81 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

Well reasoned and well written.  Well thought out.

[bob]

05FLHT, on 14 April 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

The Shepard opening brief was posted on MdShooter by Al Norris -

Quote

The Sheppard opening brief is attached. Just got it and haven't read it.

http://www.mdshooter...?t=57917&page=5

I think Gura is influencing the way lawyers have started writing these things. The clarity of thought comes thru and it is readable and understandable by the majority of people.

Sticks to the facts.

Its a right explicitly covered by the 2A.

The state of IL is criminalizing the exercise of that right in any fashion.

[05FLHT]

bob, on 14 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

I think Gura is influencing the way lawyers have started writing these things. The clarity of thought comes thru and it is readable and understandable by the majority of people.

Sticks to the facts.

Its a right explicitly covered by the 2A.

The state of IL is criminalizing the exercise of that right in any fashion.

Not only is the brief clear, concise, and written in plain english, but it offers a thorough historical and contextual analysis of the right as understood at the time of the adoption of the Bill of RIghts and ratification of the 14th Amendment. The States consistent response of 'only in the home' and because 'guns are bad, m'kay,' isn't going to get them very far.

[chicago guy]

opps, never mind

Edited by chicago guy, 14 April 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[lockman]

Spit it back at them. I like this gem from the state.

Quote

In its papers opposing the preliminary injunction sought by Ms. Shepard, Illinois said this:

Plaintiffs insist that they are seeking relief on behalf of  “lawabiding citizens.” Any workable definition of that term includes all who have not yet been convicted of a crime. Every murderer, robber, and rapist fell within that definition at some point in their lives.

[TomKoz]

Could this just be a ploy by the Courts / Chicago Machine???

Hear me out.

The Courts allow the combining of the cases (with the blessing of the Chicago Machine / AG) at this point, knowing and/or figuring that at some point in the future (after delaying it as much as it can be) some higher Court will find a problem (technicality) with the cases being combined and WOLLA - sends everything back and the WHOLE thing starts all over again??

Far Fetched???

[05FLHT]

TomKoz, on 14 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Could this just be a ploy by the Courts / Chicago Machine???

Hear me out.

The Courts allow the combining of the cases (with the blessing of the Chicago Machine / AG) at this point, knowing and/or figuring that at some point in the future (after delaying it as much as it can be) some higher Court will find a problem (technicality) with the cases being combined and WOLLA - sends everything back and the WHOLE thing starts all over again??

Far Fetched???

This is the same 7th Circuit that handed Chicago it's behind in Ezell. I'm not saying the judicial branch is not corrupted by politics, but a Chicago machine conspiracy involving a Federal Appeals court seems unlikely.

[FarmHand357]

IANAL, but I thought the Shepard Opening Brief was brilliant.  Clear, concise, a good read for the layperson and very understandable.  I have faith in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals...

Edited by FarmHand357, 14 April 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[Mr. Fife]

Quote

WOLLA

Voila!

[bob]

FarmHand357, on 14 April 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

IANAL, but I thought the Shepard Opening Brief was brilliant.  Clear, concise, a good read for the layperson and very understandable.  I have faith in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals...

we probably have a better shot at that level than we did at the district court level, but I am not holding my breath. In any case, it is not over until SCOTUS says something regardless of which way the appeals court goes.

[dmefford]

I love the excitement, but remember what I said before it takes judges with real huge balls to really dump a state's entire law but you never know it could happen........

Are my feet the only ones sweatin'?

Regards, Drd

Edited by dmefford, 15 April 2012 - 01:17 AM.

[scough]

wilessiuc, on 13 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

My guess is a decision from the 7th in 2014, and case is appealed to SCOTUS no matter who prevails.

2014 ???  Good lord...

[JackTripper]

scough, on 15 April 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

wilessiuc, on 13 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

My guess is a decision from the 7th in 2014, and case is appealed to SCOTUS no matter who prevails.

2014 ???  Good lord...

Heck, legislative relief could be by November

[snubjob]

scough, on 15 April 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

wilessiuc, on 13 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

My guess is a decision from the 7th in 2014, and case is appealed to SCOTUS no matter who prevails.

2014 ???  Good lord...

Quite likely. And quite possible that we could have a new member on the SCOTUS by the time it reaches them.

[GarandFan]

Quote

In its papers opposing the preliminary injunction sought by Ms. Shepard, Illinois said this:

Plaintiffs insist that they are seeking relief on behalf of  “lawabiding citizens.” Any workable definition of that term includes all who have not yet been convicted of a crime. Every murderer, robber, and rapist fell within that definition at some point in their lives.

Wow!!  I can hardly believe they would put that in writing, as one of their arguments!

[Danielm60660]

GarandFan, on 15 April 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Quote

In its papers opposing the preliminary injunction sought by Ms. Shepard, Illinois said this:

Plaintiffs insist that they are seeking relief on behalf of  “lawabiding citizens.” Any workable definition of that term includes all who have not yet been convicted of a crime. Every murderer, robber, and rapist fell within that definition at some point in their lives.

Wow!!  I can hardly believe they would put that in writing, as one of their arguments!

Are they attempting to imply that everyone who disagrees with UUW/AUUW as written will also eventually be convicted of rape or murder? Are all gun ownere just bad people in general? Sure sounds like that to me.

Edit to add thoughts.

Edited by Danielm60660, 15 April 2012 - 10:15 AM.

[GarandFan]

It's a ridiculous prior constraint argument ... that is flatly absurd.

We don't imprison people simply because it is possible they may commit a felony one day.  Likewise, we don't deny rights to people because it is possible that they may one day abuse those rights.  It's a completely absurd argument, the kind that makes folks like Alan Gura rub their hands together while smiling broadly.

To the degree they even make those arguments in a court of law is to insult the intelligence of the judges and cast doubt on their other arguments (which may be valid).

[KingWalleye]

I have a penis. I have never raped a woman.

By their reasoning I shouldn't have a penis because I may one day rape a woman with it.

[KingWalleye]

Conversely, every woman has a vagina and therefore will someday use it to make money and become a prostitute.

I can't wait to hear the reply from the courts on this one.

Edited by KingWalleye, 15 April 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[Sigma]

I HAVE A MALEGINA!
Since we're on the subject

[Don Gwinn]

LOOK!   Over there!  It's a CHANGE OF SUBJECT!

[bob]

scough, on 15 April 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

wilessiuc, on 13 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

My guess is a decision from the 7th in 2014, and case is appealed to SCOTUS no matter who prevails.

2014 ???  Good lord...

That would put a SCOTUS decision at June of 2015 at the earliest. I don't know that there is any way to determine what the chances of that being the case is.

I hope the appeals court will go quicker than that. But, it is late enough that it seems unlikely to get to SCOTUS in time for a decision in June of 2013. It is still possible, but it would have to be a rather quick thing, and I can't see such a decision coming that fast.

There might be another case SCOTUS accepts that would see a decision in June of 2013, but who knows. This is an almost perfect case because it presents a very simple choice. It is not about trying to decide how much infringement is allowed, but whether 100% infringement is allowed.

At this point in time, it seems likely that there is no SCOTUS decision on this case before June of 2014.

This case has the potential to radically affect other areas of the constitution as well. For one, how does one square up most of the 4th amendment decisions the last 40 years that have all but gutted that amendment, while upholding an amendment that has been spit on for 50 years.

[Mr. Fife]

GarandFan, on 15 April 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Quote

In its papers opposing the preliminary injunction sought by Ms. Shepard, Illinois said this:

Plaintiffs insist that they are seeking relief on behalf of  "lawabiding citizens." Any workable definition of that term includes all who have not yet been convicted of a crime. Every murderer, robber, and rapist fell within that definition at some point in their lives.

Wow!!  I can hardly believe they would put that in writing, as one of their arguments!

They were also all milk drinkers at one time.

[Buzzard]

Sigma, on 15 April 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

I HAVE A MALEGINA!
Since we're on the subject

I can't BELIEVE that at some point it was decided such a word was necessary!!

Don Gwinn, on 15 April 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

LOOK! Over there! It's a CHANGE OF SUBJECT!

** snickering at the Moderator's wittiness **

[laststate2havecarry]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have to get through the 7th circuit court and then also possibly the 7th circuit en banc before we would go to SCOTUS.
Additionally, if we were to win at the 7th circut level and the loser appealed, cannot the 7th circuit deny the en banc hearing, and SCOTUS simply refuse the case?

[laststate2havecarry]

Another thought...Whats the probability of a 7th circuit "punt" like they did in the McDonald vs Chicago case?
What's the timeline then?

[bob]

laststate2havecarry, on 15 April 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Another thought...Whats the probability of a 7th circuit "punt" like they did in the McDonald vs Chicago case?
What's the timeline then?

The real answer is that no one knows what will happen and anything anyone says about it is just speculation. It is likely to take some time. We just have to wait and see what happens.

[citrix_guy]

lockman, on 14 April 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Spit it back at them. I like this gem from the state.

Quote

In its papers opposing the preliminary injunction sought by Ms. Shepard, Illinois said this:

Plaintiffs insist that they are seeking relief on behalf of  “lawabiding citizens.” Any workable definition of that term includes all who have not yet been convicted of a crime. Every murderer, robber, and rapist fell within that definition at some point in their lives.

I read the brief looking for that specific quote. I couldn't believe it. I then went back and started reading the previous paperwork from the state... I am so G@# DAMN offended by that. It tells you their mindset doesn't it? "law abiding" means nothing to them. Pay your taxes, jump through every legal hoop in business, in your hobby of firearms, in state DNR rules etc, and you still are a potential criminal!
Just someone who hasn't been caught yet. That's it. God. to lump me (stop thinking us here, they are talking about you) in here with murderers robbers and rapists to defend a law that keeps me from defending myself with a firearm!!!

If I wasn't afraid of offending others there would be two more profanity laced paragraphs.

Edited by citrix_guy, 16 April 2012 - 06:17 AM.

[papa]

citrix_guy, on 16 April 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

lockman, on 14 April 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Spit it back at them. I like this gem from the state.

Quote

In its papers opposing the preliminary injunction sought by Ms. Shepard, Illinois said this:

Plaintiffs insist that they are seeking relief on behalf of “lawabiding citizens.” Any workable definition of that term includes all who have not yet been convicted of a crime. Every murderer, robber, and rapist fell within that definition at some point in their lives.

I read the brief looking for that specific quote. I couldn't believe it. I then went back and started reading the previous paperwork from the state... I am so G@# DAMN offended by that. It tells you their mindset doesn't it? "law abiding" means nothing to them. Pay your taxes, jump through every legal hoop in business, in your hobby of firearms, in state DNR rules etc, and you still are a potential criminal!
Just someone who hasn't been caught yet. That's it. God. to lump me (stop thinking us here, they are talking about you) in here with murderers robbers and rapists to defend a law that keeps me from defending myself with a firearm!!!

If I wasn't afraid of offending others there would be two more profanity laced paragraphs.

[GarandFan]

Citrix ... I am totally with you in regard to thoughts and feelings about the state of Illinois and their view of us.  It's the kind of utter, blatant disrespect that makes one consider whether it's time for torches and pitchforks and storming the castle and all that.