Jump to content

gunuser17

Members
  • Posts

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gunuser17

  1. United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐2385 LARRY E. HATFIELD, v. Plaintiff‐Appellee, WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 3:16‐cv‐00383‐JPG‐RJD — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 12, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 6, 2019 ____________________ Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A person “who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is forbidden to possess a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-2385/18-2385-2019-06-06.html
  2. They didn't hear the case, they heard a motion to stay the district court's order while the appeal was pending. As a result the 9th Circuit put this new case on hold while they decide a very similar case that has already been briefed. As I expect, once the 9th Circuit rules in the older case that the ban is ok, they will remand this new case to the district court telling that court to now take into account the expected decision in the older case. In total, they can then defer dealing with this new Benitez decision for a couple of years at least.
  3. Yes, I saw the no opposition filing again also. Just submitted by resignation to the ISRA.
  4. Full circle the wagons mode just like the NRA. No more dues from me to ISRA.
  5. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/judge-dismisses-nra-bankruptcy-case-group-faces-new-york-lawsuit.html
  6. Personally identifiable information has nothing to do with privilege. Privilege only has to do with attorney-client communications. Personally identifiable information is produced in civil litigation all of the time. Such information is often redacted in some way in open court filings but the parties can still make full use of the documents. The court would typically enter a protective order that specifies the information that is exchanged during the law suit that cannot be publically disclosed. Even that information often is disclosed during the actucal course of a trial since very seldom is the courtroom closed to the public during a trial.
  7. The store's inventory log is all that's needed. Guns come in; serial numbers get recorded. Guns go out; 4473s get recorded. The store has to produce those records every time the ATF audits it. If the records don't match, the ATF gets angry. Also the ATF already runs trace reports on all "crime" guns. Except that is not how discovery works in litigation. The lawyers will have the right to look at and get copies of any and all sales documents that are maintained by the store that reflect any sale or purchase of a firearm or identify a purchaser or seller (as I suspect the store buys used firearms). The store will also have to produce all of their emails that relate to sales or purchases or inquiries relating to firearms along with a host of electronic records from their vendors/distributors. Ask anyone that has been through the ringer in civil litigation and the ability to discover information is very broad.
  8. The case will probably not be dismissed until there has been extensive discovery including production of all of the firearm purchase documents for at least the past couple of years. The issue of how many guns were illegally sold, if any, will be part of litigation and the goal of the city most likely is to just use the cost of litigation to put the FFL out of business. The better case for dismissal for the FFL may well be that even if the City's assertions are true, the "City" itself has not suffered any damages and therefore has no standing to sue. Not sure how that might work. A better plaintiff would be someone injured by a firearm that was sold by that FFL to a straw purchaser who then transferred the gun to a criminal in Chicago that injured the "someone" in Chicago. To get jurisdiction, Chicago will probably argue that it incurs police costs or medical costs as the result of a straw purchase used in a crime in Chicago.
  9. Let's face reality. The Supreme Court narrowed the question enough that they can decide only whether the plaintiffs rights were violated. Such a decision can give them relief without necessarily ruling on any particular scheme to regulate carry. If that is what happens, the ruling could have little or no impact on everyone else regardless of where you live. Only time will tell now. More importantly, will the state grant the plaintiffs the requested permits and moot the case once again.
  10. I would first assume that the email alert was a phishing scam looking to obtain information. Before I would do anything, I would attempt to determine whether the alert notification was legitimate. I strongly suspect that it was not legitimate.
  11. I would suspect that bringing the letter would be of no use. You either pass the background check or you do not. I don't beleive that any FFL would go through with the transfer after you are rejected just because you have a letter that you say is authentic since the FFL has no real way of judging whether the letter is authentic. If you do not pass, then it will be on you to sort out the issue with the various police agencies to get that turned around. I would not expect that the FBI has done anything with any communication that you only sent to them last week.
  12. Isn't this the old Bridgeview Sports location that closed not that long ago?
  13. Order from June, 2020 - case appears to be in the middle of expert discovery right now: 06/03/2020 TEXT ORDER by U.S. Magistrate Tom Schanzle-Haskins: Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery Production 39 and Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time and Cross-Motion for Stay, or in the Alternative for Extension of Case Deadlines 40 are ALLOWED in part. Plaintiffs are given an extension of time to 6/15/2020 to comply fully with this Court's Text Order entered 4/22/2020. The Court extends and revises the schedule in this case as follows: Fact Discovery due by 11/1/2020; Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure due by 11/30/2020; Defendant's Expert Disclosure due by 2/1/2021; Expert Discovery due by 4/15/2021; Dispositive Motions due by 6/01/2021; pretrial conference set for 6/01/2021 is CANCELED and reset 9/7/2021 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before U.S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Bench Trial set for 6/15/2021 is CANCELED and reset 9/21/2021 at 9:00 AM before Judge Myerscough; and Telephonic Status Conference set 1/20/2021 is CANCELLED and reset Thursday, 4/15/2021, at 10:00 AM (court will place call) before Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
  14. 73-2.pdf73-main.pdf 73-1.pdf Main ISRA Reply Brief and supporting declarations
  15. I don't see how there can be a 1st amendment question. As a lawyer, the prosecutor should know that the 1st amendment protects the citizens from government prohibition of free speech. As I understand it, a private business/homeowner can control what speech is allowed on their private property. Most likely a homeowners association/corporation owns the common areas like the street. The homeowners were not the government and were not acting of behalf of the government. They were, by their account, protecting their home because the "protesters" were on private property that they apparently only accessed by tearing down a valuable antique gate and walking on a private street and/or sidewalk and supposedly threatening the owners. Now, if the protesters had been out on the public street and the homeowner threatened to shoot them for yelling/protesting on the public street, that may be a much different story.
  16. Ammunitionstore.com 9mm target ammo seems to be running nearly double the pre-covid prices. Is that what people are seeing from other suppliers if you can actually find one with ammo to sell?
  17. If there is no subsequent appeal after the trial court enters a new not guilty verdict, the most important thing to remember is that the trial court's finding that the FOID act does not apply in the home is not binding on any other court in Illinois. Later cases may find it informative but judges are free to ignore the finding and I suspect that would happen in Chicago for instance.
  18. The best that can happen out of this case is that the trial court finds her not guilty based on his opinion that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home. I have no idea whether that is correct or not but that is what is needed now. Then, the state has to appeal and the intermediate appellate court has to find that the trial court was wrong and that the FOID act does apply to guns in the home. That would send the case back to the trial court who could then re-enter the opinion that the law is unconstitutional and the state would then repeat the appeal to the IL Supreme Ct. The best case for this issue would have been (1) a person arrested for properly carrying a firearm in a car locked in the trunk unloaded and in a case on a Illinois state highway by the State Police but not having a FOID card; or (2) as noted above - a purchaser at an Illinois firearm store who was refused because the person did not have a FOID card but was otherwise able to pass a background check and could properly complete a 4473 - then, the only defense most likely would be the constitutionality of the FOID act.
  19. The Illinois Supreme Court, in my opinion, did not rule that no FOID is required to have a firearm in your home. The IL Sup. Ct. ruling is on a technical issue that no appeal directly from the trial court to the Supreme Ct. was appropriate here. Generally, when a statute is found unconstitutional, the case is directly appealed to the IL Sup. Ct. However, where the issue could have been decided by the trial court without determining whether the statute is constitutional, then the trial court is limited to just applying the statute. Here, the trial court found that the FOID statute did not apply in the home so the accused could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Ct said that the trial court's job was over once that determination was made and whether the FOID act was constitutional did not need to be addressed by the trial court. Because of that, the IL Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of whether the FOID act is unconstitutional. The IL Supreme Ct also did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the FOID act applies to guns in the home since that is not a constitutional issue that could be appealed directly to the Supreme Ct. So now, the case goes back to the trial court and the decision will reissue with a not guilty finding based on the trial court's determination that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home. The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.
  20. So the case goes back to the trial court, the opinion is modified as directed by the IL Supreme Court. The case then goes up on appeal to an intermediate appellate court as to whether the FOID act applies in the home if the State appeals. Assuming the state appeals, the appellate court either affirms the finding or reverses the trial court and finds that the FOID act does apply in the home. Then, a potential appeal to IL Supreme Court who could find FOID does not apply in home - ending case. If Supreme Court finds that FOID does apply in home, then I believe that the trial court could ultimately revisit and re-enter the unconstitutional finding and then that goes up to the Supreme Court again. A long and winding road.
  21. Targetsportsusa.com usually has free shipping if you order 1000 rounds of - say 9mm or other pistol rounds. Not sure what they do with rifle or shotgun rounds. The only quirk is that if you order, say 1000 rounds of target ammo and 100 rounds of hollow point, they will still charge you for shipping the hollow points. But if you watch for their 1/2 price hollow point sales, it is still a pretty good deal.
  22. Also make sure that you do not admit to any criminal act in making your explanation. And merely waiving an arm at someone without contact could legally be an assault while you may only consider as gesturing. You may want to have someone else look over it to get their take. Don't say anymore than you absolutely have to because anything that could be interpreted as you doing something wrong will be taken that way.
  23. As noted a few pages up, the Illinois Supreme Court is not scheduled to hear oral arguments again until Sept. 9, 2019. If the Court decides to wait on the US Supreme Court NY case, the Brown case may not be heard until 2020 and the Illinois Court may call for additional briefing after any NY decision. You can see the Court's argument schedule at page two here: http://www.illinoisc...ay/05-19_DB.pdf
  24. You could end up with California's new ammo laws requiring a paid background check with every ammo purchase and all purchases have to go thru ffl effective 7/1.
×
×
  • Create New...