SAF Sues Illinois over LTC Residency Requirements

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!
  • press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    IllinoisCarry posted the latest entry from Pacer:

    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)

    The war will be over by the time we get there:sad20:
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Plaintiffs have filed for a PI. Here's Illinois' response.

    As I expected, it is a weak argument that it's constitutional to deny public carry to the residents of 45 states because their reporting of prohibited persons doesn't match that of IL.
    This argument would be absurd in any other context, but I'm already envisioning the Federal courts trying to use Bach v. Pataki (a pre-Heller case) to try to uphold it.
     

    Attachments

    • Reply - Defendant Objection.pdf
      114.9 KB · Views: 146

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    Plaintiffs have filed for a PI. Here's Illinois' response.

    As I expected, it is a weak argument that it's constitutional to deny public carry to the residents of 45 states because their reporting of prohibited persons doesn't match that of IL.
    This argument would be absurd in any other context, but I'm already envisioning the Federal courts trying to use Bach v. Pataki (a pre-Heller case) to try to uphold it.

    So far only the residents of the listed states meet the IL requirement. here's the chart of requirements to meet the IL standard

    Hope SAF prevails.
     

    Attachments

    • similarsummary.pdf
      45.5 KB · Views: 124
    • il.JPG
      il.JPG
      5.7 KB · Views: 759

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    They're both equally important. EVERYONE knows who he NRA is... How many outside of guns know who the SAF or Alan Gura are?

    Two very potent weapons.
     

    SCDoGo

    Member
    Dec 6, 2014
    84
    ... How many outside of guns know who the SAF or Alan Gura are?

    Anyone who follows the circuit courts . . . which admittedly is very little of the general populace. How many even knew gay marriage was before SCOTUS until the decision was blasted all over the news for several days?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...3348&q="bear+arms"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6,49

    Plaintiff's preliminary injunction was denied. In essence, plaintiffs met the threshold for the PI but the balance went in favor of Illinois because they lack funds to properly monitor any potential non-resident CCW holders. Same BS; this district judge is the same that ruled a total carry ban was OK, so I really don't expect much.
    We'll see if Culp (aka plaintiffs) appeals to CA7 right away or goes to full trial in the district court.

    Edit: IllinoisCarry reporting that Culp is appealing the PI denial to CA-7. Good for them.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Quick update, IL's response was originally due late Feb, then they got an extension until late March, then ANOTHER until April 29th AND........You guessed it, they want YET ANOTHER extension:mad54: Their attorney is apparently involved with other (apparently more important in their eyes) cases. The last extension from CA7 said this:


    "Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file appellees' brief [17] Appellee's brief due on or before 04/29/2016 for Lisa Madigan, Leo P. Schmitz and Jessica Trame. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 05/13/2016 for Appellants Kevin W. Culp, Marlow Davis, John S. Koller, Freddie Reed-Davis and Douglas W. Zylstra. Because the court's docket is current, briefing is expected to proceed as scheduled.

    Seems the court may have been saying more extensions are not welcome?
     

    Attachments

    • Appellees' Motion for Extension _3.pdf
      247.1 KB · Views: 202

    jrosenberger

    Active Member
    Jan 19, 2011
    332
    NH
    Appellee's brief due on or before 05/27/2016 for Lisa Madigan, Leo P. Schmitz and Jessica Trame. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 06/10/2016
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Appellee's brief due on or before 05/27/2016 for Lisa Madigan, Leo P. Schmitz and Jessica Trame. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 06/10/2016

    Amazing that CA7 keeps granting these extensions. And even with this latest one it seems they didn't close the door on the state going for yet another one. I know on the Norman case in Florida they would grant 1 extension and say something to the effect of no further extensions will be granted. Wish CA7 would follow suit.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    And IL was granted yet a FOURTH extension, this time the court has finally said no further extensions without extraordinary circumstances. Wouldn't put it past them for their attorney to keep using the "I'm busy," excuses. If the state's attorney is that busy perhaps they should use another attorney????
     

    Attachments

    • Order - Extension _4.pdf
      163.8 KB · Views: 119

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Finally, after 4 extensions IL has filed their response.

    Their basic premise still is: We can't monitor these folks, so our denying their rights in our state is OK. Public carry is outside the "core", so it's OK. They also rely on Peruta that CCW isn't part of the 2A (which begs the question that they purposely skirted around the issue in Moore by not allowing for OC).

    A real piece of work. Wouldn't expect anything less from IL.
     

    Attachments

    • Appellees-Brief-to-CA7.pdf
      340.9 KB · Views: 152

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Culp's response to IL's brief. Now ready for oral arguments, no date yet but should be soon as CA7 moves things along quickly.
     

    Attachments

    • Appellants' Reply Brief.pdf
      1.1 MB · Views: 155

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Hat tip to KWC at Illinoiscarry.com:

    Date for oral argument has been set: September 22, 2016, in Chicago. From today's order:

    IT IS ORDERED that this case be orally argued on Thursday, September 22, 2016, in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, at 9:30 a.m.

    Oral argument will be no more than 25 minutes for each side. Counsel are advised that the panel of judges assigned to oral argument may decide, after reading the briefs, that less time is required for oral argument.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel notify the Calendar Clerk ( 312-435-5850 ) who will present oral argument by completing the oral argument confirmation form and filing an electronic copy of the completed form through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) System. Notice of this case entry must be received in the clerk's office no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled argument date.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,496
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom