Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)
- Thread starter Don H
- Start date
Al, that's hilarious. Madigan is asking the lower court to rule that it's superior court (7th circuit US Appeals) was ignorant of the implications of what it was ruling upon. The hubris and arrogance of Madigan is stunning. And what's even funnier (in my opinion, anyway), is she'll probably prevail in district court.
motorhead0922
New member
Wow. Did anyone catch the last line?
Emphasis added.
With Mary Sheppard having been attacked at church, I'm thinking prayer won't help Ms. Madigan.
Emphasis added.
With Mary Sheppard having been attacked at church, I'm thinking prayer won't help Ms. Madigan.
Herr Walther
New member
That is standard legal speak in court documents.
Spats McGee
Administrator
The "pray" language is fairly standard in legal pleadings. In the complaint, the paragraph in which a party expressly states what it wants from the other side or from the court is called the "prayer for relief."
ETA: cross-posted
ETA: cross-posted
motorhead0922
New member
Thanks for the replies. I learned something. I can sleep peacefully now.
Luger_carbine
New member
Sorry, I meant 210
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9170452
Section 9 in the response to plaintiff's motion.
These tactics remind me of the Ezell case, it's just never-ending maneuvering.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9170452
Section 9 in the response to plaintiff's motion.
These tactics remind me of the Ezell case, it's just never-ending maneuvering.
Last edited:
Here's where we stand at the end of today:
The referenced documents can be found at the docket on the Internet Archive.
Of note is what Judge Stiehl has ordered. After briefly stating what has happened in the last few days, the judge then writes:
So by next Thursday, we will know more about where this all stands.
- 07-09-2013 - Madigan files an MTD, doc #73, on jurisdiction grounds (case is moot).
- 07-10-2013 - Plaintiffs file a response to the MTD, #74. Plaintiffs then file a motion for misc. relief, #75, and an expedited hearing, #76.
- 07-11-2013 - State Defendants respond to Plaintiffs motions, #77.
- 07-12-2013 - Sheriff Livesay files an MTD, #78, using the same reasoning as the State. Plaintiffs immediately respond, #79. The Court issues an order, #80, to brief on 2 specific questions (see thread). All responses due by NOON on the 18th of July.
The referenced documents can be found at the docket on the Internet Archive.
Of note is what Judge Stiehl has ordered. After briefly stating what has happened in the last few days, the judge then writes:
So by next Thursday, we will know more about where this all stands.
And here we have it.
The defendants Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (12 pages).
The plaintiffs Supplement to Response to Defendants MTD (9 pages).
I don't think Judge Stiehl will need more than a week to decide the issue.
The defendants Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (12 pages).
The plaintiffs Supplement to Response to Defendants MTD (9 pages).
I don't think Judge Stiehl will need more than a week to decide the issue.
not to be the bearer of bad news but as usual "the machine" is thumbing its nose at the courts and the law and daring someone to stop them.
http://www.suntimes.com/21380581-76...inance-to-ban-guns-where-booze-is-served.html
In violation of state law Chicago is going to pass an ordnance that will require any business that sells liquor posts a no carry sign or they lose their liquor licence. State law only requires a business post if more than 50% of sales are in Alcohol. This is a blatant violation of the new state law which says it is the sole authority of the state to regulate the possession of handguns...
Ontop of that Cook County, also in violation of the new state law barring local regulation of handguns, handgun magazines and handgun ammunition decided they can regulate handgun magazines....
all and all its business as usual. A lot of blood sweat and tears given to get a carry law only to have the provisions that made those sacrifices worth it unlawfully ignored by Chicago and Cook County.
Sadly out state AG will do nothing about it because now that she is not running for governor she needs to make no attempt to be palatable to downstate voters.
http://www.suntimes.com/21380581-76...inance-to-ban-guns-where-booze-is-served.html
In violation of state law Chicago is going to pass an ordnance that will require any business that sells liquor posts a no carry sign or they lose their liquor licence. State law only requires a business post if more than 50% of sales are in Alcohol. This is a blatant violation of the new state law which says it is the sole authority of the state to regulate the possession of handguns...
Ontop of that Cook County, also in violation of the new state law barring local regulation of handguns, handgun magazines and handgun ammunition decided they can regulate handgun magazines....
all and all its business as usual. A lot of blood sweat and tears given to get a carry law only to have the provisions that made those sacrifices worth it unlawfully ignored by Chicago and Cook County.
Sadly out state AG will do nothing about it because now that she is not running for governor she needs to make no attempt to be palatable to downstate voters.
Herr Walther
New member
14 counties in Illinois are now refusing to prosecute for CCW if ISP arrests you.
Fortunately I live in one of them. We've been carrying here without fear of prosecution since 12JUN.
Fortunately I live in one of them. We've been carrying here without fear of prosecution since 12JUN.
Update for Moore
Now its quite possible that I'm reading this entirely wrong, not being a legal expert of any kind...
We've read the MTD that Madigan filed, which is identical in both Moore and Sheppard. We've read and analyzed the response that the NRA has given, which is to oppose the dismissal. The laws in question are still active and being actively pursued by the State (the new exception of the CC permits - which will not be available for some time - is not active).
The NRA has made an extremely valid argument against the State. Judge Stiehl really doesn't have much recourse here. Should the judge balk at issuing the injunction, the case can be immediately appealed to the Posner panel. I have no question in how that panel will rule. It will come quickly and in language that will brook no leeway for the district court.
On the other side of the aisle, David Sigale is arguing that the case is not moot, because wrangling over §1988 attorney fees have not concluded. Nothing else.
Knowing how McDonald panned out (Chicago changed it laws, but after the decision by SCOTUS but before the mandate could be applied, mooted the case but did not moot prevailing party status and therefore §1988 attorney fees were awarded), this argument appears to be specious, at best.
I agree with the reply by Madigan that the plaintiffs in Moore failed to properly respond to the matter of the dismissal. This gives judge Myerscough the perfect out to dismiss the case. Thus, further fees for the case will basically cease.
Meanwhile, the NRA will continue to rack up fees, because they have a legitimate challenge to the MTD.
I believe this to be a grave error on the part of Moore. I hope I'm wrong.
Now its quite possible that I'm reading this entirely wrong, not being a legal expert of any kind...
We've read the MTD that Madigan filed, which is identical in both Moore and Sheppard. We've read and analyzed the response that the NRA has given, which is to oppose the dismissal. The laws in question are still active and being actively pursued by the State (the new exception of the CC permits - which will not be available for some time - is not active).
The NRA has made an extremely valid argument against the State. Judge Stiehl really doesn't have much recourse here. Should the judge balk at issuing the injunction, the case can be immediately appealed to the Posner panel. I have no question in how that panel will rule. It will come quickly and in language that will brook no leeway for the district court.
On the other side of the aisle, David Sigale is arguing that the case is not moot, because wrangling over §1988 attorney fees have not concluded. Nothing else.
Knowing how McDonald panned out (Chicago changed it laws, but after the decision by SCOTUS but before the mandate could be applied, mooted the case but did not moot prevailing party status and therefore §1988 attorney fees were awarded), this argument appears to be specious, at best.
I agree with the reply by Madigan that the plaintiffs in Moore failed to properly respond to the matter of the dismissal. This gives judge Myerscough the perfect out to dismiss the case. Thus, further fees for the case will basically cease.
Meanwhile, the NRA will continue to rack up fees, because they have a legitimate challenge to the MTD.
I believe this to be a grave error on the part of Moore. I hope I'm wrong.
maestro pistolero
New member
Slightly OT:
If there isn't already, there ought to be a private think-tank of vetted individuals who look these briefs over before they're filed. The several fine lawyers here, Equapellate, also Al Norris, Patrick and few others I'm not thinking of just now.
Nobody, not even Gura is infallible. Sometimes when I see typos and grammar errors (though not much recently) I can't help but wonder how few sets of eyes have actually seen the drafts.
An error like not actually addressing the matter of the dismissal is unimaginable.
If there isn't already, there ought to be a private think-tank of vetted individuals who look these briefs over before they're filed. The several fine lawyers here, Equapellate, also Al Norris, Patrick and few others I'm not thinking of just now.
Nobody, not even Gura is infallible. Sometimes when I see typos and grammar errors (though not much recently) I can't help but wonder how few sets of eyes have actually seen the drafts.
An error like not actually addressing the matter of the dismissal is unimaginable.
Last edited:
(Kidding)Luger_carbine
New member
I think the plaintiffs requested an answer by July 25th ??
Does that get any consideration?
Does that get any consideration?
Carry_24/7
New member
The state is going to slow-roll CC into complete dysfunction. I moved to IL early in the year, been waiting on my FOID since April, no end in sight. Calls to the ISP result in endless excuses and apologies...the CC process will no doubt be the same or worse.
It's like the old saying, "you can make me work, but not necessarily hard or fast" The state of IL is making that come true.
It's like the old saying, "you can make me work, but not necessarily hard or fast" The state of IL is making that come true.
motorhead0922
New member
On the other hand, non-residents can car carry right now.
Many thanks to Gary Slider for his efforts to educate all of us!
handgunlaw.us said:
Many thanks to Gary Slider for his efforts to educate all of us!