Samuel v. Trame - Military Non-Resident Lawsuit

[kwc]

A new case has been filed in U.S. District Court, Southern Illinois District, in an effort to remedy this state's unconstitutional discrimination against military non-residents obtaining a concealed carry license. This is the second Federal lawsuit in Illinois involving non-residents; the first also includes a military plaintiff (see Culp v. Madigan).

 

Ella Samuel, a resident of Montana who is assigned on active duty orders to Scott AFB near Belleville, Illinois, filed suit on July 20, 2015 against Jessica Trame, the Director of the Firearms Services Bureau. Initial response to the compliant was due by July 27, but an extension allows until August 3. Samuel is represented by Thomas Maag of Wood River, IL.

 

The original complaint (attached) was filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court early in June 2015 and was just moved to the U.S. District Court.

 

The case number is 3:15-cv-00780-NJR-SCW.

Samuel v Trame - Original Complaint.pdf

Edited July 30, 2015 at 09:39 PM by kwc

[spec5]

Thanks KWC. Now we have a lawsuit and legislation to get something to remedy this situation. Let's hit it on all fronts.

 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4258&GAID=13&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=92017&SessionID=88&GA=99

 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2150&GAID=13&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=91818&SessionID=88&GA=99

Edited July 30, 2015 at 08:28 PM by spec5

[DoverGunner]

Maag is a quite capable Lawyer/Liar

It makes me wonder why he took the case as I do not see it as a money maker for him

[DomG]

Good to hear.

[ragsbo]

Hope for a good outcome!

[kwc]

Thanks KWC. Now we have a lawsuit and legislation to get something to remedy this situation. Let's hit it on all fronts.http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4258&GAID=13&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=92017&SessionID=88&GA=99http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2150&GAID=13&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=91818&SessionID=88&GA=99

 

So far:

- 2 active non-resident lawsuits against the state (both include active duty military)

- More than 7 military-specific concealed carry bills introduced since March 2014

- Highlighted during IGOLD as major legislative priority; addressed with dozens of reps and senators

- Issue discussed face-to-face with Gov Rauner during IGOLD

- Draft military language included in House's proposed clean-up bill (deleted before vote)

- Numerous threats (lone wolf, ISIS, etc.) and actual attacks against military members

 

I hope our time has come. What will it take to push this over the top?

 

I think the lawsuits are still the key... that's the only thing that gets any action in this state. Pray for success, and soon!

Edited July 31, 2015 at 11:19 AM by kwc

[kwc]

For what it's worth, "Questions for the Record" from Senators Grassley and Cruz during Judge Rosenstengel's nomination hearing might reveal a little bit on how she might decide a case like this. In her responses, she addresses D.C. v. Heller, Due Process and Equal Protection, applicability of strict scrutiny as it applies to a fundamental right, and commitment to following the precedents of higher courts regardless of personal views. My initial impression is positive in the context of this case.

 

Perhaps someone with a strong legal background can shed additional light on this.

Edited July 31, 2015 at 06:54 PM by kwc

[GM1(SW)]

I have my fingers crossed that this ruling will allow non resident military members to get their CCL and in doing so will address the question of why not allow every other non resident to obtain a Illinois ccl.

[borgranta]

Considering federal law requires non-resident military members stationed on orders in another state to be treated as residents in the state that they are stationed within leave no wiggle room to deny military members the same rights other ILLINOIS residents enjoy.

[Gamma]

address the question of why not allow every other non resident to obtain a Illinois ccl.

I've mentioned before and I will again here. My strong suspicion is that they just do not have the ability or capability to do the background check they have devised on non-Illinois residents. The mental health care requirement goes beyond what is required to be recorded or tracked in most other states or federally. The burden on the state of trying to do all those inquiries would probably be substantial. So they devised a way to shift that burden to others, by limiting applicants to those who already have licenses from another state which include the requirement they want. So they're just relying on the other state to check the requirement they want people to meet instead of actually doing the check themselves.

 

Kind of like their survey they sent out to determine "substantially similar" states, they didn't apparently even research other state's laws or requirements, just sent out a questionnaire to the other states.

Edited August 3, 2015 at 08:40 AM by Gamma

[kwc]

Attached are the Defendant's response to the original complaint (filed Aug 3, 2015) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed Aug 17).

 

Basically, ISP uses (among others) an affirmative defense that the plaintiff's claims are "premature and unripe." One of their claims is that the plaintiff failed to apply for either a FOID card or a concealed carry license. Plaintiff revealed in the original complaint that she has a FOID card, and as her attorney points out in the Motion, it is impossible for her to even apply for a CCL without using an address from an approved state.

 

Happy reading!

 

Samuel v Trame - Response to complaint.pdf

Motion - Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction.pdf

[kwc]

Also note defendant's response is due Sep 21, 2015.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Attached are the Defendant's response to the original complaint (filed Aug 3, 2015) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed Aug 17).

 

Basically, ISP uses (among others) an affirmative defense that the plaintiff's claims are "premature and unripe." One of their claims is that the plaintiff failed to apply for either a FOID card or a concealed carry license. Plaintiff revealed in the original complaint that she has a FOID card, and as her attorney points out in the Motion, it is impossible for her to even apply for a CCL without using an address from an approved state.

 

Happy reading!

 

 

Wow, that motion for summary judgement and permanent injunction is an

 

http://straightrazorplace.com/attachments/razors/77289d1315004400-one-bad-ass-wacker-leloir-lazarillo-beating-donkey1.jpg

 

for the ISP and the state of Illinois, ain't it?

 

And essentially, the ISP's response to just about every single point made by the plaintiff is "I know nothing" and "I don't think so" and "I don't agree."

 

What kind of idiots are my taxes paying for as counsel for the ISP?

Edited August 18, 2015 at 09:28 PM by ChicagoRonin70

[Tango7]

What kind of idiots are my taxes paying for as counsel for the ISP?

Obviously the political machine hack type.

[kwc]

I think the "admit/deny" construct is standard practice, and the substantive arguments come later.

 

That being said, I can't comprehend how the ISP wouldn't know if it is legal for the plaintiff to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois without a CCL. Seriously?

 

8. That carrying a firearm by Plaintiff, while off duty, and without a concealed carry license issued by the State of Illinois, is a criminal offense.

 

RESPONSE: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8.

Edited August 19, 2015 at 01:49 AM by kwc

[RoadyRunner]

Did they really essentially say that the Plaintiff lacked sufficient intellect to understand the Law, therefore cannot make this claim?

[kwc]

Did they really essentially say that the Plaintiff lacked sufficient intellect to understand the Law, therefore cannot make this claim?

 

Where did you see that? I interpret that statement to mean the ISP is lacking in intellect.

Edited August 19, 2015 at 03:40 AM by kwc

[Hap]

I think the "admit/deny" construct is standard practice, and the substantive arguments come later.

 

That being said, I can't comprehend how the ISP wouldn't know if it is legal for the plaintiff to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois without a CCL. Seriously?

 

8. That carrying a firearm by Plaintiff, while off duty, and without a concealed carry license issued by the State of Illinois, is a criminal offense.

 

RESPONSE: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8.

 

 

Perhaps they are saying that there could be other factors, not known to the ISP, which would allow the plaintiff to carry while off duty. Still, pretty slippery.

[Gamma]

Samuel v Trame - Response to complaint.pdf 36.32KB 23 downloads

I'm pretty disgusted that we pay the people who wrote that.

 

Then again we pay the people who are denying our rights and getting sued too.

 

I wish they would have included the SCOTUS precedent that specifically addressed a state denying rights and privileges to non-residents. I don't have it in front of me but I think I've posted the citation before. I think it might even have been Illinois who got spanked in that case also.

Edited August 19, 2015 at 05:26 AM by Gamma

[kwc]

I wish they would have included the SCOTUS precedent that specifically addressed a state denying rights and privileges to non-residents. I don't have it in front of me but I think I've posted the citation before. I think it might even have been Illinois who got spanked in that case also.

 

The plaintiff's attorney in Culp v Madigan referenced a couple of cases in his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction:

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=52501&p=929313

[RoadyRunner]

 

Did they really essentially say that the Plaintiff lacked sufficient intellect to understand the Law, therefore cannot make this claim?

 

Where did you see that? I interpret that statement to mean the ISP is lacking in intellect.

Ahh, yes. Wrong way around. Thanks!

[MrTriple]

Attached are the Defendant's response to the original complaint (filed Aug 3, 2015) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed Aug 17).

 

Basically, ISP uses (among others) an affirmative defense that the plaintiff's claims are "premature and unripe." One of their claims is that the plaintiff failed to apply for either a FOID card or a concealed carry license. Plaintiff revealed in the original complaint that she has a FOID card, and as her attorney points out in the Motion, it is impossible for her to even apply for a CCL without using an address from an approved state.

 

Happy reading!

 

They, on the one hand, deny she had a "temporary" FOID card but by doing so tactically acknowledge that they saw that wording used in the original complaint, but then double back and state "oh, well, she didn't bother applying so she can't sue us."

[kwc]

Yesterday Judge Rosenstengel scheduled the final Pretrial Conference for 8/9/2016 at 1:30 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse. Presumptive Bench Trial is set for September, 2016.

[Gamma]

Yesterday Judge Rosenstengel scheduled the final Pretrial Conference for 8/9/2016 at 1:30 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse. Presumptive Bench Trial is set for September, 2016.

Unbelievable. If this was some politically correct cause it would have already been adjudicated.

[GM1(SW)]

Yesterday Judge Rosenstengel scheduled the final Pretrial Conference for 8/9/2016 at 1:30 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse. Presumptive Bench Trial is set for September, 2016.

That is just plain unacceptable....

[Gamma]

Get another plaintiff in another district and sue again, maybe there is a judge somewhere that has some respect for civil rights.

[kwc]

Wouldn't we expect the plaintiff to move for a preliminary injunction and advance the timeline?

 

Also, unless I'm misunderstanding the process, I think the judge hasn't yet ruled on the motion for summary judgment. If favorable to the plaintiff, the ruling would skip the discovery phase and nullify the need for the bench trial that was just scheduled.

 

Are there any legal experts here able to clarify this?

Edited August 27, 2015 at 10:30 AM by kwc

[jmeyers]

moving along

NOTICE of Scheduling and Discovery Conference: Scheduling/Discovery Conference set for 9/21/2015 at 03:30 PM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. (amv) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

[press1280]

moving along

NOTICE of Scheduling and Discovery Conference: Scheduling/Discovery Conference set for 9/21/2015 at 03:30 PM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. (amv) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

Always wondered why discovery would be needed in a case like this, seems clear cut?

[jmeyers]

9/21 conference will probably be more scheduling than anything but Discovery will be allocated some time as well. Just gives plaintiffs more time to let the state hang themselves.