15 replies to this topic

[stm]

Gun group appeals Illinois concealed-carry ruling

http://www.pjstar.co...ed-carry-ruling

Quote

SPRINGFIELD

The Associated Press Posted Feb 06, 2012 @ 02:55 PM

A gun-rights group has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge in Illinois ruled against allowing people to carry firearms on the street. The Second Amendment Foundation announced Monday it's appealing the decision by federal district Judge Sue Myerscough. Currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons. Gun owners say that infringes on their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Myerscough ruled Friday that the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to protect themselves with guns in their home but not on the street. Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb says citizens "don't check our constitutional rights at the front door." A similar Illinois-based lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association remains in federal court.

Article incorrectly says the case is being appealed to the US Supreme Court. It is currently being appealed to the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not SCOTUS.

[Mac]

For quite some time, I figured thisFederal Judge would uphold the States infringment on our rights. I just do not trust any politician, judge or any official in this state. Illinois is so corrupt that you just are not going to get a fair shake. The rest of the country gets to honor their rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Illinois citizens on the other hand get to honor the rights granted by the Democratic Party of the Great city of Chicago. That great city that allows gang bangers to hold public office, allows the illegal immigrant immunity from prosecution and profiling, allows double dipping in their retirement funds. Just for the record, the words that are of question in the 2nd ammendment of the Illinois Constitution, States Attorney Dicky Daley was the person that came up with those words. A Democrat that was headed for Glory in his own mind by tightening the noose around the necks of Illinois Citizens.

As long as Chicago rules the elections by hook or crook, pads the vote for THEIR man in office and dictates state laws by their elected flunkies, Acevedo, Currie, the Madigans Any Chicago Area politician, Illinois citizens will be held down by this political machine.

[xmikex]

WBEZ (NPR) ran this story today as well.  Can't find it on their website yet.  

-Mike

[laststate2havecarry]

Mac, on 06 February 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

For quite some time, I figured thisFederal Judge would uphold the States infringment on our rights. I just do not trust any politician, judge or any official in this state. Illinois is so corrupt that you just are not going to get a fair shake. The rest of the country gets to honor their rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Illinois citizens on the other hand get to honor the rights granted by the Democratic Party of the Great city of Chicago. That great city that allows gang bangers to hold public office, allows the illegal immigrant immunity from prosecution and profiling, allows double dipping in their retirement funds. Just for the record, the words that are of question in the 2nd ammendment of the Illinois Constitution, States Attorney Dicky Daley was the person that came up with those words. A Democrat that was headed for Glory in his own mind by tightening the noose around the necks of Illinois Citizens.

As long as Chicago rules the elections by hook or crook, pads the vote for THEIR man in office and dictates state laws by their elected flunkies, Acevedo, Currie, the Madigans Any Chicago Area politician, Illinois citizens will be held down by this political machine.

+1 and Chicago will never give up it's machine.... NEVER.

[Gary]

stm, on 06 February 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Gun group appeals Illinois concealed-carry ruling

http://www.pjstar.co...ed-carry-ruling

Quote

SPRINGFIELD

The Associated Press Posted Feb 06, 2012 @ 02:55 PM

A gun-rights group has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge in Illinois ruled against allowing people to carry firearms on the street. The Second Amendment Foundation announced Monday it's appealing the decision by federal district Judge Sue Myerscough. Currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons. Gun owners say that infringes on their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Myerscough ruled Friday that the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to protect themselves with guns in their home but not on the street. Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb says citizens "don't check our constitutional rights at the front door." A similar Illinois-based lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association remains in federal court.

Article incorrectly says the case is being appealed to the US Supreme Court. It is currently being appealed to the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not SCOTUS.

Channel 12 News of Cape Girardeau just report the same thing.  It was a good piece from our point of view in that they noted that Illinois stands alone in the prohibition and they interviewed people from other  states that happen to be available and the attitude was good.  Only the interview from a lady in Chicago was the opinion negative in that she thought there were already too many concealed guns being carried and too many senseless shootings.  (The Sheeple mantra)

[Molly B.]

It was a good segment and I like how they wrapped it up at the end.

Quote

The battle for the right to carry a concealed weapon will continue on March 7th, that's when a rally is
being planned by gun owners and supporters at the State of Illinois' capital building in Springfield.

A charter bus is scheduled to leave on that morning at 7 a.m. from the Sams' parking lot in Marion. It will
carry people from Southern Illinois to the march on the capital.

[papa]

This was on WSIL TV 3 The other night.

http://www.wsiltv.co...-138720114.html

[Gary]

papa, on 06 February 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

This was on WSIL TV 3 The other night.

http://www.wsiltv.co...-138720114.html

I am glad we are getting postive press now, even if we appear to be preaching to the choir only here in Southern Illinois.

[bob]

Mac, on 06 February 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

As long as Chicago rules the elections by hook or crook, pads the vote for THEIR man in office and dictates state laws by their elected flunkies, Acevedo, Currie, the Madigans Any Chicago Area politician, Illinois citizens will be held down by this political machine.

This is a federal court and down state. I doubt Chicago had as much influence in this decision as you seem to think.

Judges are supposed to rule in accordance with existing case law. You cannot have every judge making up his or her own set of standards. As I understand it, she only ruled on the preliminary injunction and not on the merits of the case. She could still rule in our favor after the case is fully argued. I don't know how likely that is.

In any case, it may be in our long term best interests to get some kind of court decision that affirms the right to bear arms outside the home, rather than mooting that point by passing LTC. There is a lot of litigation to go in the more restrictive states that a clear right to bear arms outside of the home would help.

[abolt243]

bob, on 07 February 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Mac, on 06 February 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

As long as Chicago rules the elections by hook or crook, pads the vote for THEIR man in office and dictates state laws by their elected flunkies, Acevedo, Currie, the Madigans Any Chicago Area politician, Illinois citizens will be held down by this political machine.

This is a federal court and down state. I doubt Chicago had as much influence in this decision as you seem to think.

Judges are supposed to rule in accordance with existing case law. You cannot have every judge making up his or her own set of standards. As I understand it, she only ruled on the preliminary injunction and not on the merits of the case. She could still rule in our favor after the case is fully argued. I don't know how likely that is.

In any case, it may be in our long term best interests to get some kind of court decision that affirms the right to bear arms outside the home, rather than mooting that point by passing LTC. There is a lot of litigation to go in the more restrictive states that a clear right to bear arms outside of the home would help.

I'd say very unlikely.  As I understand it, she granted a motion to dismiss the case from her court.  She will not "Rule" on the case because it will not reach the "Judgement" stage in her court.  See this thread, post # 15.

Tim

[NakPPI]

The case was dismissed outright, there will not be any motions for summary judgment or bench trials, etc. The case is closed, appealing to the 7th circuit is the only option.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Federal Farmer]

NakPPI, on 07 February 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

The case was dismissed outright, there will not be any motions for summary judgment or bench trials, etc. The case is closed, appealing to the 7th circuit is the only option.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

This is reminiscent of why McDonald proceeded so quickly.  There the circuit judge allowed the question of whether the 2nd applied to the states to proceed up the chain without doing lots of discovery and such.  In this case, we get to the appeals court without having to bother with a trial.

Shepherd is going to trial, as it stands today, so will likely take longer to get to the appeals court.

[abolt243]

Federal Farmer, on 07 February 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

NakPPI, on 07 February 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

The case was dismissed outright, there will not be any motions for summary judgment or bench trials, etc. The case is closed, appealing to the 7th circuit is the only option.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

This is reminiscent of why McDonald proceeded so quickly.  There the circuit judge allowed the question of whether the 2nd applied to the states to proceed up the chain without doing lots of discovery and such.  In this case, we get to the appeals court without having to bother with a trial.

Shepherd is going to trial, as it stands today, so will likely take longer to get to the appeals court.

I thought I heard or was told that Shepherd would not have any oral arguments though.  That the Judge would simply hand down a ruling when he was ready.  Is that right, or even possible??  Perry Mason always had his day in court!!

Tim

[samy12386]

What case is this we just lost?

[colt-45]

samy12386, on 07 February 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

What case is this we just lost?

Moore v Madigan

[scough]

abolt243, on 07 February 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

[That the Judge would simply hand down a ruling when he was ready.

Tim

Wasn't that a she?