Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

I'm a little bit dissapointed that Daley's signature is not on that check...

The entire thing happened under Daley, Rahm just happened to be in office when the checks were cut.

The citizens in Oak Park are still demanding to know how much the MacDonald case cost the villlage.
Click to expand...

I can only think of two other people that I would like to sign that check. Obama and/or Holder. Rahm works for me though.:D
I hope the significance of it gets through to the Chicago politicos.
Joe
 
Great link. That is what I wanted to see.


Now for the upcoming elections on the 20th I believe...

I need to make a list of all those that will help out the above cases.
 
Like when Arnold Horshack skipped school and brought in a note the next day explaining that he was sick - and the note was sighed "Horshack's Mom"


.
 
Here's a rough draft:

Notice of Supplemental Authority:

This is to inform the court that three of those other cases agree with us.

Signed,
one of their attorneys
 
First draft

Notice of Supplemental Authority:

This is to inform the court that some of those other cases agree with us.

Signed,
one of their attorneys
 
Notice of Supplemental Authority:

This is to inform the court that some of those other cases agree with us.

Signed,
one of their attorneys
 
Don't you think that even a paralegal would catch some of this stuff?

I wonder what kind of support staff they have. And I wonder if they are doing 2A cases and civil rights cases or if they are involved with other stuff like real estate disputes or product liability or some such unrelated activities. Maybe they weren't tuned in at all to Woolard.

And theorticaly, couldn't Gura have taken this case or just added them as plaintiffs to Moore ?

It's like I said, IMO - the NRA would be helping themselves and all gun owners by just taking the money that they spent on this and giving it to SAF instead.

Can't we all just get along?
 
BIG NEWS at the 7th!

Tom van Dermyde, the NRA Lobbyest in IL has posted the following over at Illinois Carry: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29698

tvandermyde said:
The state filed a motion to stay Shepard pending Moore at the appellate level. We objected to it. I just received word the state's motion was denied. Additionally, We filed a motion to have the two cases combined and it was granted we will now be heard with Moore we have filed our brief in the appeal and await the state's response

Good news all the way around

Now back to my regularlly scheduled vacation. . .
Click to expand...

Now I have to log onto PACER and see what all is up!... No I don't. krucam, over at MDShooters beat me to it. I'm gonna just quote him for brevity:

krucam said:
]OK, here's it is...Doc 64 in the District Ct, Ordered by Chief Judge Easterbrook from CA7!

Sheppard Docket is here: http://ia600609.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.docket.html

The State (Appellee/Defendant) was playing games. With the two similar cases percolating up, Appellees wanted to Stay Sheppard, pending SAF's Moore case. BS...

Chief Judge said no to it, in Doc 64 in the Sheppard District Court.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.64.0.pdf

The NRA Appellants/Plaintiffs from Sheppard objected to the State's proposal. They proposed that the Sheppard and Moore Oral Arguments be combined. That request was GRANTED.

Perhaps someone can help me uncover whether the cases are combined in entirety, or just the Oral Arguments...the Order only implies the Oral Arguments...

You can't have separate Merits leading to, and separate Opinions spawned from a single Oral Argument, can you???

Either way, I'm still happy to mix the legal expertise of SAF with Ms Sheppard as a Plaintiff...
Click to expand...

What Mark means by that last is that Sheppard is the better plaintiff but Moore has the better legal team.

So, what we will be seeing is separate arguments on the merits, but that the orals will be combined. One decision for the two cases. Unusual, but not unheard of.

The real crux is if the two teams of attorneys can work together on this. NRA v. Gura not something we need to see, right now.
 
As we know, the State of Illinois has tried to get the Moore and Shepard cases, consolidated (the NRA, in Shepard, just wanted the orals to be combined, which was granted). The State even asked for an extension in time (60 days) to file, based upon having to answer two nearly identical cases... Last Thursday, the Circuit Court answered the State:

04/26/2012 17 Order re: Motions to consolidate and extend time. The motions to consolidate are DENIED. Appellees do not need a formal order of consolidation in order to file one brief addressing two appeals. They may file one brief, or two, at their option. The motions for an extension of time is GRANTED, but only until May 9, 2012 (in both appeals). This should allow enough time to prepare a single brief covering the two cases. Appellees previously told the court that the two suits are functionally identical. There is accordingly no need for time beyond the 30-day extension already granted, and this one-week increment. The court’s last regular sitting of the current term is June 8, 2012. If the court were to delay the appellees’ briefs until June 1 or June 11 (the alternate dates appellees propose), that would postpone oral argument until next September, an unnecessary delay. Appellees must file their brief (or briefs) in both cases by May 9, and appellants their reply briefs by May 23. That will permit oral argument the last week of May or the first full week of June. [6391924-3] [16] [6391924-2] [16] JKL [6392901] [12-1269, 12-1788] (AM)
Click to expand...

The 7th is not going to play the stalling game with the State. We will have orals in both Shepard and Moore in the first week of June, at the latest.
 
I suspect that the only indication we can take, is that the CA7 wants to dispose of this case. My own personal view is that it is an indication that the CA7 does not favor the State's arguments (remembering that I've been wrong before :eek: ).
 
Al, are you using the word "dispose" to mean reach a decision and get it up to SCOTUS?
As in, we want this case out of our court?
 
The cases are a thorn, whichever way the circuit panel goes.

The judges at this level are well aware of the other cases at the other circuits. We have not seen this type of (speedy) action at the other circuits, so I'm guessing here that the 7th simply wants to be the first (or among the first) circuit to opine on the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top