Jump to content


Photo

Moore v. Madigan district court rules against RTC


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Tvandermyde

    Member

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

Posted 03 February 2012 - 07:59 PM

the decision is here.

just starting to read it.

more to follow. . . .

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 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 03 February 2012 - 08:22 PM

the decision is here.

just starting to read it.

more to follow. . . .


oh, well

Thanks, Todd
Bud



"The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home"

Ida B. Wells 1862-1931


ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#3 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,210 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 08:45 PM

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*
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.

#4 Sigma

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,533 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 03 February 2012 - 08:46 PM

:thumbsup:
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#5 Gary

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 04

Posted 03 February 2012 - 08:47 PM

BUMMER!!!!!

Now what?

#6 colt-45

    Member

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

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:14 PM

O.....my G.D! they won on that weak argument. well now we can go forward with it...... to the high court we go.

#7 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:23 PM

There goes our leverage in the legislature.
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#8 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,998 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:26 PM

There goes our leverage in the legislature.


not really

Shepard is still pending
Bud



"The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home"

Ida B. Wells 1862-1931


ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#9 Tvandermyde

    Member

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

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:30 PM

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. . .
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.

#10 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,210 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:33 PM

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. :thumbsup:
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.

#11 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,173 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:15 PM

Doesn't matter since it wold be appealed no matter what.

#12 Danielm60660

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,050 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:58 PM

I guess we'll have to sue over the meaning of the word "bear".

#13 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,213 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 03 February 2012 - 11:57 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.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#14 frankw438

    Starfleet Security

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,481 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 04 February 2012 - 08:24 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.

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

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


#15 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,210 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:00 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.
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.

#16 Tvandermyde

    Member

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

Posted 04 February 2012 - 01:28 PM

thanks NakPPi for that catch.
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.

#17 pyre400

    Political opinions expressed are always my own.

  • Admin
  • 7,727 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 09

Posted 04 February 2012 - 03:27 PM

thanks NakPPi for that catch.


+1 Thank you, Nak

__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution


#18 frankw438

    Starfleet Security

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,481 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:02 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. :yes1:

-- Frank

Edited by frankw438, 04 February 2012 - 11:03 PM.

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


#19 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,331 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:23 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. :thumbsup:

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

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#20 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,767 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:50 AM

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.
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/

#21 frankw438

    Starfleet Security

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,481 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:53 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

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


#22 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

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

Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:49 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.
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


#23 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,210 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 05 February 2012 - 05:22 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

Edited by NakPPI, 05 February 2012 - 05:23 PM.

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.

#24 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,213 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 06 February 2012 - 06:23 AM

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?
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#25 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,210 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 06 February 2012 - 07:57 AM

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
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.

#26 robinp

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 10

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:28 AM

And the process to get to and through the 7th circuit---are we talking several weeks, months or a year plus?

#27 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,210 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:17 AM

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
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.

#28 drdoom

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 08

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:41 AM

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.

Edited by drdoom, 06 February 2012 - 11:45 AM.


#29 blackhalo

    Member

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

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:51 AM

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).

#30 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,654 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 February 2012 - 03:06 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.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872