68 replies to this topic

[Drylok]

Because if we win the state can kick the can down the road, appeal here, appeal there, file for this, file a motion for that and it just drags on and on. This is why honestly a flat out loss for us would  be better than a flat out win.

[lockman]

The 7th is not a trial court and will only affirm, overturn or remand back for further considerations.  The only win that may delay this process would be a remand back to the circuit court based on a procedural error or omission which basically starts the case over with some new ground rules. If we win otherwise I do not see how the 7th could not order the circuit court to issue the injunction, otherwise the 7th has affirmed a very high probability the a fundamental right is being deprived but becomes complicit in the continued abuse of those rights. The deprivation of rights presented in this case have considerably more life/liberty issues at stake than the injunction recently ordered by the 7th circuit court of appeals enjoining the state from enforcing the felony eavesdropping statute against recording public officials. The 7th has already ordered an injunction stopping enforcement of a felony criminal statute in a case where it was highly probable such enforcement does violate a constitutional protection.

The 7th did not rule that it DOES violate a fundamental right, just that it has a high probability that it does infringe on a protected right. The Sheppard/Moore vs Madigan action certainly meets this standard and in all probability exceeds such standards considerably. The injunction is a temporary grant of relief from continuing harm or probable harm and should be in place until such a time the trial court and appeals process is complete or the legislature acts with appropriate legislation that will render the issue/action moot.

[TyGuy]

Very interesting Lockman

[bob]

colt-45, on 12 June 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

(We win appeal – good on it’s face but we lose control of the case at this point.) how do we loose control if we win appeal? i don't understand.

The guys that lost would have control over whether it is appealed to SCOTUS. Getting a final answer from SCOTUS is a very desirable thing for us. They may just cut their losses and not appeal.in which case we would be left with a case that is only meaningful within the 7th and may give us very limited relief.

Edited by bob, 12 June 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[output]

Quote

There is talk of the legislature coming back for a special session on pensions. If they do, they can also re-open the regular session of the general assembly and anything there is on the table. So a bill can come up.

The chances of this happening have to be extremely low. correct?

Quote

However, a non-preemption bill that has an effective date of June 1 2013 only needs 60 and 30.

Also, can someone please elaborate on what this means or how likley something like this really is?

I applogize for my lack of understanding.

[Davey]

output, on 12 June 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Quote

There is talk of the legislature coming back for a special session on pensions. If they do, they can also re-open the regular session of the general assembly and anything there is on the table. So a bill can come up.

The chances of this happening have to be extremely low. correct?

Quote

However, a non-preemption bill that has an effective date of June 1 2013 only needs 60 and 30.

Also, can someone please elaborate on what this means or how likley something like this really is?

I applogize for my lack of understanding.

Preemption would make it so that local carry ordinances and laws are null and void.

[frankw438]

bob, on 12 June 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

colt-45, on 12 June 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

(We win appeal – good on it’s face but we lose control of the case at this point.) how do we loose control if we win appeal? i don't understand.

The guys that lost would have control over whether it is appealed to SCOTUS. Getting a final answer from SCOTUS is a very desirable thing for us. They may just cut their losses and not appeal.in which case we would be left with a case that is only meaningful within the 7th and may give us very limited relief.

Actually, my wife brought this very scenario up when were discussing it Friday evening after I got home from attending the hearing in Chicago. I was explaining the different outcomes possible, and the different choices that the losing side has.

She brought up the fact that if the State of Illinois loses here at the 7th Circuit, and appeals to SCOTUS, they run the risk of screwing things up for all the may-issue states in other Circuits (California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, etc). If SCOTUS hands down a ruling that BEARING arms is a fundamental right just like KEEPING arms, then may-issue laws could be over-turned for infringing on a fundamental right that all citizens have, not just those with a good & substantial reason to get a permit.

This is a possibility, but I think Chicago and Illinois are pretty selfish and ego-centric and don't really care about the consequences other states may suffer.

-- Frank

[Gray Peterson]

frankw438, on 12 June 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

bob, on 12 June 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

colt-45, on 12 June 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

(We win appeal – good on it’s face but we lose control of the case at this point.) how do we loose control if we win appeal? i don't understand.

The guys that lost would have control over whether it is appealed to SCOTUS. Getting a final answer from SCOTUS is a very desirable thing for us. They may just cut their losses and not appeal.in which case we would be left with a case that is only meaningful within the 7th and may give us very limited relief.

Actually, my wife brought this very scenario up when were discussing it Friday evening after I got home from attending the hearing in Chicago. I was explaining the different outcomes possible, and the different choices that the losing side has.

She brought up the fact that if the State of Illinois loses here at the 7th Circuit, and appeals to SCOTUS, they run the risk of screwing things up for all the may-issue states in other Circuits (California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, etc). If SCOTUS hands down a ruling that BEARING arms is a fundamental right just like KEEPING arms, then may-issue laws could be over-turned for infringing on a fundamental right that all citizens have, not just those with a good & substantial reason to get a permit.

This is a possibility, but I think Chicago and Illinois are pretty selfish and ego-centric and don't really care about the consequences other states may suffer.

-- Frank

Neither did Adrian Fenty.  When we won in Parker/Heller in the DC Circuit, the Bradies & VPC & CSGV, along with Richard Daley, were lobbying Fenty to not appeal the ruling to spare the gun control movement from eventual total destruction.

Fenty responded that his voting constituency demanded to fight all the way.   Daley as well as others were either not voters in DC, or they were too small to matter.

We won.

[TFC]

"May Issue" states have been loosing ground since day one. Accelerating the process in the long run saves lots of money for the states and the plaintiffs. If somehow, punitive damages may be awarded in some of these cases, they'll be falling over each other trying to get their laws changed.