79 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

a federal judge dissmissed the case today in a 19 page opinion.

We will now appeal.

More to follow. . .

Attached Files

•  Shepard_orderdismiss.pdf   158.67K   423 downloads

[Bud]

Tvandermyde, on 30 March 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

a federal judge dissmissed the case today in a 19 page opinion.

We will now appeal.

More to follow. . .

See?

There really isn't an Easter Bunny

[Ashdump]

.

That's just great.

ETA, and it was a Reagan appointed judge that just threw us under the bus.

[TFC]

Looks like we're done here....

[Bud]

TFC, on 30 March 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Looks like we're done here....

By no means is it done, now it gets appealed and the delay in getting our rights gets longer

[Tvandermyde]

the green light for the apeal is already given and in the works.

[willxjcherokee]

Wow

[Tvandermyde]

NRA Will Appeal Decision Denying Right to Carry Outside the HomeLate today, a federal district court in Illinois wrongly ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to protect firearms for self-protection outside the home. The NRA funded this challenge to Illinois’ ban on citizens’ ability to carry firearms legally outside their homes and businesses for self-defense, and will also be supporting an immediate appeal to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals—and to the Supreme Court if necessary.The decision in the case of Shepard v. Madigan misreads the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions and will continue to deprive law-abiding Illinoisans of the right to protect themselves effectively against crime on the streets. It also conflicts with a growing body of case law elsewhere in the country, where courts have increasingly recognized that the right to bear arms for self-defense doesn’t end at Americans’ front doors.“The NRA’s legal efforts will not end until the right to carry firearms for self-defense is fully recognized throughout our land,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.For more information on this and other critical Second Amendment cases, please sign up for our free Legal Update newsletter at www.nraila.org/legalupdate.

[Molly B.]

Very disappointing.

Especially this:
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the plaintiffs’ claim that the provisions of the State of
Illinois’ Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a
firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.

How can a judge get it so wrong?

[Ashdump]

Molly B., on 30 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Very disappointing.

Especially this:
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the plaintiffs' claim that the provisions of the State of
Illinois' Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a
firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.

How can a judge get it so wrong?

I doubt he has the spine to tell Mrs. Shepard that in person either.

[bob]

Molly B., on 30 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Very disappointing.

Especially this:
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the plaintiffs' claim that the provisions of the State of
Illinois' Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a
firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.

How can a judge get it so wrong?

Perhaps the judge is unwilling to rule beyond where there is clear and binding precedent. It will be no doubt be appealed. keep in mind there is some indication that the appeals court one step up from this guy may well have a different opinion (Ezell).


In any case, it probably would have not been final even if the judge had ruled in our favor as the state would have appealed.

[willxjcherokee]

I am so disappointed in that judge, how can defense be only for in the home.
I should be able to defend myself anywhere, its a human right.

[wilessiuc]

Now that we are years away, if even then, from a favorable court ruling (appeals take forever), let's get it done in Springfield!

[es503IL]

...SCOTUS...

[firepiper]

And this dismissal was from what was to be the "better" of the venues between Shepard and Moore?

I guess we know even more what to expect when Moore is ruled on......

Edited by firepiper, 30 March 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[robinp]

wilessiuc, on 30 March 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Now that we are years away, if even then, from a favorable court ruling (appeals take forever), let's get it done in Springfield!

I wonder what impact this will have on the handful of no votes "we" have been trying to win over to our side (those who voted no on HB148). I know everyone in this forum, and those lobbying for our cause, was hoping this case would force their hand. While I remain hopeful for a majority vote, I suspect this will be another bump in the road which makes a successful end even more challenging. No one said it would be easy, right? I look forward to hearing Todd's input on this (and others that are qualified to speak to this issue).

[Molly B.]

Molly B., on 30 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Very disappointing.

Especially this:
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the plaintiffs’ claim that the provisions of the State of
Illinois’ Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a
firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.

How can a judge get it so wrong?

Is there a typo here?  Shouldn't it be, "the Court FINDS that the defendants' claim . . ."

[3ddiver]

Disappointing indeed but I know the people hard at work on this case wont stop because of it.

[Ashdump]

firepiper, on 30 March 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

And this dismissal was from what was to be the "better" of the venues between Shepard and Moore?

I guess we know even more what to expect when Moore is ruled on......

Moore  has already been dismissed. I expected that from that liber judge. It really hurts when a supposed conservative kicks you in the teeth.

[willxjcherokee]

Ashdump, on 30 March 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

firepiper, on 30 March 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

And this dismissal was from what was to be the "better" of the venues between Shepard and Moore?

I guess we know even more what to expect when Moore is ruled on......

Moore was has a;ready been dismissed. I expected that from that liber judge. It really hurts when a supposed conservative kicks you in the teeth.

Yeah its looking bad for us.
We need to work harder now though   Someday!

[Satatic]

Sounds like someone got paid.

[Bud]

Molly B., on 30 March 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Molly B., on 30 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Very disappointing.

Especially this:
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the plaintiffs' claim that the provisions of the State of
Illinois' Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a
firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.

How can a judge get it so wrong?

Is there a typo here?  Shouldn't it be, "the Court FINDS that the defendants' claim . . ."

The Defendent is Lisa et al, Mary Shepard is the plantiff, is that what you mean?

[milq]

Although I know the appeal is coming its still disappointing. I'd be much happier if the other side had to file for appeal. Hopefully the 7th will be more respectful of the actual Constitution.

[kurt555gs]

I smell Florida media hype, and politics.

* Carthago delenda est *

[Ashdump]

kurt555gs, on 30 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I smell Florida media hype, and politics.

* Carthago delenda est *

This creep had his mind long made up before then.

[snubjob]

willxjcherokee, on 30 March 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I am so disappointed in that judge, how can defense be only for in the home.
I should be able to defend myself anywhere, its a human right.

It is in most states.

[snubjob]

Ashdump, on 30 March 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

kurt555gs, on 30 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I smell Florida media hype, and politics.

* Carthago delenda est *

This creep had his mind long made up before then.

I'm bettin the decision was made before the case ever even made it to the judge.

[abolt243]

firepiper, on 30 March 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

And this dismissal was from what was to be the "better" of the venues between Shepard and Moore?

I guess we know even more what to expect when Moore is ruled on......

Moore was ruled on and dismissed at this district level several weeks ago!

[pyre400]

Bummer... Well, on with the next!

[FAL]

This state gets it wrong on so many topics that this is no surprise. Justice in the state of Illinois is illusive, and for many, non-existent. For those who do find justice in this state, it is often costly and lengthy.

Those opposed to any CCW in this state will now feel no pressure to allow CCW in any form, and this fight will likely drag on for several more years. They are hoping we will give up, or run out of resources, but they underestimate our resolve and determination. If not for us, we will continue to push for justice for our children and grand-children, along with those we will never know, who will avail themselves of the basic, fundamental right to self defense wherever they go in Illinois. The day will come, but it may be a while now.