Jump to content


Photo

Madigan's office files motion to dismiss Shepard/Moore cases as moot


  • Please log in to reply
632 replies to this topic

#1 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:58 AM

The State filed motions yesterday in the Shepard and Moore cases asking the federal district court judges to dismiss those cases as moot based on the challenged laws having been amended and the deficiencies in the old laws having been corrected by the new CCW law. The State argues that to the extent the plaintiffs have any problems with the new CCW law, they will have to file a new complaint.

I would expect the plaintiffs in these cases to respond that the new CCW law does not cure the deficiencies pointed out by the 7th Circuit (at least for the next 180 days) because the current state of the law still prohibits all citizens from carrying loaded firearms in public because there is no current ability to obtain a permit.

Attached is a copy of the motion filed in the Shepard case.

Attached Files



#2 borgranta

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,165 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:08 AM

Looks like this may open the door to a review of the law to insure compliance with ruling.
The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.

#3 TacticalVideo

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:23 AM

The "new" law does not comply with the CA7 ruling IMHO.

1) for the next 3/4 of a year, nothing changes with UUW. This is a direct violation to the courts ruling
2) non-residents are allowed additional freedoms that Illinois residents are not allowed - The right to carry loaded firearms in their vehicles.

#4 sctman800

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:26 AM

The "new" law does not comply with the CA7 ruling IMHO.

1) for the next 3/4 of a year, nothing changes with UUW. This is a direct violation to the courts ruling
2) non-residents are allowed additional freedoms that Illinois residents are not allowed - The right to carry loaded firearms in their vehicles.



IANAL but this is pretty much how I read it also. Jim.
Kristofferson wrote it and Janis sang it "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

#5 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:30 AM

Madigan clearly had this motion ready to go the instant HB183 became law. I'm a little surprised that the plaintiffs did not also have something prepared in advance to file the minute that HB183 became law. But, I would still guess that something will be coming shortly from them.

#6 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,064 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:30 AM

Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#7 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:36 AM

been on this for the last 48 hours. lawyers are working on it. stay tuned. . .
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#8 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,746 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:38 AM

I would hope the plaintiff's would file a response pointing out that the issue has not been resolved and pointing to a future date 180 day, 270 days or 365-1/4 days is no relief today or tomorrow as such relief should have been in effect 6 months ago let alone June 9th or July 9th.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#9 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,259 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:45 AM

been on this for the last 48 hours. lawyers are working on it. stay tuned. . .

No rest for the wicked eh?

ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

 

Fundraiser for friend that lost infant son


#10 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,259 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:46 AM

I don't see why CA7 would do anything. Their ruling struck down the old law, it spoke nothing about the new law. They graciously gave the state 180-210 days to get a new law, but if there wasn't one their ruling would still have come down. So, the ruling should still stand, the old UUW is bad.

ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

 

Fundraiser for friend that lost infant son


#11 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:51 AM

its up to the district judge for the issue of relief
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#12 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:54 AM

Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.

The 7th Circuit gave Illinois an unprecendented stay of 180 days. The reason given for the stay was to allow the state time to get a new law in place. But, that doesn't mean that there is now an implied additional 180 days granted by the 7th Circuit to implement a new law. The stay is over and the mandate has issued. Law abiding citizens in Illinois should have an ability to carry firearms in public while complying with all reasonable regulations. But Illinois citizens currently do not have any ability to carry.

If you take an extreme example, the argument becomes clearer. Say for example, that the new law said that all citizens can carry handguns anywhere in public as long as they submit an application provided by the ISP. But, the law says that the ISP cannot provide any such applications until 100 years after the effective date of the law. Clearly, that law would not compy with the 7th Circuit's opinion. On the other hand, if applications were made available 14 days after the effective date, there would probably be no issue. The 180 day time period is in that period of time where its not de minimus but it's also not egregiously long, so it's a harder case to make.

#13 TFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,912 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:10 AM

Unless and until the law is IMPLEMENTED, relief should be granted, UUW/AGUUW should be struck as unconstitutional.
~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
I predicted that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
Based on the restrictions on carry in Chicago/Cook County, I was right.

...doing just enough to keep them out of Federal Court...

#14 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:26 AM

been on this for the last 48 hours. lawyers are working on it. stay tuned. . .


Thank God !

The state was given 210ish days with their extensions !!!
.

Edited by vezpa, 10 July 2013 - 10:30 AM.

Stand Your Ground

#15 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,259 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:36 AM

Vezpa, you should post more. In fact, all posts should be Vezpa......

ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

 

Fundraiser for friend that lost infant son


#16 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:44 AM

i hope the court rules we can carry tell we get the permits, only if you have foid card that will get ISP off there buts and get going on this.

#17 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:46 AM

Vezpa, you should post more. In fact, all posts should be Vezpa......


That wouldn't be any fun. I like interacting with all the other gun IC members.
.
Stand Your Ground

#18 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:46 AM


Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.

The 7th Circuit gave Illinois an unprecendented stay of 180 days. The reason given for the stay was to allow the state time to get a new law in place. But, that doesn't mean that there is now an implied additional 180 days granted by the 7th Circuit to implement a new law. The stay is over and the mandate has issued. Law abiding citizens in Illinois should have an ability to carry firearms in public while complying with all reasonable regulations. But Illinois citizens currently do not have any ability to carry.

If you take an extreme example, the argument becomes clearer. Say for example, that the new law said that all citizens can carry handguns anywhere in public as long as they submit an application provided by the ISP. But, the law says that the ISP cannot provide any such applications until 100 years after the effective date of the law. Clearly, that law would not compy with the 7th Circuit's opinion. On the other hand, if applications were made available 14 days after the effective date, there would probably be no issue. The 180 day time period is in that period of time where its not de minimus but it's also not egregiously long, so it's a harder case to make.


Surely you are aware that the 'Right to Carry' hasn't been ruled as an unrestricted, or unregulated right? As such, the court gave them 180+30 days to craft a law with 'reasonable' restrictions. Whether the restrictions comply with the spirit of the ruling is another question, but there was no ruling on how long they had to implement the processing after passage of the law. However, if they gave 210 days to simply pass a law, which is crazy fast for our retarded politicians, surely they will agree that it is reasonable to allow the state time to develop the infrastrure and screening process to allow permitting.

While again, I question that the restrictions go overboard, the overly burdensome cost is discriminatory, and the passed law very well should be pursued, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the court intended for them to begin issuing permits without some lag to develop the necessary process. Imho, that arguement isn't going anywhere.

Edited by scough, 10 July 2013 - 10:47 AM.


#19 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:49 AM



Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.

The 7th Circuit gave Illinois an unprecendented stay of 180 days. The reason given for the stay was to allow the state time to get a new law in place. But, that doesn't mean that there is now an implied additional 180 days granted by the 7th Circuit to implement a new law. The stay is over and the mandate has issued. Law abiding citizens in Illinois should have an ability to carry firearms in public while complying with all reasonable regulations. But Illinois citizens currently do not have any ability to carry.

If you take an extreme example, the argument becomes clearer. Say for example, that the new law said that all citizens can carry handguns anywhere in public as long as they submit an application provided by the ISP. But, the law says that the ISP cannot provide any such applications until 100 years after the effective date of the law. Clearly, that law would not compy with the 7th Circuit's opinion. On the other hand, if applications were made available 14 days after the effective date, there would probably be no issue. The 180 day time period is in that period of time where its not de minimus but it's also not egregiously long, so it's a harder case to make.


Surely you are aware that the 'Right to Carry' hasn't been ruled as an unrestricted, or unregulated right? As such, the court gave them 180+30 days to craft a law with 'reasonable' restrictions. Whether the restrictions comply with the spirit of the ruling is another question, but there was no ruling on how long they had to implement the processing after passage of the law. However, if they gave 210 days to simply pass a law, which is crazy fast for our retarded politicians, surely they will agree that it is reasonable to allow the state time to develop the infrastrure and screening process to allow permitting.

While again, I question that the restrictions go overboard, the overly burdensome cost is discriminatory, and the passed law very well should be pursued, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the court intended for them to begin issuing permits without some lag to develop the necessary process. Imho, that arguement isn't going anywhere.


9 more months is a lot more than a little lag.3-6 months....maybe, as this is after the 210 days already given to create a law when it was declared unconstitutional.

What if someone was denied the right to free speech for over a year?
.
.

Edited by vezpa, 10 July 2013 - 10:50 AM.

Stand Your Ground

#20 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:53 AM

filing. . . .
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#21 chidiver

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:55 AM

filing. . . .

Ooh! Ooh! Can we see? Pretty please?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


"Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet"

#22 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:56 AM



Surely you are aware that the 'Right to Carry' hasn't been ruled as an unrestricted, or unregulated right? As such, the court gave them 180+30 days to craft a law with 'reasonable' restrictions. Whether the restrictions comply with the spirit of the ruling is another question, but there was no ruling on how long they had to implement the processing after passage of the law. However, if they gave 210 days to simply pass a law, which is crazy fast for our retarded politicians, surely they will agree that it is reasonable to allow the state time to develop the infrastrure and screening process to allow permitting.

While again, I question that the restrictions go overboard, the overly burdensome cost is discriminatory, and the passed law very well should be pursued, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the court intended for them to begin issuing permits without some lag to develop the necessary process. Imho, that arguement isn't going anywhere.


9 more months is a lot more than a little lag.3-6 months....maybe, as this is after the 210 days given to create a law.
.
.


Oh I agree 9 months is way longer than I was hoping for. I kind of liked the old plan where current CCW holders got to carry immediately while the process was being developed. Obviously, this is just one of countless points we lost along the process that I'm not happy about either.

That said, again, if they gave 210 days just to pass a law, surely they are not going to think the implementation schedule is unreasonable. Frankly, I thought the 180 days was nuts, and the extention a slap in the face, so that's what I'm basing my thoughts on. Obviously the court recognizes that a new regulated law needs time to develop the implementation process and the 9 months is inline with their past timeline rulings.

I'm just trying to be pragmatic.

#23 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:58 AM

scough,
Nobody is arguing that the right to carry can't be regulated or restricted. But as of today, carrying is still totally and completed banned in the State of Illinois. The 7th Circuit said that total and complete bans are not permitted. Without a doubt, Illinois can set up certain hoops and hurdles for its citizens to jump through to get a license, but a citizen ready and willing to jump through such hoops and hurdles can't do it right now because the State has all the hoops and hurdles locked away in the gym closet.

You and others are also giving too much weight to the 7th Circuit's stated reason for granting a stay. The Court did say that the reason for the stay was to give the State time to pass a new law (and not also to implement the law) but the reason for the stay does not change the fact that there is no more stay. Ironically, this is similar to the text of the 2A, where the stated reason for the amendment (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . .) does not constrain the right actually being granted (the right to keep and bear arms).

Illinois could have filed a motion with the 7th Circuit asking for an additional extension of the stay to give them time to actually implement the new law, but it didn't. So the stay is over, and the law of the land is that citizens in Illinois cannot be completely barred from carrying weapons in public.

#24 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:00 AM

ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO.

.
Stand Your Ground

#25 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:04 AM

ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO.

.


Exactly. The FOID app already requests all the information that everywhere else uses for CCW permits.
I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#26 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:04 AM

ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO.

.

thats Quinn for you, he's doing that

#27 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:05 AM

ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO.

.

True. And to be honest, ISP would have had no problem having a standard form application ready to go by today. I could easily put together a good-looking application in about an hour.

The timing problem for the ISP is putting everything together to process the applications and also approving training courses. So, if they put out applications today, #1 most people would not be able to submit a completed application because there'd be no approved courses, and #2 the ISP would almost surely not meet the 90 day deadline for processing the applications that were submitted.

#28 cm.stites

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,925 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:08 AM

heres triebels motion to dismiss.. will post the response when available.

Attached Files



#29 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:12 AM

Todd clearly stated that he had already been working with the ISP on training requirements for some time. This is all just wasting more time.
They were probably ready to go but are still working on the broken FOID backlog. IMHO they need some type of fire lit under their ***** or a real short
deadline to get anything done properly in this state.
.

Edited by vezpa, 10 July 2013 - 11:14 AM.

Stand Your Ground

#30 cm.stites

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,925 posts
  • Joined: 10-December 12

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:13 AM

Response to motion

and motion for permanent injunction

Attached Files






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users