53 replies to this topic

[sirflyguy]

Tvandermyde, on 05 March 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

My understanding is this judge ruled that the law of good cause could not survive an intermediate scrutiny standard. If that fails intermediate, Illinois complete  ban on carry can't survive rational basis. . .

This is big, not to mention the beyond the home issue, sounds an awful lot like what we argued today at the task force in Chicago

I thought, "this is a big deal", when I read the article.  After reading your post, Todd, I know I was right!

[NakPPI]

Tvandermyde, on 05 March 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

My understanding is this judge ruled that the law of good cause could not survive an intermediate scrutiny standard. If that fails intermediate, Illinois complete  ban on carry can't survive rational basis. . .

This is big, not to mention the beyond the home issue, sounds an awful lot like what we argued today at the task force in Chicago

Todd, you have the right of it for sure. If "good cause" doesn't survive intermediate scrutiny, then a "ban" on open and concealed carry certainly can't either. There's nothing "rational" about the complete denial of a right to prevent "some" accidents. We all knew that Judge Myerscough's opinion was wacky, this just proves it.   Also hinted in the opinion is the concealed vs. open carry issue. Prohibition of concealed carry has been historically OK, so long as open carry was permitted. As such, the Illinois general assembly is risking an opinion in Shepard that would uphold a ban on concealed carry and allow open carry...

[Steve O]

Their all lawyers and they know this isn't gonna be good for their cause but they will use every trick in the book to make this take as long as possible

[TomKoz]

Steve O, on 05 March 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Their all lawyers and they know this isn't gonna be good for their cause but they will use every trick in the book to make this take as long as possible

Who should I send my money to to get this pushed through as soon as possible????

[bob]

TomKoz, on 05 March 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Steve O, on 05 March 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Their all lawyers and they know this isn't gonna be good for their cause but they will use every trick in the book to make this take as long as possible

Who should I send my money to to get this pushed through as soon as possible????

I am not sure there is any need to send money to anyone to deal with the court cases. The other side is pretty much funding them. In any case, there is no practical way to speed these cases up. I don't see any carry cases hitting SCOTUS soon enough to see a decision before June of 2014. The courts are just very slow. Which is not really a bad thing.

LTC and other political and legislative issues are where one should spend money if one is inclined to do so, IMO. There are several organizations around that would put it to good use in those arenas.  Even if we win a carry case at SCOTUS and got everything we wanted, we would still have to deal with UUW (and other issues) in IL and the home rule problem. Those problems will not just go away on their own. They are inherently political and legislative in nature and are going to have to be dealt with legislatively and politically.

Edited by bob, 06 March 2012 - 07:33 AM.

[Xwing]

This court case was the front-page main article on FoxNews yesterday for a bit.  Very exciting to hear!  Now if only we'd hear the same within the 7th district...

[wilessiuc]

The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.

With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!

[scough]

wilessiuc, on 06 March 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!

Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?

[abolt243]

scough, on 06 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

wilessiuc, on 06 March 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!

Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?

Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case.  Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly.  The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?).  I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May.  But then, we hoped for one before now.  

AB

[NakPPI]

Judge Meyerscough, in Moore v Madigan did two things -she denied our motion for injunction and granted the State's motion to dismiss. Moore is similar to Wilson v Cook County, it's a pleading case.

Woollard is a summary judgment case. Shepard is also a summary judgment case. That's the connection.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[scough]

abolt243, on 06 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

scough, on 06 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

wilessiuc, on 06 March 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!

Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?

Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case.  Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly.  The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?).  I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May. But then, we hoped for one before now.  

AB

I thought the popular expectation was for a later Feb, early March decision? I thought back in mid-January, Molly has posted a message with some insider guidance regarding time frames. While anticipating a judges perogative is a fools play, I'm not sure what has happened in the last 6 weeks to drastically change the expectation back another 90 days? Have I missed anything?

[abolt243]

scough, on 06 March 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

abolt243, on 06 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case.  Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly.  The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?).  I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May. But then, we hoped for one before now.  

AB

I thought the popular expectation was for a later Feb, early March decision? I thought back in mid-January, Molly has posted a message with some insider guidance regarding time frames. While anticipating a judges perogative is a fools play, I'm not sure what has happened in the last 6 weeks to drastically change the expectation back another 90 days? Have I missed anything?

A decision in that time frame would be before May, would it not??  There have been some motions filed that delayed a decision.  The Maryland decision might bring another motion which would delay it another week.  If that brings strength to our argument, I can wait another week.

Tim

[wilessiuc]

scough, on 06 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

wilessiuc, on 06 March 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!

Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?

Good catch, I meant Moore!!

[ishmo]

Interesting article on the decision from the Baltimore Sun

Lawyers say gun ruling likely to withstand appeal

[scough]

abolt243, on 06 March 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

scough, on 06 March 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

abolt243, on 06 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case.  Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly.  The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?).  I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May. But then, we hoped for one before now.  

AB

I thought the popular expectation was for a later Feb, early March decision? I thought back in mid-January, Molly has posted a message with some insider guidance regarding time frames. While anticipating a judges perogative is a fools play, I'm not sure what has happened in the last 6 weeks to drastically change the expectation back another 90 days? Have I missed anything?

A decision in that time frame would be before May, would it not??  There have been some motions filed that delayed a decision.  The Maryland decision might bring another motion which would delay it another week.  If that brings strength to our argument, I can wait another week.

Tim

Not trying to upset the wheelcart and I get your point, but saying before the year 2014 would likewise be correct as well. I recall seeing a number of posts from 'informed' folks suggesting that beyond 90 days to 120 days from the last motion with a summary judgement starts becoming unreasonable.  Either way, it's pretty clear that we should be something regarding Shepard soon!

[mauserme]

Maybe Molly B's post that you're thinking of is this one from January 15, 2012:

http://illinoiscarry...on&fromsearch=1

Quote

Talked with a someone this weekend who has experience in federal court in the southern district.
He went online to look at the case. It's his opinion that the "delay" looks like routine scheduling between
filings and then 30-60 day periods for the opposing side to respond. Looking at the last filing he thinks, if there
aren't any more filings/motions, we could hear something from the court in February or sooner. One man's opinion.

There were additional fillings in early February so that might explain the delay.

[scough]

mauserme, on 07 March 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Maybe Molly B's post that you're thinking of is this one from January 15, 2012:

http://illinoiscarry...on&fromsearch=1

Quote

Talked with a someone this weekend who has experience in federal court in the southern district.
He went online to look at the case. It's his opinion that the "delay" looks like routine scheduling between
filings and then 30-60 day periods for the opposing side to respond. Looking at the last filing he thinks, if there
aren't any more filings/motions, we could hear something from the court in February or sooner. One man's opinion.

There were additional fillings in early February so that might explain the delay.

Thanks!  I have been relying on IRSA's website here that shows the date of the last motion being in Sept.

http://www.isra.org/lawsuits/#Shepard

I knew there was something in November, but missed the February Motions. Thanks for posting this link!

[Ranger]

I think I read earlier in this thread that Meyercough was appointed by Obama.

In the Gun ruling article, it states "Woollard filed a lawsuit in federal court, and won when Legg, who was nominated to his position by Republican President George H.W. Bush, found in his favor."

Who nominated the judge that will hear the Shepherd case?

Does anyone doubt how important elections are as they relate to the second amendment?

[Hossua]

Ranger, on 07 March 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

I think I read earlier in this thread that Meyercough was appointed by Obama.

In the Gun ruling article, it states "Woollard filed a lawsuit in federal court, and won when Legg, who was nominated to his position by Republican President George H.W. Bush, found in his favor."

Who nominated the judge that will hear the Shepherd case?

Does anyone doubt how important elections are as they relate to the second amendment?

I have never doubted it, but Republican appointments have their own issues I don't agree with. Totally understand that we are all in it for gun rights here, but voting is not a single issue proposition.

[Ranger]

Hossua:  Agreed.  I don't think there will ever be a "perfect" candidate or party.  We just have to focus on what issues are most important and greatest risk / opportunity at the time.  For me, in this election, I've got to vote for change from Obama and Reid.  Even though my vote in Illinois won't really matter, I'll have a clear concience.

[lockman]

If I understood correctly, I believe it was Mike W. that stated another motion was being filed in Sheppard by our side based on the Woolard MD decision. So another week or two delay based on that, but can only help in a victorious outcome.

[snubjob]

wilessiuc, on 05 March 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to hear the issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home. Circuits are split as to the answer, and the Supreme Court loves to hear those types of cases. However, we are probably at least 2-3 years away from this happening. This makes the 2012 election crucial. If Obama wins, he almost certainly will have anywhere from 1-3 nominations to make to the Court. Another Sotomayor or Kagan and you can imagine how the Court will rule.

This is exactly what the chicago machine is counting on. They have the will and means to stall this process until this scenario plays out. And they are intent on success. They have influence that reaches into every branch of our government. Call me negative or whatever you want, but what it boils down to is that if concealed carry doesn't become a reality THIS legislative session, it could be several years down the road if ever.

[RECarry]

snubjob, on 08 March 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

wilessiuc, on 05 March 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to hear the issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home. Circuits are split as to the answer, and the Supreme Court loves to hear those types of cases. However, we are probably at least 2-3 years away from this happening. This makes the 2012 election crucial. If Obama wins, he almost certainly will have anywhere from 1-3 nominations to make to the Court. Another Sotomayor or Kagan and you can imagine how the Court will rule.

This is exactly what the chicago machine is counting on. They have the will and means to stall this process until this scenario plays out. And they are intent on success. They have influence that reaches into every branch of our government. Call me negative or whatever you want, but what it boils down to is that if concealed carry doesn't become a reality THIS legislative session, it could be several years down the road if ever.

My latest attempt to interact with our reluctant D-Rep. Karey May was to show (politely, in graph form) that IL is losing good people (taxpayers) to states that show greater respect for citizens and the Constitution. The anti's may be determined to win this battle over CCW but they WILL lose the war on economic grounds. In other words, I have stopped arguing over "why we should have CCW" and begun asking my Rep. why the Dems spend so much time cramming down their personal agenda instead of allowing Constitutional rights to stand - so lawmakers can focus on fixing the budget mess. Puts the "what good are you?" back on them.

[NakPPI]

Karen May is such a waste of space. She doesn't listen to anyone but the yes men she surrounds herself with.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk