SAF files Suit in Illinois over Right to Carry

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    The initial Judge in this case recuses himself:
    07/22/2011 TEXT ORDER: Magistrate Judge Charles Evans recuses himself from this case and transfers case to Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore for all further proceedings. Entered by Magistrate Judge Charles H. Evans on 7/22/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 07/22/2011)

    07/25/2011 21 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 5 Amended Complaint, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , and alternatively MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. Responses due by 8/11/2011 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

    07/25/2011 22 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Karen L McNaught on behalf of Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan (McNaught, Karen) (Entered: 07/25/2011)


    State of IL (Madigan AG) were to file their response to the SAF Complaint today, 7/25.

    Didja pick up my use of the word "were" above?

    SAF has agreed to a two day extension for Defendant response in filing 21.

    Wednesday, 7/27 we should see the State's response.
     
    Last edited:

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    They just have to use every possible stall and delay they possibly can...

    Meh...two days. I expect a frantic read tomorrow from IL.

    And, runner up for the "No Kidding" award is:
    07/25/2011 TEXT ORDER: Defendants have filed an Uncontested Motion for Enlargement of Time (Motion) (d/e 21). For the reasons stated therein, Defendants' Motion (d/e 21) is GRANTED. Defendants are given until July 27, 2011, to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction and to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/27/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

    A response to the Amended Complaint AND response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction awaits us tomorrow...
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    Meh...two days. I expect a frantic read tomorrow from IL.

    And, runner up for the "No Kidding" award is:


    A response to the Amended Complaint AND response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction awaits us tomorrow...

    Wow.. all I can say!! I would wish the USSC would rule and award injuction that fast in Woollard vs Sheridan. :):thumbsup:
     

    05FLHT

    Member
    Jan 14, 2011
    54
    As reported to our Illinois Carry Spokesperson Valinda Rowe -

    Notice from SAF attorney David Jensen:

    Hearing on Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction set for August 4, 2011, at 10 AM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough.

    Also, some background I was able to dig up on the Judge -

    Responses of Sue E. Myerscough Nominee to be United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois to the Written Questions of Senator Jeff Sessions http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominat...cialNominations/upload/SueMyerscough-QFRs.pdf

    b. Do you believe a judge should consider his or her own values or policy preferences in determining what the law means?
    Response: No.
    i. If so, under what circumstances?
    Response: None.
    ii. Please identify any cases in which you have done so.
    Response: None.
    iii. If not, please discuss an example of a case where you have had to set aside your own values or policy preferences and rule based solely on the law.
    Response: The mental health cases referenced in 2(a).
    c. During her confirmation hearings, Justice Sotomayor rejected President Obama’s so-called “empathy standard” stating, “We apply the law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts.” Do you agree with Justice Sotomayor?
    Response: Yes.

    4. Do you believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right? Please explain your answer.
    Response: The Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) hold that the Second Amendment confers an individual right.
    a. What standard of scrutiny do you believe is appropriate in a Second Amendment challenge against a Federal or State gun law?
    2
    Response: In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found a right under the Second Amendment must be treated in the same manner as any fundamental right identified in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment right to bear arms should therefore not be treated as a “watered down right” subject to “judicial interest balancing.
    See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2821;
    McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047.

    5. What is your view of the role of a judge?
    Response: The role of a judge is to apply the law to the facts.

    9. Do these answers reflect your true and personal views?
    Response: Yes.

    This is looking promising...
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    As 05FLHT mentioned, a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction is next Thursday, Aug 4th.


    Defendants filed today:

    1) Response to Pltf Complaint, in the form of a Motion to Dismiss: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.25.0.pdf

    and...

    2)They filed their Opposition to the Preliminary Injunction (hearing next Thurs) as well: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.26.0.pdf

    Slaving over a hot stove so I haven't had a chance to read yet...Sorry Al!
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    07/27/2011 TEXT ORDER: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction set for August 4, 2011, at 10 AM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/27/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

    07/27/2011 24 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. Responses due by 8/15/2011 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

    07/27/2011 25 MEMORANDUM in Support re 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

    07/27/2011 26 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , and alternatively MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (Attachments: # 1 Coffman Affidavit, # 2 Hosteny Affidavit)(Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

    07/27/2011 27 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants by Amicus Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Responses due by 8/15/2011 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Harris, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

    In #25, the MTD, the defendants attempt to restate the question of carry as one of only concealed carry and not carry in general. Assuming arguendo, that some form of public carry is within the scope of the 2A, IL laws still satisfy means-end rationality and are therefore constitutional. Public Carry does not implicate the "core" right to possess and carry within the home.

    IL demonstrates, once again, the absolute misreading of Heller and McDonald. Going a bit further, the Brief flat out says that the court in Ezell was wrong.

    In #26, the Opposition to the plaintiffs MPI, the defendants regurgitate more of the above. Thus making Stephan Halbrook's point in his reply to the US response in Masciandaro.

    I suspect when I go to read the latest filings in the (companion) Shepard case, the IL responses will be much the same (these were all filed on 07-22).

    Why change what has become a "winning" strategy! If a cert grant in either Williams or Maciandaro is given, this will all change rather dramatically.

    ETA: Going to go get some pizza, now.... No hot stoves, tonight.
     
    Last edited:

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    On Tuesday, Aug 2nd, the Brady Bunch filed an amicus brief for the defendants.

    David Jensen didn't waste a bit of time. Yesterday, Aug. 3rd, he filed a response to the Brady's. He pulled no punches in dismissing their entire argument.

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.29.0.pdf

    Now, we wait for the NRA to do the same in the other IL case - Shepard v. Madigan.

    Haven't read it yet, lemme guess....in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home...?
     

    Srsanbo

    Massive Member
    Oct 4, 2010
    159
    Haven't read it yet, lemme guess....in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home, in the home...?

    The link is the response to the "in the home" bit. It is thorough and succinct and if I were a Brady, it would leave a welt.

    It beats them up for their "decision by omission" assertions.

    Worthy of reading - its also fairly brief.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Fun read (response) by Mr Jensen. Totally dismemberment of Brady's "in the home" argument that I haven't yet read...

    I'm glad he's on our side!

    Now to find out the read on the Hearing held today regarding the PI....
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I read the Illinois Carry thread. They have smart people over there, too. They seem to think a decision could be imminent, as in next week. Any turbo-charging can be credited to Ezell's irreparable harm standard.

    Even if not next week, it should be this month.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I read the Illinois Carry thread. They have smart people over there, too. They seem to think a decision could be imminent, as in next week. Any turbo-charging can be credited to Ezell's irreparable harm standard.

    Even if not next week, it should be this month.

    Any chance that if the PI is denied, that this can be fast-tracked through the 7th Circuit in time to get on a SCOTUS conference for this year's term? This case would be a much more ideal carry case for SCOTUS than Williams or Masciandaro IMO. They would have knocked down the 2 worst gun possession laws(DC and Chicago) and then would be knocking down the worst carry law in the country(IL). It fits really nice.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    I read the Illinois Carry thread. They have smart people over there, too. They seem to think a decision could be imminent, as in next week. Any turbo-charging can be credited to Ezell's irreparable harm standard.

    Even if not next week, it should be this month.

    There's a 'Lawson' on there who's one of the underling Plaintiffs in McDonald...they've got a very full plate in the Land of Lincoln lately...very much needed I might add.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Any chance that if the PI is denied, that this can be fast-tracked through the 7th Circuit in time to get on a SCOTUS conference for this year's term? This case would be a much more ideal carry case for SCOTUS than Williams or Masciandaro IMO. They would have knocked down the 2 worst gun possession laws(DC and Chicago) and then would be knocking down the worst carry law in the country(IL). It fits really nice.

    Respectfully, I disagree.

    The two cases up for cert consideration directly attack the constitutionality of criminal convictions. That means success there invalidates all enforcement of the laws in question. In the case of Williams, that means the state would be unable to prosecute any lawful person carrying a firearm in public so long as the state stays in the business of denying or delaying permits. That would be immediate, and also stretch back in time to those formerly convicted of the same.

    Contrast that with a civil victory that rules G&S unconstitutional. Still left hanging in the air are questions over permits, restrictions and the like. It leaves the door open to long delays, expensive permits and plenty of games. We would need to again sue to get these fixed. In the meantime, people can be arrested for carrying in public.


    Williams would remove the criminality for carry in Maryland. Unlike the civil cases - where we would need to wait for Maryland to create a permit system and process the paperwork - Williams would force shall issue in moments, because the state would have no power to prosecute until they 'fixed' their system to meet constitutional muster.

    The outcome of both styles of case are the same. The differences are in the application or the rulings and the onus afterwards. In the civil cases, it will be our job to force Maryland into a system that meets the constitution, and the door is open to interpretation because there has been no ruling in those cases on what happens if a permit is delayed or denied.

    Williams flips this on it's head. The state will presumptively be wrong, by virtue of the fact they cannot prosecute. It will be their job to create a system that meets the constitution, and they are the ones who will need to prove it works. And because we have a ruling that says a permit denied is a permit unneeded, we are open to argue in a direct way that the 90 days between application and acquisition is 90 days of denial, in fact. Williams could eventually result in an insta-check system for permits.

    Given the choice, I think Maryland would much rather face the civil medicine than the criminal medicine. The criminal case removes actual enforcement from their hands until they do the right thing. The civil cases leaves enforcement intact and forces us to challenge the criminality of our carry.

    Or something like that.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,473
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom