kwc Posted December 8, 2015 at 02:16 PM Posted December 8, 2015 at 02:16 PM I've been venting so much I had to open the windows... time to go for a ***long*** run tonight to burn off the frustration.
tkroenlein Posted December 8, 2015 at 02:55 PM Posted December 8, 2015 at 02:55 PM This hasn't been a good day. On the heals of today's SCOTUS rejection of the Friedman v. Highland Park "assault weapons" ban appeal comes Judge Myerscough's denial of the Culp v. Madigan motion for a preliminary injunction. Opinion is attached. The Court concluded the likelihood of success is neither strong nor weak, but the balance of harms favors the defendants. What a disappointment. . And, without reading the opinion, I presume the defendant's harms remain imaginary. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kwc Posted December 8, 2015 at 03:20 PM Posted December 8, 2015 at 03:20 PM And, without reading the opinion, I presume the defendant's harms remain imaginary. The defense offered no evidence to support their claims of presumed harm.
domin8 Posted December 8, 2015 at 08:37 PM Posted December 8, 2015 at 08:37 PM I'm just going to drop this right here. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”Carry on.
kwc Posted December 8, 2015 at 08:51 PM Posted December 8, 2015 at 08:51 PM Ummm, I don't think so. That could really mess up a person's life if caught and convicted of a felony. That's not who we are. Plus, it's far easier to challenge the constitutionality of a law from outside of the prison walls.
Gamma Posted December 8, 2015 at 10:15 PM Posted December 8, 2015 at 10:15 PM I'd like to see the illustrious state come up with examples of individuals in other states, who have sought voluntary mental health help in the last 5 years, AND who hold a concealed carry license, who then commit a violent crime faciliated by their concealed firearm. I'd bet they could not come up with a single example.
kwc Posted December 9, 2015 at 02:52 AM Posted December 9, 2015 at 02:52 AM Oh the irony... Today I perused the ISP's step-by-step application process slides posted here: https://ispfsb.com/Public/Firearms/CCLOverview.pdf ...and happened to notice they used "Iowa" (a non-approved state) in the "User Registration - Step 2" slide. Those Firearms Services Bureau people sure like to joke around, don't they? http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/08/066606bb1a48211b0cfca908368395b5.jpg
Gamma Posted December 9, 2015 at 07:35 PM Posted December 9, 2015 at 07:35 PM More irony - a potentially dangerous (smirk) person with a CCW from one of those non-approved states CAN carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle in Illinois, yet a thoroughly vetted Illinois resident with FOID cannot. It was tragically comical the amount of attention and consideration that was given to Vermont residents in that particular section so that they would be able to vehicle-carry without a carry license, yet that means there would be no background check at all for those individuals. Who are allowed to carry in public in Illinois.
kwc Posted December 10, 2015 at 03:32 AM Posted December 10, 2015 at 03:32 AM Update: Yesterday the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 7th circuit court.
Joebillybob Posted December 10, 2015 at 03:42 AM Posted December 10, 2015 at 03:42 AM Hang in there kwc... It's always darkest before the dawn. You will have your day in court...
kwc Posted December 11, 2015 at 04:05 AM Posted December 11, 2015 at 04:05 AM The appeal has been docketed in the 7th Circuit Court as Appellate Case No. 15-3738.
MrTriple Posted December 11, 2015 at 06:28 AM Posted December 11, 2015 at 06:28 AM The appeal has been docketed in the 7th Circuit Court as Appellate Case No. 15-3738.So the USS Culp has docked?
kwc Posted December 11, 2015 at 04:26 PM Posted December 11, 2015 at 04:26 PM One more update: Judge Myerscough denied the defendants' motion for a summary judgment and stayed these procedings, entering this into the docket: "...in light of the current state of the law concerning the Second Amendment, and the fact that the Seventh Circuit decision on the preliminary injunction will be extremely beneficial to the ultimate resolution of this case, the Court sua sponte stays these proceedings." Full text of the docket entry is below. Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: Plaintiffs have appealed this Court's denial of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Notice of Appeal [30]. An appeal of an interlocutory decision "does not divest a district court of jurisdiction or prevent the court 'from finishing its work and rendering a final decision.'" Staffa v. Pollard, 597 F. App'x 893, 895 (7th Cir. 2015) (unpublished decision) (quoting Wis. Mut. Ins. Co. v United States, 441 F.3d 502, 504 (7th Cir. 2006)). However, in light of the current state of the law concerning the Second Amendment, and the fact that the Seventh Circuit decision on the preliminary injunction will be extremely beneficial to the ultimate resolution of this case, the Court sua sponte stays these proceedings. See, e.g., Jackson v. Van Kampen Series Fund, Inc., No. 06-cv-944-DRH, 2007 WL 1532090, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 24, 2007) (discussing the court's inherent authority to stay proceedings sua sponte). Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment [27] is DENIED AS MOOT with leave to refile after the interlocutory appeal is decided. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/9/2015. (ME, ilcd)
stm Posted December 11, 2015 at 05:16 PM Posted December 11, 2015 at 05:16 PM One more update: Judge Myerscough denied the defendants' motion for a summary judgment and stayed these procedings, entering this into the docket: "...in light of the current state of the law concerning the Second Amendment, and the fact that the Seventh Circuit decision on the preliminary injunction will be extremely beneficial to the ultimate resolution of this case, the Court sua sponte stays these proceedings." Full text of the docket entry is below. Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: Plaintiffs have appealed this Court's denial of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Notice of Appeal [30]. An appeal of an interlocutory decision "does not divest a district court of jurisdiction or prevent the court 'from finishing its work and rendering a final decision.'" Staffa v. Pollard, 597 F. App'x 893, 895 (7th Cir. 2015) (unpublished decision) (quoting Wis. Mut. Ins. Co. v United States, 441 F.3d 502, 504 (7th Cir. 2006)). However, in light of the current state of the law concerning the Second Amendment, and the fact that the Seventh Circuit decision on the preliminary injunction will be extremely beneficial to the ultimate resolution of this case, the Court sua sponte stays these proceedings. See, e.g., Jackson v. Van Kampen Series Fund, Inc., No. 06-cv-944-DRH, 2007 WL 1532090, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 24, 2007) (discussing the court's inherent authority to stay proceedings sua sponte). Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment [27] is DENIED AS MOOT with leave to refile after the interlocutory appeal is decided. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/9/2015. (ME, ilcd) In other words, she just kicked the can down the road because she is afraid to make a decision. Must be "above her pay grade."
domin8 Posted December 12, 2015 at 03:51 AM Posted December 12, 2015 at 03:51 AM I'm was doing some research on the NICS system and came across this little article from a gun grabber website. I think you're going to love this. It pretty much points out where Illinois could have searched to see if anybody from any state is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. I'd love to see Culp's counsel call out Illinois for failing to attempt to check for ways to verify this info. Apparently the vast majority of states terror to NICS, and those that don't have an in house system. http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-policy-summary/ Screw the 5 and 10 year garbage. The fact is Illinois never sought this info.
press1280 Posted December 12, 2015 at 01:05 PM Posted December 12, 2015 at 01:05 PM Of course they can find out who's prohibited. They're just lazy and will claim it's just easier to deny OOS residents outright.
skinnyb82 Posted December 15, 2015 at 05:10 PM Posted December 15, 2015 at 05:10 PM Myersough is letting CA7 do her dirty work for her just like in Moore. Interlocutory orders are orders such as this, which aren't directly related to the merits of the case but affect the outcome of the case itself. Moore went up on an interlocutory appeal, now Culp. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
kwc Posted January 29, 2016 at 06:38 AM Posted January 29, 2016 at 06:38 AM Appellants' brief to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse the District Court's denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, is attached. Appellees must provide their brief by Feb 29, 2016, and the Appellants have until March 14, 2016 to submit their reply.Appellants' Brief.pdf
kwc Posted January 29, 2016 at 01:53 PM Posted January 29, 2016 at 01:53 PM If the PDF link above doesn't work, I also temporarily uploaded the file here: http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Appellants-Brief.pdf
Gamma Posted January 29, 2016 at 09:00 PM Posted January 29, 2016 at 09:00 PM Appellants' brief to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse the District Court's denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, is attached. Appellees must provide their brief by Feb 29, 2016, and the Appellants have until March 14, 2016 to submit their reply.Brief was excellent I thought, hit all the points that needed to be hit.
oohrah Posted January 30, 2016 at 02:06 PM Posted January 30, 2016 at 02:06 PM This is excellent. Keeping my fingers crossed. I would prefer just reciprocity of course, but I would be happy to get an IL CCL if allowed.
jmeyers Posted February 29, 2016 at 10:18 PM Posted February 29, 2016 at 10:18 PM And as usual, a 30 day Time extension with a bunch of BS reasons has been filed. Time Extension.pdf
kwc Posted February 29, 2016 at 10:36 PM Posted February 29, 2016 at 10:36 PM And as usual, a 30 day Time extension with a bunch of BS reasons has been filed. Well that's very disappointing. But at least Madigan's staff is consistent. jmeyers, you must have been hitting the "refresh" button regularly in PACER over the past two hours. I've checked twice today and you still beat me to this one!
jmeyers Posted February 29, 2016 at 11:33 PM Posted February 29, 2016 at 11:33 PM Nah, just happened to look at it about 415 central to see if any thing useful was posted for my use tomorrow. I don't know why I thought or would even consider using the word useful and AG in the same sentence but hey, i was worth a shot
Gamma Posted March 1, 2016 at 12:20 AM Posted March 1, 2016 at 12:20 AM bunch of BS reasons So a bunch of things due after this one are cause to delay the response to this action? Yeah that's not throwing up the bird at all. BS indeed. It's a preliminary injunction not a final decision, if they don't have time to deal with responding to it now, give the injunction then deal with the case later.
kwc Posted March 2, 2016 at 05:50 PM Posted March 2, 2016 at 05:50 PM The court granted an extension for the appellees' brief until 3/30. The appellants' reply will now be due on 4/13.
kwc Posted March 30, 2016 at 09:09 PM Posted March 30, 2016 at 09:09 PM Arghhhhhhh!!!!! Appellees just filed a second motion for an extension until April 29. Same old reasons... the attorney claims to be too busy handling other cases. Why does this not surprise me? Appellees' Motion for Extension #2.pdf
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.