Tvandermyde Posted February 4, 2012 at 01:59 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 01:59 AM the decision is here. just starting to read it. more to follow. . . .moore.pdf
Bud Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:22 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:22 AM the decision is here. just starting to read it. more to follow. . . . oh, well Thanks, Todd
NakPPI Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:45 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:45 AM It's a cut and paste of Mimes/Aguilar as I had feared. Then, to rub salt in the wound, she cites Donohue and the Violence Policy Center, the two most discredited sources of anti-concealed carry propaganda. *sigh*
colt-45 Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:14 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:14 AM O.....my G.D! they won on that weak argument. well now we can go forward with it...... to the high court we go.
JackTripper Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:23 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:23 AM There goes our leverage in the legislature.
Bud Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:26 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:26 AM There goes our leverage in the legislature. not really Shepard is still pending
Tvandermyde Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:30 AM Author Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:30 AM quick update. 1. leverage in the legislature is not gone, as the only 1 of 49 states has not changed. 2. Shepard is not decided and we could get a split in the circuit. 3. our votes in the legislature were not based upon the Court. we worked those. is the pressure diminished, yes. But not gone. 4. all the more reason to take back our rights via the elections and why we have to work so hard at them. 5. all the bad criminal law cases out of Cook County have had an impact. still wading through all of this and again more to follow. . .
NakPPI Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:33 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 03:33 AM Let's be honest with ourselves, we all knew that losing this injunction was a distinct possibility. I'm not saying "I told you so," believe me I wish I had been wrong with my guess that we would get a retread of Mimes in the federal court. Remember, even Alan Gura expects to lose at the District level and this is the Second Amendment Foundation's case. We may get to hear another Alan Gura performance before Judge Sykes yet again.
Davey Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:15 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:15 AM Doesn't matter since it wold be appealed no matter what.
Danielm60660 Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:58 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 04:58 AM I guess we'll have to sue over the meaning of the word "bear".
mauserme Posted February 4, 2012 at 05:57 AM Posted February 4, 2012 at 05:57 AM Its funny feeling disappointed that the thing we said wouldn't matter if it happened, actually did happen. I'm taking a break tonight and, tomorrow, getting back to work on the things I can help with.
Frank Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:24 PM Posted February 4, 2012 at 02:24 PM Its funny feeling disappointed that the thing we said wouldn't matter if it happened, actually did happen. I'm taking a break tonight and, tomorrow, getting back to work on the things I can help with.This is disappointing, but not totally unexpected. The judge went to great lengths to emphasize that Heller stated laws that forbid concealed carry are still presumptively valid, but stated that Plaintiffs wished to carry firearms "concealed or otherwise." She totally ignored Peruta and other case law that stated concealed carry could only be prohibited as long as other forms of carry were not prohibited. There were so many other parts of this judgement that left me scratching my head. So much of it looks like a cut and paste of the Brady Bunch Brief. Most of the Plaintiffs arguments and amici briefs were totally ignored. -- Frank
NakPPI Posted February 4, 2012 at 06:00 PM Posted February 4, 2012 at 06:00 PM There were so many other parts of this judgement that left me scratching my head. So much of it looks like a cut and paste of the Brady Bunch Brief. Most of the Plaintiffs arguments and amici briefs were totally ignored. -- Frank Just so everyone is clear, this was NOT a judgment order. This was an order denying a preliminary injunction and granting a motion to dismiss. This case never made it to the judgment stage. The dismissal order basically says that the Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim under the second amendment, because the 2nd amendment doesn't extend beyond the home, among other things. The reason this is important is because Shepard v. Madigan made it PAST the pleading stage and they are at the JUDGMENT stage. There are different legal standards depending on what motions are before the court and it also changes what standards are used on appeal. So Moore is a "pleading" case much like the Wilson v. Cook County case, except that in Moore the Judge made a substantive ruling by denying the preliminary injunction in addition to dismissing the case.
Tvandermyde Posted February 4, 2012 at 07:28 PM Author Posted February 4, 2012 at 07:28 PM thanks NakPPi for that catch.
pyre400 Posted February 4, 2012 at 09:27 PM Posted February 4, 2012 at 09:27 PM thanks NakPPi for that catch. +1 Thank you, Nak
Frank Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:02 AM Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:02 AM thanks NakPPi for that catch. +1 Thank you, Nak +2 My layman's vocabulary came up short there. Thanks for explaining the difference to us, Nak. Kind of like CLIPS and MAGAZINES. Subtle difference to someone who doesn't know any better, but REALLY ANNOYING to those of us who do. -- Frank
lockman Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:23 PM Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:23 PM thanks NakPPi for that catch. +1 Thank you, Nak +2 My layman's vocabulary came up short there. Thanks for explaining the difference to us, Nak. Kind of like CLIPS and MAGAZINES. Subtle difference to someone who doesn't know any better, but REALLY ANNOYING to those of us who do. -- Frank In layman's vocabulary I read this as one federal judge in northern Illinois was not convinced that your right to life, via your ability to protect it, extends beyond the doors on your home.
bob Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:50 PM Posted February 5, 2012 at 05:50 PM In layman's vocabulary I read this as one federal judge in northern Illinois was not convinced that your right to life, via your ability to protect it, extends beyond the doors on your home. Or he may not want to rule in a way contrary to virtually all previous case law and leave it to someone else to do so. It is not over till SCOTUS says it is over.
Frank Posted February 5, 2012 at 06:53 PM Posted February 5, 2012 at 06:53 PM In layman's vocabulary I read this as one federal judge in northern Illinois was not convinced that your right to life, via your ability to protect it, extends beyond the doors on your home. Or he may not want to rule in a way contrary to virtually all previous case law and leave it to someone else to do so. It is not over till SCOTUS says it is over. Judge SUE E. Myerscough is a US District Judge for the CENTRAL District of Illinois in Springfield. But otherwise, I think you both make good points. -- Frank
abolt243 Posted February 5, 2012 at 09:49 PM Posted February 5, 2012 at 09:49 PM In layman's vocabulary I read this as one federal judge in northern Illinois was not convinced that your right to life, via your ability to protect it, extends beyond the doors on your home. Or he may not want to rule in a way contrary to virtually all previous case law and leave it to someone else to do so. It is not over till SCOTUS says it is over. For full disclosure, it's a lady judge in Springfield.
NakPPI Posted February 5, 2012 at 11:22 PM Posted February 5, 2012 at 11:22 PM The only interesting thing about this order is that she found that the 2nd amendment wasn't implicated at all, based on some bad federal decisions, despite the fact that the bad cook county State cases still found that 2A was implicated. Judge Lampkin in Mimes for example, agreed that 2A extends beyond the home, but still found the statutes constitutional. Judge Meyerscough wouldn't even go that far. This order gives basically no 2A protection beyond the home, which is obviously wrong. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
mauserme Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:23 PM Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:23 PM Does this case set any precedent? Is it something we might see cited in future litigation other than as an affirmation of the "in home" intepretation?
NakPPI Posted February 6, 2012 at 01:57 PM Posted February 6, 2012 at 01:57 PM Welcome to IllinoisCarry.com this forum was started in an effort to advance concealed carry legislation in Illinois. There are a lot of clubs, associations but I thought they needed a place to get together and talk about how to get things done. Some people might laugh, concealed carry in Illinois never! Well with this forum we can educate people about this issue. 46 other states allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed. Why wont Illinois? Thats what the people of Illinois need to get working on. The short answer, without getting into a convoluted discussion about precedent, is that this order doesn't matter a whole lot because it is being appealed to the 7th Circuit. Now, if it's affirmed by the 7th circuit we can really start to worry. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
robinp Posted February 6, 2012 at 02:28 PM Posted February 6, 2012 at 02:28 PM And the process to get to and through the 7th circuit---are we talking several weeks, months or a year plus?
NakPPI Posted February 6, 2012 at 03:17 PM Posted February 6, 2012 at 03:17 PM Well, Ezell filed her notice of appeal on 10/28/10. The court issued it's ruling on 7/6/11... Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
drdoom Posted February 6, 2012 at 05:41 PM Posted February 6, 2012 at 05:41 PM Was reading about how they used Heller's reasoning on concealed weapons bans being held constitutional; yeah they would IF we could carry openly and loaded. Glad I'm outta here Jan 13, 2012, I'll keep fighting until then though.
blackhalo Posted February 6, 2012 at 05:51 PM Posted February 6, 2012 at 05:51 PM I've been silently following this. Ugh. Glad I'm moving across the river to Davenport, Iowa shortly. But that doesn't help me when I cross over to Illinois (which I often do).
GarandFan Posted February 6, 2012 at 09:06 PM Posted February 6, 2012 at 09:06 PM I like how David Hardy put it, in reference to Judge Myerscough's logic: "Second amendment rights are not unlimited. State statutes banning carry are a limitation. Thus, state statutes banning carry are constitutional." Heh heh ... I have far more confidence that the 7th circuit will get this right.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.