153 replies to this topic

[lockman]

GarandFan, on 07 May 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Molly B., on 07 May 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 07 May 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

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.

I knew that too!

-------

Sent from my TRS80 Model I,  1Mhz, 16K RAM W/External 5-1/4" floppy.

[Sigma]

their goal was to postpone this until next September, wow they think they are slick.

[Bud]

TheILGA needs to pass RTC now because if the court rules against the AG, all bets (and deals!) are off.

[Danielm60660]

So if Easterbrook is the judge, what's his record on 2A issues. If this is heard in May, how long until the ruling is issued?
Thanks for the updates,
DM

[Gray Peterson]

Danielm60660, on 07 May 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

So if Easterbrook is the judge, what's his record on 2A issues. If this is heard in May, how long until the ruling is issued?
Thanks for the updates,
DM

It's three judge panel.  Easterbrook is the chief judge & manages the CA7 docket.  It's a random draw for the merits panel...

[colt-45]

Sigma, on 07 May 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

their goal was to postpone this until next September, wow they think they are slick.

thats all they think they have is to stall us in court, boy did they get fulled

[Davey]

Bud, on 07 May 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

TheILGA needs to pass RTC now because if the court rules against the AG, all bets (and deals!) are off.

I realized this a long time ago and with some help from Volinda I wrote a rather lengthy email to all the nay voting reps from last year explaining exactly this.

[NakPPI]

If I had to guess, and my guessing has been fairly good lately, if we draw Easterbrook and Sykes, we should win, even if we split the court 2-1.
Win or lose we will probably end up with a rehearing en banc, as with the Skoien case, at which point it's up in the air.

[abolt243]

NakPPI, on 08 May 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

If I had to guess, and my guessing has been fairly good lately, if we draw Easterbrook and Sykes, we should win, even if we split the court 2-1.
Win or lose we will probably end up with a rehearing en banc, as with the Skoien case, at which point it's up in the air.

I see it as just more delay, more time without the means to defend our loved ones and ourselves.  More time for rapes, murders, robberies and car jackings to be foisted on law abiding citizens without defensive weapons.  

RTC has been turned into a political football in Illinois instead of the basic human right as Heller defined it, and as McDonald requires the states to honor.  

People are dying and being injured here!!  Quit playing games with our rights and get RTC in place in IL now!!

(Tuesday morning rant on very little sleep.  Boy did that feel good!!)

Tim

[Drylok]

abolt243, on 08 May 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

NakPPI, on 08 May 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

If I had to guess, and my guessing has been fairly good lately, if we draw Easterbrook and Sykes, we should win, even if we split the court 2-1. Win or lose we will probably end up with a rehearing en banc, as with the Skoien case, at which point it's up in the air.

I see it as just more delay, more time without the means to defend our loved ones and ourselves. More time for rapes, murders, robberies and car jackings to be foisted on law abiding citizens without defensive weapons. RTC has been turned into a political football in Illinois instead of the basic human right as Heller defined it, and as McDonald requires the states to honor. People are dying and being injured here!! Quit playing games with our rights and get RTC in place in IL now!! (Tuesday morning rant on very little sleep. Boy did that feel good!!) Tim

Up all night for the graduation party or something?

[Drylok]

Bud, on 07 May 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

TheILGA needs to pass RTC now because if the court rules against the AG, all bets (and deals!) are off.

And if we win the court isn't going to say you have to pass shall issue carry they're just simply going to strike down the ban on carrying and we will basicly have constitution carry. If the antis don't like shall issue they sure as hell won't like constitution carry which would cause one to think they would want to get shall issue on the books before that happens via the court. Furthermore they already know they can't do may issue because SCOTUS is going to be finding that unconstitutional in the not so distant future, (providing justice Kennedy doesn't have a heart attack or something)

[Jeckler]

Win or lose, isn't the decision going to be appealed...again?  The court cases will continue until SCOTUS makes a ruling.

Obviously a decision in our favor is great.  Unfortunately, it's not likely to see an immediate injunciton and the immediate ability to carry.  That is still a long way off via the courts.

With that said, a favorable decision will help to move the General Assembly.  Even the fear of a favorable decision may cause them to act.

[Drylok]

Crap I had my hopes all up when I saw (Easterbrook good for us) but now that I see he's a communist it looks like this case will fo sho go to SCOTUS after we lose in the appellette. That's what I get for not reading all the way through or doing my own research on judges. I hope SCOTUS accepts and kennedy doesn't have a stroke or something. I also hope that Mitt wins election so that if kennedy retires we'll still hold on to the court 5-4. Man we are hanging on by our finger tips!

[mauserme]

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

Bud, on 07 May 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

TheILGA needs to pass RTC now because if the court rules against the AG, all bets (and deals!) are off.

And if we win the court isn't going to say you have to pass shall issue carry they're just simply going to strike down the ban on carrying and we will basicly have constitution carry. If the antis don't like shall issue they sure as hell won't like constitution carry which would cause one to think they would want to get shall issue on the books before that happens via the court. Furthermore they already know they can't do may issue because SCOTUS is going to be finding that unconstitutional in the not so distant future, (providing justice Kennedy doesn't have a heart attack or something)

Even if they don't know that, they do know they don't have enough votes to push a may issue bill on us.  And they will remember (or be reminded) that the court already observed that the "sky did not fall" as a result of their perceived legislative vaccuum in the past.

[Gray Peterson]

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Crap I had my hopes all up when I saw (Easterbrook good for us) but now that I see he's a communist it looks like this case will fo sho go to SCOTUS after we lose in the appellette. That's what I get for not reading all the way through or doing my own research on judges. I hope SCOTUS accepts and kennedy doesn't have a stroke or something. I also hope that Mitt wins election so that if kennedy retires we'll still hold on to the court 5-4. Man we are hanging on by our finger tips!

Please stop spreading the rumor that Easterbrook is on this panel.  That is not certain.   There are 15 circuit judges & it's a random draw of three.  Whether we win or lose, we still win...

[firepiper]

Gray Peterson, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Crap I had my hopes all up when I saw (Easterbrook good for us) but now that I see he's a communist it looks like this case will fo sho go to SCOTUS after we lose in the appellette. That's what I get for not reading all the way through or doing my own research on judges. I hope SCOTUS accepts and kennedy doesn't have a stroke or something. I also hope that Mitt wins election so that if kennedy retires we'll still hold on to the court 5-4. Man we are hanging on by our finger tips!

Please stop spreading the rumor that Easterbrook is on this panel.  That is not certain.   There are 15 circuit judges & it's a random draw of three.  Whether we win or lose, we still win...

At what point are these judges drawn?

[GarandFan]

Gray Peterson, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Please stop spreading the rumor ...

Yes, it seems that people are getting entirely bent out of shape and quite literally talking out of their arses when throwing "predictions" around as if they were grass seed.  In truth, even people who have devoted their scholarly lives to systematically studying courts, case law, and jurisprudence have a very difficult time predicting how courts will rule.  

Where folks can make a difference is knocking on doors, volunteering for pro-gun legislators, attending concealed carry town halls, writing legislators and writing them again, submitting letters to papers, and things like that.

[Gray Peterson]

GarandFan, on 08 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Gray Peterson, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Please stop spreading the rumor ...

Yes, it seems that people are getting entirely bent out of shape and quite literally talking out of their arses when throwing "predictions" around as if they were grass seed.  In truth, even people who have devoted their scholarly lives to systematically studying courts, case law, and jurisprudence have a very difficult time predicting how courts will rule.  

If we had the Ezell panel, we will win.

[Drylok]

But Garand, it's the 7th circut court who upheld the handgun ban in Chicago. If they support a handgun ban how in the hell could anyone come to suspicion that they would overturn a ban to carry said guns? I swear I'll never understand this stuff, perhaps some of us should just stick with hanging fliers

[Gray Peterson]

firepiper, on 08 May 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Gray Peterson, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Crap I had my hopes all up when I saw (Easterbrook good for us) but now that I see he's a communist it looks like this case will fo sho go to SCOTUS after we lose in the appellette. That's what I get for not reading all the way through or doing my own research on judges. I hope SCOTUS accepts and kennedy doesn't have a stroke or something. I also hope that Mitt wins election so that if kennedy retires we'll still hold on to the court 5-4. Man we are hanging on by our finger tips!

Please stop spreading the rumor that Easterbrook is on this panel.  That is not certain.   There are 15 circuit judges & it's a random draw of three.  Whether we win or lose, we still win...

At what point are these judges drawn?

The morning of the day of argument.

[Drylok]

Gray Peterson, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Crap I had my hopes all up when I saw (Easterbrook good for us) but now that I see he's a communist it looks like this case will fo sho go to SCOTUS after we lose in the appellette. That's what I get for not reading all the way through or doing my own research on judges. I hope SCOTUS accepts and kennedy doesn't have a stroke or something. I also hope that Mitt wins election so that if kennedy retires we'll still hold on to the court 5-4. Man we are hanging on by our finger tips!

Please stop spreading the rumor that Easterbrook is on this panel. That is not certain. There are 15 circuit judges & it's a random draw of three. Whether we win or lose, we still win...

Do you really think it's random or is it selected based on the subject of the case at hand? I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.

[Gray Peterson]

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

But Garand, it's the 7th circut court who upheld the handgun ban in Chicago. If they support a handgun ban how in the hell could anyone come to suspicion that they would overturn a ban to carry said guns? I swear I'll never understand this stuff, perhaps some of us should just stick with hanging fliers

I guess the whole "it's a three judge draw" thing right over your head.

BTW, the first McDonald panel did us a major favor.  Rather than sitting on it for a months, they decided it in a week, a realized they were a speed bump to SCOTUS.

[wilessiuc]

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

But Garand, it's the 7th circut court who upheld the handgun ban in Chicago. If they support a handgun ban how in the hell could anyone come to suspicion that they would overturn a ban to carry said guns? I swear I'll never understand this stuff, perhaps some of us should just stick with hanging fliers

This is why I continue to say (until I'm blue in the face), that our right to CCW is going to come through the legislature this year. Not the courts.

[Drylok]

Judges in Ezell Sykes - Appointed by GW Rovner - Appointed by GHW Kanne - Appointed by Reagan And they threw us a bone Judges PICKED in Shepard Wood - Appointed by Clinton Williams - Appointed by Clinton Hamilton - Appointed by Obama They stack it and we lose I realize none of this really matters because if we win we win and if we lose we go to SCOTUS but still. And I know I'm going to get an ass chewing on the phone tonight but I'm not landing my black helicopter until the 7th proves me wrong

Edited by Drylok, 08 May 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[bob]

Gray Peterson, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Please stop spreading the rumor that Easterbrook is on this panel.  That is not certain.   There are 15 circuit judges & it's a random draw of three.  Whether we win or lose, we still win...

We won't really win no matter what the ruling is in the IL cases until SCOTUS has its say. The appeals court is another step in the process of getting a meaningful SCOTUS ruling. I had kind of hoped they would take one of the other cases that looked so promising, but they chose not to. So we wait.

Does anyone even remember what the rules were before the UUW law?  I don't recall there being an official LTC in IL even then. Although there were a bunch of unofficial ones via auxiliary deputy and special police badges that were handed out pretty liberally.

[bob]

Drylok, on 08 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Judges in Ezell Sykes - Appointed by GW Rovner - Appointed by GHW Kanne - Appointed by Reagan And they threw us a bone Judges PICKED in Shepard Wood - Appointed by Clinton Williams - Appointed by Clinton Hamilton - Appointed by Obama They stack it and we lose I realize none of this really matters because if we win we win and if we lose we go to SCOTUS but still. And I know I'm going to get an ass chewing on the phone tonight but I'm not landing my black helicopter until the 7th proves me wrong

I would bet against the Obama guy even being a remote shot. The Clinton guys are hit and miss. Many have actually ended up being pretty decent district court judges. Even the Reagan and Bush guys are hard to call though. I have a hard time believing that the Ezel instructions were stuff made up by one guy that did not reflect at least some input or understanding from the court as a whole, given how favorable they were to our side.

[Drylok]

Gray Peterson & Garand Fan,
I feel it incumbent upon me to apologize. I was running my mouth about things I'm not so educated about and I should have done more research before commenting and you called me on it. My apology for the cynical, black helicopter and generally pissy attitude in these times of high emotions.

[Bud]

bob, on 08 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

We won't really win no matter what the ruling is in the IL cases until SCOTUS has its say. The appeals court is another step in the process of getting a meaningful SCOTUS ruling. I had kind of hoped they would take one of the other cases that looked so promising, but they chose not to. So we wait.

That's wrong, Bob.

What if the Supreme Court turns down an Appeal from Lisa?

And if I remember correctly, you have also stated that it would be several years before we would get any determination from the Appellate.

[NakPPI]

If the 7th Circuit gets this right, I doubt that SCOTUS would hear the case. Illinois is the only state that has an outright prohibition on the bearing of arms in public. So on one hand, you've got a very limited issue on appeal which would usually make it a "good case" to build case law on, however, on the other hand you don't have any splits among the districts because this issue is unique to Illinois which makes it an unlikely case for SCOTUS to hear. It's a conundrum. Heller was good because it was so limited in scope, so that's definitely a valid argument to be made. The only reason for SCOTUS to really take this case would be to confirm that the second amendment doesn't stop at your doorstep. Have any of the Circuits determined that the second amendment stops at the threshold of one's home? I don't believe so. It's been a bunch of federal district courts and state appellate courts that have made that call. Forgive my stream of consciousness posting, just thinking out loud.

[ishmo]

Bud, on 08 May 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

bob, on 08 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

We won't really win no matter what the ruling is in the IL cases until SCOTUS has its say. The appeals court is another step in the process of getting a meaningful SCOTUS ruling. I had kind of hoped they would take one of the other cases that looked so promising, but they chose not to. So we wait.

That's wrong, Bob.

What if the Supreme Court turns down an Appeal from Lisa?

And if I remember correctly, you have also stated that it would be several years before we would get any determination from the Appellate.

In my wildest dreams Bud the 3 judge appellate panel would grant relief, the 7th would deny an en banc hearing and we'd have CC after the SCOTUS denies Cert.  

We both know it won't play out that way but it is a pleasant thought.