skottieusa Posted April 23, 2012 at 09:15 PM Posted April 23, 2012 at 09:15 PM The State filed its motions to consolidate today and asking for an extension to file briefs. Their description of the issues is creative if nothing else: "prohibit carrying immediately-operable firearms in public". Lawyers should have a field day with that one!!
TyGuy Posted April 23, 2012 at 09:31 PM Posted April 23, 2012 at 09:31 PM So, they would be ok if we carried muzzleloaders or flintlocks?
Sigma Posted April 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM Posted April 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM they asked for an extension? Never saw that one coming
ishmo Posted April 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM Posted April 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM they asked for an extension? Never saw that one comingApparently the California process is in play, or so some people think.
Yas Posted April 24, 2012 at 01:26 AM Posted April 24, 2012 at 01:26 AM Well they could have used the dog ate my homework excuse.......
Gray Peterson Posted May 7, 2012 at 12:38 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 12:38 AM The state's extension request is denied. They're only getting one week extension, and it appears that both Shepard and Moore will be heard in the last week of May or the First week of June. Awesome, and super quick! Order re: Motions to consolidate and extend time. The motions to consolidate are DENIED. Appellees do not need a formal order of consolidation in order to file one brief addressing two appeals. They may file one brief, or two, at their option. The motions for an extension of time is GRANTED, but only until May 9, 2012 (in both appeals). This should allow enough time to prepare a single brief covering the two cases. Appellees previously told the court that the two suits are functionally identical. There is accordingly no need for time beyond the 30-day extension already granted, and this one-week increment. The court’s last regular sitting of the current term is June 8, 2012. If the court were to delay the appellees’ briefs until June 1 or June 11 (the alternate dates appellees propose), that would postpone oral argument until next September, an unnecessary delay. Appellees must file their brief (or briefs) in both cases by May 9, and appellants their reply briefs by May 23. That will permit oral argument the last week of May or the first full week of June. [14] [6391925-3] [14] [6391925-2] JKL [6392901] [12-1269, 12-1788] (AM)04/30/2012 16 NOTICE: Attorney Alan Gura will not be available for oral argument 06/01/2012, 06/04/2012, 06/05/2012, 06/06/2012, 06/12/2012, 06/13/2012, 08/07/2012, 08/08/2012. [16] [6393938] [12-1269]--[Edited 05/01/2012 by AB] (Gura, Alan
TFC Posted May 7, 2012 at 12:59 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 12:59 AM So, they would be ok if we carried muzzleloaders or flintlocks? My old wheel-lock is seen as an assault weapon. Probably not. Well they could have used the dog ate my homework excuse....... LOL! Or the machine's check bounced.
Molly B. Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:32 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:32 AM The state's extension request is denied. They're only getting one week extension, and it appears that both Shepard and Moore will be heard in the last week of May or the First week of June. Awesome, and super quick! Great news!
colt-45 Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:36 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:36 AM The state's extension request is denied. They're only getting one week extension, and it appears that both Shepard and Moore will be heard in the last week of May or the First week of June. Awesome, and super quick! Great news!+1
Danielm60660 Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:46 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:46 AM Good, better than 2-3 years. I'm getting tired of the delay tactics.
FarmHand357 Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:55 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 02:55 AM Even better, it appears that the 7th Circuit is getting tired of delaying tactics...
Gray Peterson Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:18 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:18 AM This is the link to the actual file. It's tagged with 7th Circuit...Denial.pdf
lockman Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:39 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:39 AM More pressure on the legislature I hope.
Howard Roark Posted May 7, 2012 at 04:03 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 04:03 AM The state's extension request is denied. They're only getting one week extension, and it appears that both Shepard and Moore will be heard in the last week of May or the First week of June. Awesome, and super quick!(subsequent text elided) Good news, thanks Gray. I read it here first, thanks for your post. Now it's off to the races, to see whether it is your case, or Shepard or Moore or Woolard, or the others that will get cert at scotus. Thanks for your good work.
Howard Roark Posted May 7, 2012 at 04:31 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 04:31 AM Exciting times now for us ! Appelleesmust file their brief (or briefs) in both cases by May 9, and appellants their reply briefs byMay 23. That will permit oral argument the last week of May or the first full week of June.
Gray Peterson Posted May 7, 2012 at 07:51 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 07:51 AM Good news, thanks Gray. I read it here first, thanks for your post. Now it's off to the races, to see whether it is your case, or Shepard or Moore or Woolard, or the others that will get cert at scotus. Thanks for your good work. My biggest concern is getting a good carry case up to SCOTUS, whether it be Moore or mine. This ain't about names, the cause matters more.
GarandFan Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM Gray: Thanks so much for keeping us informed on this very important case. Thanks also, of course, for being plaintiff and for all the sacrifices that entails!
colt-45 Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:34 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:34 PM More pressure on the legislature I hope.i hope it does to.
TyGuy Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:05 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:05 PM Is this still at the level of the 7th?
NakPPI Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:55 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:55 PM Is this still at the level of the 7th? Yes. And it's judge Easterbrook... (good for us) Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
colt-45 Posted May 7, 2012 at 04:49 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 04:49 PM Is this still at the level of the 7th? Yes. And it's judge Easterbrook... (good for us) Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2i thought they sent it back to the lower courts to get a ruling on it and than it goes back to the 7th. i must of mist something
RANDY Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:00 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:00 PM Maybe you are thinking about Wilson v Chicago. ISC remanded back to trial court on 2-615 motion.
GarandFan Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:11 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:11 PM Is this still at the level of the 7th? Yes. And it's judge Easterbrook... (good for us) I don't really care that your message was sent from an SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2 ... but I would very much like to know why you say judge Easterbrook is "good for us."
abolt243 Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:23 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:23 PM Is this still at the level of the 7th? Yes. And it's judge Easterbrook... (good for us) I don't really care that your message was sent from an SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2 ... but I would very much like to know why you say judge Easterbrook is "good for us." Wasn't Easterbrook the judge for Wilson? Or am I confused??
colt-45 Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:23 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 05:23 PM Maybe you are thinking about Wilson v Chicago. ISC remanded back to trial court on 2-615 motion.yea i think i do have them mix up..sorry for the post.
Federal Farmer Posted May 7, 2012 at 06:16 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 06:16 PM Is this still at the level of the 7th? Yes. And it's judge Easterbrook... (good for us) I don't really care that your message was sent from an SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2 ... but I would very much like to know why you say judge Easterbrook is "good for us." I'm not a fan. He's the guy who wrote, in McDonald, that the state could ban self-defense. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
NakPPI Posted May 7, 2012 at 08:34 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 08:34 PM I'm not a fan. He's the guy who wrote, in McDonald, that the state could ban self-defense. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2 That was written when the second amendment didn't apply to the states. The 7th circuit was basically a pass through in McDonald because they couldn't make that leap before the supreme court did. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Molly B. Posted May 7, 2012 at 08:53 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 08:53 PM I don't really care that your message was sent from an SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2 ... You do know that is automatically inserted at the end of a message when using some apps and smart phones - right?
I Hate Gunlaws Posted May 7, 2012 at 08:59 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 08:59 PM I don't really care that your message was sent from an SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2 ... You do know that is automatically inserted at the end of a message when using some apps and smart phones - right? You can remove that from postings with your phone, but most people don't.
GarandFan Posted May 7, 2012 at 09:20 PM Posted May 7, 2012 at 09:20 PM I don't really care that your message was sent from an SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2 ... You do know that is automatically inserted at the end of a message when using some apps and smart phones - right? Yes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.