All Activity

At the oral arguments for Preliminary Injunction, only the parties involved and media were allowed in the courtroom. The rest had to view on screen from another room.

The Illinois Southern District Court has a YouTube page, but it's pretty useless. Looking at McGlynn's case management procedures (see page 15ff), electronic conferencing is only for outside parties to communicate into the courtroom, not for the courtroom to broadcast its proceedings outward. It's possible that Bishop will attend and tweet-storm from the courtroom. (He's done that before.) It's possible that the audio will be available afterward. Otherwise we'll just have to wait for the ruling. EDIT: I'm downgrading the likelihood that audio will be available afterward. Although it's common at the appellate level, it appears to be practically nonexistent at the district level.

@Euler Maybe the Judge is not seeing everything? Going through it myself you have to jump through 3 different laws? I think your rite, maybe the attorneys also not walk through this properly? According to the ISP. (If I am reading this correctly) b. Except for the exceptions of C,D,E scary weapons are verboten to sell, deliver, yadda, blah blah. UNLESS *D* 1. There is no LATE REGISTRATION option, the only "late" registration is if you move into the state with the weapons. 2. You are in Illegal possession after January 10. The last sentence in the ISP line #30, states the potential penalties. If you register AFTER Jan 10, your saying come and get me I am an awful person.... PICA - https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K24-1.9.htm

Does the district court have a YT Page like CA7? I'll listen to the proceedings like I did the CA7 Injunction arguments.

It should be possible to observe in person.

Would it be possible to go there and watch it in person??

Now, you didn't really expect a reply of a Friday the 13th, did you? Silly boy. Considering the "glacial" pace at the things this state accomplishes (unless it's something they want done!), did you think you WOULD get a reply?

The question then becomes - "Have the charges been dropped?"

Well, guess what????? Still no response from DNR! Surprise Surprise Surprise

I watched the YT video that Washington Gun Law put up. It appears Judge McGlynn made his decision based on their being no criminal penalty for registering late. WK seemed to echo the same thoughts unless I misunderstood it. If the IL Legislature gave ISP rule making authority and JCAR approved all their rule making decisions, hopefully FOID Card Holders will have a leg to stand on if this case ever makes it to SCOTUS. That's not to say that in a traffic stop, you're almost guaranteed to lose your weapon.

The only exceptions I see in the law for registration after January 1 is for inheritance or people moving into the state. You shouldn't trust any answer you get from ISP, anyway. ISP isn't your lawyer. Any answer they give you is not a defense if you're charged. Disclaimer: I'm not your lawyer, either.

Wondering out loud cuz I've not had a response from an "official' inquiry, does the PICA program allow for registering/adding a firearm that has been kept out of State all this time but now might be brought back home in the near future?

It is a crime to commit murder. It is not a crime to confess to murder. If you murdered someone last week and confessed today, you wouldn't be arrested for confessing. You'd be arrested for the murder. The cops and prosecutor wouldn't say "Well, you're not murdering anyone right now. I guess we can't arrest and prosecute you." (Assume I'm talking about the real world, not Chicago.) It is illegal to possess an unregistered assault weapon after January 1. It is not illegal to register a previously unregistered assault weapon after January 1. However, by doing so you have admitted that you previously possessed an unregistered assault weapon after January 1.. I didn't read the wording of the argument, but I can't help but think that this argument just wasn't made well, and judge ruled on the argument that was actually made. Also, by registering one before January 1, you have incriminated yourself should the ILGA ever decide to rescind grandfathering. But for the registration, the state would/should have no knowledge of your possession. I would expect a court not to agree to this argument, because it wouldn't consider the possibility that the state would escalate. The court did agree with the argument that registration was not coerced (thus "voluntary"), because people had the option to dispossess their firearms before the deadline, whether by selling them, moving them out of state, or destroying them. So in order to preserve your 5th Amendment rights, the government only requires that you surrender your 2nd Amendment rights. There's lots of judicial precedent that no one should have to give up one right to keep another. I suspect that this point may come back in the form of a 2nd Amendment consideration in the trial ruling.

I’m not sure what happens in federal court when the IL Supreme Court says X. I guess late registration is a win from not getting charged with a misdemeanor for the first offense, as for confiscation of the firearm, I would again refer to an attorney about taking your stuff and the whole due process thing. Personally, if I had the funds and backing, I would say challenge it, as the law it’s confiscated under stinks!

Even though it is an administrative rule, wouldn't this be considered a back-door win for those who registered late. I mean, would the IL SAO charge someone for registering late with this ruling. They would confiscate the weapon and it would be a complete loss, but the person would avoid criminal charges. Because the ruling was made in federal court, wouldn't this hold some type of weight. This is Benbow's case (I think), wondering what he took from it...

The trial starts at 9am, September 16, in the East St. Louis Courthouse. Only the parties were sent invitations to appear via Zoom (probably for the expert witnesses).

Should be fun. What time does the hearing start and where can we listen in?

On September 11, MD asked for an extension to file its response to the petition. On September 12, the court granted an extension until October 23.

Can't believe it's finally here.

On September 13, FFL-IL (one of the consolidated plaintiffs) asked to file an amended complaint. Meanwhile, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs' experts from testifying. The trial still starts Monday, September 16. Happy Friday 13.

"[District Attorney] Ryan said that Hayes had full legal possession of the gun, and his fellow protesters believe he acted in self-defense".

FUBAR

Person aiding and abetting terrorism attacks a person and then that person is the one in trouble.

I still have not gotten as response to my inquiry on the DNR website. " Can a person with a valid Illinois Conceal Carry Permit carry a concealed firearm while Archery Hunting in Illinois?"

Fantastic work Euler ! Thanks ! 👍