Ron Posted January 20, 2012 at 04:51 AM Posted January 20, 2012 at 04:51 AM This is a case I found that was posted on the Illinois Court Opinions site today 1/19/12 - People v. Montyce H. 1st District Appellate. It appears to be a 2A challenge to Illinois AUUW statute. Appellate court cites People v. Dawson, People v. Aguilar and People v. Mimes in upholding the conviction for AUUW and affirming that the statute does not violate the Second Amendment or the Illinois constitution. Interesting read.... http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/1stDistrict/November/1101788.pdf
colt-45 Posted January 20, 2012 at 06:16 AM Posted January 20, 2012 at 06:16 AM so what are you saying that we can't win in Moore and Shepard cause of these ruling's? just asking.
Talonap Posted January 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM Posted January 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM Not sure, but the fact that he was only 15 would probably be the deciding fact here. Being under age, he broke both Federal and IL laws by carrying a concealed weapon.
Ron Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:06 PM Author Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:06 PM so what are you saying that we can't win in Moore and Shepard cause of these ruling's? just asking. Not at all, the case is not published at this point (can't be cited) and I just thought it was an interesting read (i.e., justice's mode of thinking). Granted the kid was 15 but they seemed to ignore that which I found very strange.
colt-45 Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:28 PM Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:28 PM so what are you saying that we can't win in Moore and Shepard cause of these ruling's? just asking. Not at all, the case is not published at this point (can't be cited) and I just thought it was an interesting read (i.e., justice's mode of thinking). Granted the kid was 15 but they seemed to ignore that which I found very strange. i see your point, it was interesting read.
abolt243 Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:55 PM Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:55 PM so what are you saying that we can't win in Moore and Shepard cause of these ruling's? just asking. Not at all, the case is not published at this point (can't be cited) and I just thought it was an interesting read (i.e., justice's mode of thinking). Granted the kid was 15 but they seemed to ignore that which I found very strange. i see your point, it was interesting read. A good example of a case NOT to hang your hat on when trying to get to the SCOTUS. As has been said, to be successful, we need the right CASE, with the right PLAINTIFF, with the right SITUATION, in the right VENUE at the right TIME! Not easy to get all those together. We're fortunate to have cases as good as Shepard and Moore both at once in different districts. Hopefully we'll see some movement soon. Tim
Tvandermyde Posted January 20, 2012 at 03:36 PM Posted January 20, 2012 at 03:36 PM This case has no bearing on Shepard or Moore. And they continue to re-write Heller. Cook did it at oral argume ts this week, handguns in the home. No its not. And our side needs to get better about pushing back on it A bunch of these cases are minors and other caught doing something criminal and why they would try to assert a 2a claim for a minor is just more dumbass criminal lawyers tossing brown stuff at the wall to try and save their client while mucking it up for the rest of us. Moore and shepard deal with law abiding citizens deprived of a right
stm Posted January 20, 2012 at 03:59 PM Posted January 20, 2012 at 03:59 PM This case has no bearing on Shepard or Moore. And they continue to re-write Heller. Cook did it at oral argume ts this week, handguns in the home. No its not. And our side needs to get better about pushing back on it A bunch of these cases are minors and other caught doing something criminal and why they would try to assert a 2a claim for a minor is just more dumbass criminal lawyers tossing brown stuff at the wall to try and save their client while mucking it up for the rest of us. Moore and shepard deal with law abiding citizens deprived of a rightMoore and Shepard are in federal courts, this was in state court so it may not have as much bearing.
NakPPI Posted January 20, 2012 at 06:10 PM Posted January 20, 2012 at 06:10 PM These are the same Judges that ruled on Mimes, no surprise that they cut and pasted their own ruling on this case. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Mac Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:26 AM Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:26 AM The idea of Criminal lawyers throwing brown stuff at a wall to see what sticks is a good analigy. I for one think that most Lawyers are ambulance chasers and are interrested in themselves only. Most of them do not know the law, they try to push an idea on a judge they hope knows less that they do. Laws rule this country, but it seems like the lawyers and judges want to dictate the laws as they see fit.
NakPPI Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:51 AM Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:51 AM The idea of Criminal lawyers throwing brown stuff at a wall to see what sticks is a good analigy. I for one think that most Lawyers are ambulance chasers and are interrested in themselves only. Most of them do not know the law, they try to push an idea on a judge they hope knows less that they do. Laws rule this country, but it seems like the lawyers and judges want to dictate the laws as they see fit. LOL. This is so not true. Stop believing what you see on TV shows. Now, I'll admit that there are bad lawyers and even more bad judges, but to try to characterize all lawyers and judges with such broad strokes is hardly fair. I myself have criticized the appellate defender that argued the Aguilar case, as it was clear from his oral argument that he hadn't read most of the Heller opinion.
Ron Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:18 PM Author Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:18 PM Turns out this case was cited in Moore.
Federal Farmer Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:26 PM Posted February 15, 2012 at 02:26 PM The idea of Criminal lawyers throwing brown stuff at a wall to see what sticks is a good analigy. I for one think that most Lawyers are ambulance chasers and are interrested in themselves only. Most of them do not know the law, they try to push an idea on a judge they hope knows less that they do. Laws rule this country, but it seems like the lawyers and judges want to dictate the laws as they see fit. Isn't it a defense lawyer's duty to attempt any feasible defense on behalf of his/her client?
Howard Roark Posted February 17, 2012 at 04:51 AM Posted February 17, 2012 at 04:51 AM The idea of Criminal lawyers throwing brown stuff at a wall to see what sticks is a good analigy. I for one think that most Lawyers are ambulance chasers and are interrested in themselves only. Most of them do not know the law, they try to push an idea on a judge they hope knows less that they do. Laws rule this country, but it seems like the lawyers and judges want to dictate the laws as they see fit. Isn't it a defense lawyer's duty to attempt any feasible defense on behalf of his/her client? lawyers are bad, until you need one. same can be said [falsely] for guns.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.