Jump to content


Photo

People v. Montyce H.


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 11

Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:51 PM

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....ber/1101788.pdf

Edited by Ron, 19 January 2012 - 10:53 PM.


#2 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,287 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 20 January 2012 - 12:16 AM

so what are you saying that we can't win in Moore and Shepard cause of these ruling's? just asking.

#3 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,793 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 20 January 2012 - 06:23 AM

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.

Edited by Talonap, 20 January 2012 - 06:23 AM.


#4 Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 11

Posted 20 January 2012 - 07:06 AM

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.

Edited by Ron, 20 January 2012 - 07:15 AM.


#5 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,287 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 20 January 2012 - 07:28 AM


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.

#6 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,208 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 20 January 2012 - 07:55 AM



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
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


#7 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,549 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 20 January 2012 - 09:36 AM

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
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 stm

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 20 January 2012 - 09:59 AM

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

Moore and Shepard are in federal courts, this was in state court so it may not have as much bearing.

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


#9 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 20 January 2012 - 12:10 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
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.

#10 Mac

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,260 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 07

Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:26 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.
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.

#11 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:51 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.


LOL.

This is so not true. Stop believing what you see on TV shows. :thumbsup:

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.
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.

#12 Ron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 11

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:18 AM

Turns out this case was cited in Moore.

#13 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,154 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:26 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.


Isn't it a defense lawyer's duty to attempt any feasible defense on behalf of his/her client?

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.

#14 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,988 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:51 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?


lawyers are bad, until you need one. same can be said [falsely] for guns.
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!