borgranta Posted February 25, 2015 at 04:53 PM Share Posted February 25, 2015 at 04:53 PM If the plaintiffs all appy and receive a valid non-resident CCW license from substantially similar Virginia than they will have a stronger case since they qualify to carry under the substantially similar Viriginia laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted February 25, 2015 at 05:27 PM Share Posted February 25, 2015 at 05:27 PM I am downloading the application for Virginia now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted February 25, 2015 at 05:55 PM Share Posted February 25, 2015 at 05:55 PM If you don't have an address in one of those 4 states (or IL), the website won't let you continue the application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted February 25, 2015 at 06:09 PM Share Posted February 25, 2015 at 06:09 PM If you don't have an address in one of those 4 states (or IL), the website won't let you continue the application. True.....but what about the paper application: http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/pressdetails.cfm?ID=804 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 25, 2015 at 06:11 PM Share Posted February 25, 2015 at 06:11 PM Umm, I actually have a Virginia nonresident permit. Todd has even seen it, yet I'm not a plaintiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 25, 2015 at 07:11 PM Share Posted February 25, 2015 at 07:11 PM True.....but what about the paper application: http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/pressdetails.cfm?ID=804 Your driver's license and your concealed carry permit must match, so unless you have a DL and a carry license both from Virginia, for instance, even the "paper" application cannot be submitted. ISP won't be able to complete the phone interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted February 26, 2015 at 10:13 PM Share Posted February 26, 2015 at 10:13 PM Why is it that Illinois will issue a Firearms Control Card ("tan card") to armed security guards who live in bordering states, but will not issue a CCL to those same guards? Double standard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted February 26, 2015 at 10:16 PM Share Posted February 26, 2015 at 10:16 PM Because the ISP is choosing to blatantly misinterpret the intention of the FCCA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 26, 2015 at 10:28 PM Share Posted February 26, 2015 at 10:28 PM When the letter and the intent do not match, things like this can occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted April 6, 2015 at 12:46 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 12:46 PM Any updates or movement on this case?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 6, 2015 at 01:48 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 01:48 PM Any updates or movement on this case?....Latest entry in Pacer, dated March 26, 2015, shows the outcome of the scheduling conference: SCHEDULING ORDER entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. TIME LIMITS AND SETTINGS ARE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: Initial Disclosures due by 4/16/2015; Amended Pleadings / Joinder of Parties due by 4/27/2015; Fact Discovery due by 6/24/2015; Plaintiff`s Expert Disclosure due by 7/24/2015; Defendant`s Expert Disclosure due by 9/22/2015; Expert Discovery due by 10/22/2015; Dispositive Motions due by 11/23/2015. Final Pretrial Conference set 2/29/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before U.S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Bench Trial set 3/15/2016 at 9:00 AM before Judge Myerscough. Telephonic Status Conference set Monday, 10/26/2015, at 2:00 PM (court will place call) before U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. See written order. (LB, ilcd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted April 6, 2015 at 02:09 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 02:09 PM · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2015 at 03:28 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2015 at 03:28 PM - No reason given Well, That! Link to comment
johnsxdm Posted April 6, 2015 at 03:30 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 03:30 PM It is amazing how lawyers can drag things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:01 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:01 PM In this scenario it may be a strategic motive. Primary complainant is an active duty airman stationed in Illinois. By dragging things out they may be trying to diminish his claim by waiting for his orders to be up and move to another duty station. A relocation would mean his need for an FCCL no longer exists. See people, your politicians are extremely anti-military too, even when they claim to be pro-military. Drury is an example of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:04 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:04 PM In this scenario it may be a strategic motive. Primary complainant is an active duty airman stationed in Illinois. By dragging things out they may be trying to diminish his claim by waiting for his orders to be up and move to another duty station. Which is all the more reason why I do not understand why the legal team for "our side" is not considering adding other plaintiffs to this case. I know that there are many other non-residents that are being withheld their right to self-defense due to the State's misinterpretation/implementation of the FCCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:06 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:06 PM In this scenario it may be a strategic motive. Primary complainant is an active duty airman stationed in Illinois. By dragging things out they may be trying to diminish his claim by waiting for his orders to be up and move to another duty station. Which is all the more reason why I do not understand why the legal team for "our side" is not considering adding other plaintiffs to this case. I know that there are many other non-residents that are being withheld their right to self-defense due to the State's misinterpretation/implementation of the FCCA. There are several nonresident plaintiffs identified in the initial complaint. None of them are the primary complainant though. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/04/06/69af0b1c939b91ff3d3a084cfd77f84c.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:24 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:24 PM No doubt Madigan will ask for extensions to all of those dates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teufel Hunden Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:57 PM Share Posted April 6, 2015 at 04:57 PM I was hoping that with a change in governor, that there might be a resulting change of course within ISP. I guess I'm a little too optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 19, 2015 at 09:12 PM Share Posted April 19, 2015 at 09:12 PM It's Myerscough's case. What do you expect? "Let's pump this through because then I can dump it off on CA7." The fact that all of the State's motions for extensions have been granted, citing total horse manure like "I'll be on vacation" and "I have to prepare motions in this case, this case, this case (five more cases) so I need more time" is pathetic. Private practice attorneys would be shredded for doing that, it's an ethical violation to take on a larger caseload than one is capable of managing and "I don't have the time, I have to prepare motions in five other cases" is about as clear or an admission of ethics violations as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted May 31, 2015 at 10:07 PM Share Posted May 31, 2015 at 10:07 PM In this scenario it may be a strategic motive. Primary complainant is an active duty airman stationed in Illinois. By dragging things out they may be trying to diminish his claim by waiting for his orders to be up and move to another duty station. Which is all the more reason why I do not understand why the legal team for "our side" is not considering adding other plaintiffs to this case. I know that there are many other non-residents that are being withheld their right to self-defense due to the State's misinterpretation/implementation of the FCCA.There are several nonresident plaintiffs identified in the initial complaint. None of them are the primary complainant though. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/04/06/69af0b1c939b91ff3d3a084cfd77f84c.jpg Just a random thought, should we consider blanking out their names on that document? Antis do peruse these boards, and I'd be worried about them becoming targets for harassment or what-have-you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted May 31, 2015 at 10:08 PM Share Posted May 31, 2015 at 10:08 PM It's in the public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted May 31, 2015 at 11:56 PM Share Posted May 31, 2015 at 11:56 PM It's in the public record. I figured, but it was worth checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:21 AM Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:21 AM If it wasn't public record I would not have posted that unredacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 1, 2015 at 01:15 AM Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 01:15 AM It's in the public record. I figured, but it was worth checking. It's always good to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 1, 2015 at 03:14 AM Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 03:14 AM I am glad we have this lawsuit in the works. I was very disappointed to see the military service member right to CCL pulled from the FCCA technical bill this week. However, the lawsuit may serve to correct this problem across the nation and not just here in IL. Onward!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 1, 2015 at 05:57 AM Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 05:57 AM I've was thinking today about how interesting it is to be able to identify the moment and person that potentially was the catalyst for a ruling that could effect so much more than one state. I hope to look back at this with a smile, knowing we were here to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:43 PM Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:43 PM So you're expecting a loss at the lower level courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:43 PM Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 12:43 PM When the fight is over - let's make that, when the fight has succeeded to the point where there is a little slack in the schedule - it would be good to devote some effort to getting some of the critical events and locations - in Illinois, for example, Mary Shepard's church, Otis McDonald's and Rhonda Ezell's homes, etc. - added to the National Register of Historic Places. It's taken decades and a lot of effort to get the proper sort of recognition for sites important to the black civil rights movement but it's gotten done and provides, I think, a good model for what we should do in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 1, 2015 at 02:12 PM Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 02:12 PM So you're expecting a loss at the lower level courts? I was so careful to include the word "potentially" so it wouldn't be taken as a prediction ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 1, 2015 at 02:37 PM Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 at 02:37 PM So you're expecting a loss at the lower level courts? It would follow the pattern of the other suits so, I wouldn't be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.