Jump to content


Photo

Shepard update 7/27 -- dismissed as moot


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
990 replies to this topic

#691 mrpapageorgio

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 17 September 2013 - 01:46 PM

We setting up a post of who's going? I'll probably go to watch before class.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
DePaul Law '17


#692 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,254 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:43 AM

We setting up a post of who's going? I'll probably go to watch before class.


The last time I was in that courtroom I had no cell reception, nor could I pick up the wifi. You'll have to settle for the audio posting and post game commentary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4


Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#693 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 September 2013 - 12:00 PM

Or just do it old school and take notes. That's what I plan on doing since they generally frown on non-lawyers having cell phones in courthouses much less using one during proceedings.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#694 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 18 September 2013 - 12:50 PM

Or just do it old school and take notes. That's what I plan on doing since they generally frown on non-lawyers having cell phones in courthouses much less using one during proceedings.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


They don't allow tape recorders??

Either way, let us know all you can when you can.

#695 Chiburbian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 08

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:00 PM

If I recall they do post audio of the orals at a later date.
Formerly known as 'Cogz'

#696 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:48 PM

They don't allow tape recorders??

Either way, let us know all you can when you can.


Nooooo heh you DO NOT wanna bring a recording device into a federal courtroom, that's begging for U.S. Marshals to remove you from the courtroom and . Recording devices are straight up banned in federal courtrooms. Unless you're press or an attorney, don't even try to bring in a phone and they don't go in through the same entrance as the general public. When you go through security, you had better empty your pockets and they let you check your phone at the door. The Court records orals, posts recordings on the website. Circuit Rule 55 is wishy washy but I wouldn't push my luck.

"CIRCUIT RULE 55. Prohibition of Photographs and Broadcasts
The taking of photographs in, or radio or television broadcasting from the courtroom or any other place on the 27th floor or judges' chambers or corridors adjacent thereto on the 26th floor of the Federal Courthouse located at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, without permission of the court, is prohibited."

Then there's Local Rule 83.1 for the Northern District even though they've been suspending it and the Circuit has been allowing some cameras in civil proceedings (criminal proceedings, nope, never)....

"LR83.1. Court Facilities: Limitations on Use
(a) Court Environs Defined. For the purpose of this rule the term “court environs” shall refer to the following areas:
(1) in Chicago in the Courthouse:


(A) the 6th and 7th floors, and the 12th through the 25th floors, inclusive;
(B) the offices of the Pretrial Services Department of this Court on the 15th floor, and the public corridors immediately adjacent to those offices;
© the central jury assembly lounge, south elevator banks, and corridors leading from one to the other on the 2nd floor; and
(D) the immediate areas surrounding the elevators on the 1st floor;

....
© No Cameras or Recorders. The taking of photographs, radio and television broadcasting or taping in the court environs during the progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings including proceedings before a United States magistrate judge, whether or not court is actually in session, is prohibited."

That's a lot of areas that are off limits, basically 20 floors if you include floors 26-27 (I would).
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#697 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:17 AM

Good Brief! So much for freedom in this country! What are they scared of?? Someone might actually try to hold them to what they say and have prove of what was said???????

As you can guess I DO NOT attend court (and hopefully never will have to!)

#698 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:02 AM

They're afraid of privileged communication being recorded. Not even purposefully. It is a courthouse and there are people with their attorneys walking and talking about stuff. The Northern District suspended that localcrule for a few cases and allowed cameras during civil proceedings as a test run. They did it in federal district courts in Iowa and a few other places too but the Circuit Rules preempt local rules. FRCP (criminal not civil) Rule 53 explicitly bans all A/V devices during criminal proceedings, for obvious reasons but the rules about recording stuff are meant to protect privacy mostly. Can't have someone slinking around the judges' chambers with a digital audio recorder heh.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#699 speedbump

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 13

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:29 AM

Skinnyb, they're all still mad over Operation Greylord. Judge Lockwood, the one that wore an FBI wire in his cowboy boots, recently retired down here. Heckuva nice guy.
"J.J., you are an anomaly !" ~Mike Rowe~ aka: Mr. Molly

#700 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 September 2013 - 05:23 PM

Actually CA7 is a lot less strict about all that stuff than other Circuits. I looked at the Circuit Rules for the D.C. Circuit, Fifth and and Ninth and with the exception of the Ninth, they expressly ban phones and pretty much anything electronic since even an iPod can make recordings. Check your stuff at the door. The DC Circuit doesnt allow any electronic device that can record audio, video or stills unless you're an attorney, juror, media, or an examiner for the parole commission. Fifth Circuit rules expressly bans all electronic devices in the building without prior permission. Ninth Circuit allows them, allows people to make calls in hallways and anywhere but in the courtroom. Allows visitors and attorneys to use them to take notes and other stuff while court is in session but that's it. Your phone rings in open court, whoo that'll be ugly heh.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#701 Frank

    Formerly FrankW438

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 19 September 2013 - 05:46 PM

Actually CA7 is a lot less strict about all that stuff than other Circuits. I looked at the Circuit Rules for the D.C. Circuit, Fifth and and Ninth and with the exception of the Ninth, they expressly ban phones and pretty much anything electronic since even an iPod can make recordings. Check your stuff at the door. The DC Circuit doesnt allow any electronic device that can record audio, video or stills unless you're an attorney, juror, media, or an examiner for the parole commission. Fifth Circuit rules expressly bans all electronic devices in the building without prior permission. Ninth Circuit allows them, allows people to make calls in hallways and anywhere but in the courtroom. Allows visitors and attorneys to use them to take notes and other stuff while court is in session but that's it. Your phone rings in open court, whoo that'll be ugly heh.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


When I went to Moore/Shepard orals a year ago, phones were okay as long as you didn't use them in the courtroom. I turned mine off and took about 8 or 9 pages of notes on a mini legal pad. After the arguments were over, several of us met in an adjoining room, and someone suggested a group picture, but the CSO's stopped them. Photography for other than news purposes is generally prohibited in most any federal building. In my local US Dist Courthouse, there are lockers to leave your phone/electronics by the entrance. Nothing like that last year when I visited CA7.

However, the screeners made me throw out my bottle of water. :-(

-- Frank

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#702 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,672 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 19 September 2013 - 05:47 PM

Exchange emails and share all your notes. That way if one missed something maybe another got it.

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


#703 Frank

    Formerly FrankW438

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:24 PM

Exchange emails and share all your notes. That way if one missed something maybe another got it.


The audio should be released within a day after the hearing, if not a matter of hours.

By the time I got my notes typed in to a post after the Moore orals last year, the audio had already been released.

-- Frank

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#704 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 20 September 2013 - 08:40 PM

Judge Davis also suggested that they just "do everyone a favor" and decide it in order to kick it up to SCOTUS and Judge King basically said "Is there any way we can get out of dealing with this? Anyone?"

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#705 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,672 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 20 September 2013 - 08:50 PM

Benches don't have an EJECT button?

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


#706 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:00 PM

Actually they punched eject with that ruling. Then CA3 apparently decided they wanted to one up the Fourth with the "presumptively lawful" due to "long-standing tradition" language in Drake. Presumptively awful...the NJ AG who argued that case for the state is a woman and the court basically said that a ban on women voting and holding public office is constitutional because, well ya know its tradition like fraternity hazing, slavery, or requiring next of kin to submit petitioner's/decedent's death certificate so the court will grant petitioner/decedent a carry permit.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#707 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,042 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:12 PM

When Gura filed his response to King's jurisdiction inquiry he also tweaked Judge Davis

Attached File  28jRooker-CA4.pdf   105.3KB   23 downloads

In response to Judge Davis’s inquiry about seeking additional guidance from the Supreme Court by simply making a ruling:

Appellees maintain that Article III courts cannot decline to decide constitutional questions. Appellees’ Br. 12-14. However, if the Court desires additional guidance, the correct procedure is not to enter a decision, but to certify a question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2).


Basically telling a circuit court judge that he doesn't know his own job !
‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

#708 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:25 PM

Their egos are too large to actually ask for SCOTUS to take the case because they can't figure it out. That's akin to saying "we're too incompetent, can you read that Constitution thingy for us pleasaase"

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#709 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:37 AM

Their egos are too large to actually ask for SCOTUS to take the case because they can't figure it out. That's akin to saying "we're too incompetent, can you read that Constitution thingy for us pleasaase"

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


I think it works for the Illinois Legislature as well.

#710 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 September 2013 - 11:52 AM

There are no constitutional scholars in the ILGA, remember? Heh

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#711 topgun80

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 03:06 PM

I think we are wandering away from the topic:) Has anything really changed or does this still look like a win for us in the orals on 10-3

#712 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 September 2013 - 03:27 PM

It's a wild card. at this point I truly have no idea what the panel will do although I'm fairly certain that Stiehl's ruling will be dumped. Beyond that, I dunno. I saw Myerscough stayed the proceedings in Moore indicating that she believes Stiehl will be overturned. As far as an injunction goes, well, Aguilar took care of that one. But the issue of the "new" statute being substantially similar to the "old" is what's up for debate and its anyone's guess. If the ISP keeps dragging its feet and coming up with excuses, well that does not bode well for the state especially since they stated they'd adhere to the mandated deadlines.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#713 Joebillybob

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 07:50 PM

There are no constitutional scholars in the ILGA, remember? Heh

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


I saw the YouTube video of that exchange.... Drury is the epitome of arrogance...

#714 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:41 PM

It's a wild card. at this point I truly have no idea what the panel will do although I'm fairly certain that Stiehl's ruling will be dumped. Beyond that, I dunno. I saw Myerscough stayed the proceedings in Moore indicating that she believes Stiehl will be overturned. As far as an injunction goes, well, Aguilar took care of that one. But the issue of the "new" statute being substantially similar to the "old" is what's up for debate and its anyone's guess. If the ISP keeps dragging its feet and coming up with excuses, well that does not bode well for the state especially since they stated they'd adhere to the mandated deadlines.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


Skinny, if they do rule the new version is unconstitutional or parts of it are, can Madigan then appeal to SCOTUS or has that door closed already.

I know it's past the deadline but since it's a "New" law does that mean she gets another shot at SCOTUS? My worry is that if it does she'll ask for, and get from SCOTUS if not from the 7th, another stay which would basically mean we'd have permits issued by the time SCOTUS got around to hearing it.
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#715 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,042 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:46 PM

The time has expired on Madigan making an appeal.

She's way past her time limit.

Whatever law Illinois did or did not pass is irrelevant as far as her time to file for writ of certiorari

Edited by C0untZer0, 21 September 2013 - 09:48 PM.

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

#716 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,042 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:57 PM

Also the last time the Posner panel gave her a stay of mandate, they made it clear it would be the last time. More importantly, Illinois filed to have Shepard and Moore dismissed as moot. Which in one case was already granted at the lower court. But anyway, you cannot simultaneously file for dismissal with the lower court, and file for a stay of mandate from CA7.

Edited by C0untZer0, 21 September 2013 - 09:59 PM.

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

#717 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,782 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 22 September 2013 - 06:55 AM

There are no constitutional scholars in the ILGA, remember? Heh

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


No there are not, but I try and educate them at every committee hearing.

The reall appeal could be Alverez taking Aguilar up on the wholeRTC issue, but she won't.

Wonder if Ms. Madigan has the stones to take Coram up on appeal.

Hey skinny-- i heard acase was filed in CA about the lack of timelyness on approvals for handgun purchases, canyou find it for me?




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.

#718 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 September 2013 - 01:05 PM

I got an email from Calguns about it. Owen v. Lindley et al, I'll email you the docket. Suing the head of the CA DoJ's Bureau of Firearms and AG Kamala Harris.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#719 spu69

    Firearm and Motorcycle Enthusiast

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 13

Posted 23 September 2013 - 03:41 PM

If the government shuts down on October 1, will that mean that Orals in Shepard will be postponed?

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

#720 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,042 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 24 September 2013 - 10:09 AM

If the government shuts down on October 1, will that mean that Orals in Shepard will be postponed?


Good question
‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis