncle Harley]

Todd I'm glad this was brought up though, this yr while hunting deer we did a drive. I traveled on foot about a mile with my gun and when picked up on the other side with a vehichle. My case was not in it. I unloaded it and stuck it in the truck box. Everyone in the group thought that was not legal because of the wildlife code's definition of a case being designed for a firearm. I told them that it would not apply because at the point we were driving down the highway, we were no longer pursuing game and transporting a firearm therefor would be covered under the criminal code's definition of a case. What is your opinion on this? ( I believe you've mentioned this before, but I could not find it)