cyberfrance
Active Member
- Feb 1, 2012
- 355
Fascinating. Though I never did finish my paralegal training, I'm enjoying the definitions and explanations given here.
NRA files Suit in Illinois on Right to Carry
- Thread starter krucam
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I think ammo is arguably covered under Heller's ruling regarding DC's requirement that guns be unloaded, disassembled and locked when in the home. Heller said pretty clearly that any regulation that prevented "ready use" of a firearm is a step too far. Ammunition is clearly required for "ready use".
California will be first out of the gate with the ammo quesiton. Calguns is already chasing it.
As for bans on specific types of ammo, per NJ, I don't think the courts will engage unless it is apparent that the state regulation prevents exercise of the right. They cannot force us to use paper wads (spit balls), but they can stop us from using steel penetrators. Or in NJ's case, hollow-points - which are actually safer to fire in urban places than FMJ. I don't want to side-track the thread with ballistics, but just remarking that politics is about optics, not fact.
California will be first out of the gate with the ammo quesiton. Calguns is already chasing it.
As for bans on specific types of ammo, per NJ, I don't think the courts will engage unless it is apparent that the state regulation prevents exercise of the right. They cannot force us to use paper wads (spit balls), but they can stop us from using steel penetrators. Or in NJ's case, hollow-points - which are actually safer to fire in urban places than FMJ. I don't want to side-track the thread with ballistics, but just remarking that politics is about optics, not fact.
yellowfin
Pro 2A Gastronome
For effective ammo we splice in other recent Court decisions which elaborate on necessity of effective modern means of implementing a right to be available as essential to the right itself.
Al Norris
Spud Head
The bottom line first: States MTD against plaintiffs, granted.
While I've RECAPped the docket and opinion, nothing is showing up. In the meantime, I've attached it here.
If we look at the docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.docket.html) we see that there are no filings between Feb. 8th and this opinion (Mar. 30th). We know that on Mar. 2nd, that Woollard was decided (not posted until Mar. 5th). On Mar. 6th, the Weaver case was decided.
Both of those cases had concluded that carry outside the home for self defense was part of the protected right. Even though these cases were in the 4th CA, they were still citable as supplemental authority, every bit as much as the other cases that found against the right.
Yet, the NRA (and through them, the Illinois State Rifle Association) failed to notice the court of these authorities. As late as yesterday, when Bateman was decided, it could have been noticed. Even as late as this morning when Fletcher was decided, it too, could have been noticed.
Would this have made any difference? Probably not, as it appears that Judge Stiehl already had his mind made up... But the fact is, we just don't know. What I do believe is that Judge Stiehl would have had to confront these rulings in some way. That alone would have delayed this decision.
As it stands, this is just another 2A Two-Step decision. It is weaker than the decision in Moore as Judge Stiehl uses that decision as the basis for his own decision. This is made clear in footnote 7, pp 14.
If I were to complain about anything, I would complain about the lack of expertise of the NRA funded attorney.
While I've RECAPped the docket and opinion, nothing is showing up. In the meantime, I've attached it here.
If we look at the docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.docket.html) we see that there are no filings between Feb. 8th and this opinion (Mar. 30th). We know that on Mar. 2nd, that Woollard was decided (not posted until Mar. 5th). On Mar. 6th, the Weaver case was decided.
Both of those cases had concluded that carry outside the home for self defense was part of the protected right. Even though these cases were in the 4th CA, they were still citable as supplemental authority, every bit as much as the other cases that found against the right.
Yet, the NRA (and through them, the Illinois State Rifle Association) failed to notice the court of these authorities. As late as yesterday, when Bateman was decided, it could have been noticed. Even as late as this morning when Fletcher was decided, it too, could have been noticed.
Would this have made any difference? Probably not, as it appears that Judge Stiehl already had his mind made up... But the fact is, we just don't know. What I do believe is that Judge Stiehl would have had to confront these rulings in some way. That alone would have delayed this decision.
As it stands, this is just another 2A Two-Step decision. It is weaker than the decision in Moore as Judge Stiehl uses that decision as the basis for his own decision. This is made clear in footnote 7, pp 14.
If I were to complain about anything, I would complain about the lack of expertise of the NRA funded attorney.
Gray Peterson
Active Member
I think it speaks ill of the plaintiff's counsel that they failed to notify this judge of Woollard or even Bateman. Especially Woollard since it's nearly a month old.
Bad form, Freeborn Peters, bad form.
Bad form, Freeborn Peters, bad form.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Have we ever seen an NRA sponsored case use a SAF ruling? Its unfortunate the two big kids on the block can't get along, they'd be awesome working together.
I read through the opinion, waiting for the punch line. It isn't there, they used the "In the Home" argument and ruled against the bloodied/beaten/elderly plaintiff. There was no winning here...
Greener pastures await us at the 7th.
I read through the opinion, waiting for the punch line. It isn't there, they used the "In the Home" argument and ruled against the bloodied/beaten/elderly plaintiff. There was no winning here...
Greener pastures await us at the 7th.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The 7th Circuit is pretty fast. Given the delay associated with the stay proceedings in DCT in Woollard, there is a pretty good chance that the 7th Circuit will reach the "outside the home" issue before the 4th will in Woollard.
Al Norris
Spud Head
Just in case you haven't gotten up to speed with the plethora of cases, The Moore case (12-1269) referenced by Judge Stiehl in Fn7, submitted their opening argument at the 7th Circuit on Feb 2nd. On March 2nd the State requested a 60 day extension, which was granted. The response is now due on May 2nd and the reply on May 17th or so (going by memory here).
If Ezell is any indication, we will have a right to bear arms in public in the 7th Circuit fairly soon.
Fact is, the pipeline is starting to fill up! There are cases at CA1, CA2, CA3, CA5, and several at CA9 (but stalled pending Nordyke), all of which have a medium to strong emphasis on the right to bear arms in public.
- Mar 17, 2012
- 88
Same old tired thread that was closed by Norton.
__________________
God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.
Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. (COPS)
http://www.nationalcops.org/
__________________
God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.
Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. (COPS)
http://www.nationalcops.org/
krucam
Ultimate Member
Quartermiles was having a bad day, apparently....
Anywhoose, joining in "Appeal Day" is the NRA, appealing Sheppard to CA7 where it will join Moore.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.58.0.pdf
It is signed /s/ by....One of their Attorneys...literally, One of their Attorneys:
Not Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, but...ah, forget about it....
Anywhoose, joining in "Appeal Day" is the NRA, appealing Sheppard to CA7 where it will join Moore.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.58.0.pdf
It is signed /s/ by....One of their Attorneys...literally, One of their Attorneys:
Not Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, but...ah, forget about it....
Al Norris
Spud Head
And we wondered why they didn't notice the Court of the other cases?
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Al, : I hate to ask, but I have access to Pacer and if you have handy the docket numbers to the CA1, the CA 3 and the CA5 cases, that would really help save me some time. I know about CA2, Gura just filed his brief in that one. And I just DLed Moore from the 7th. Many thanks.
krucam
Ultimate Member
See the link in my sig for the case #'s...
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
+
I looked at the Post McDonald case thread under your sig. Not to be dense (ok, I'm dense), but I got Hightower in the 1st Cir. (11-j2281) and I have CA 5 as McCraw 12-11091 and of course Kachalsky in the CA2, but I can't seem to find the CA3 case....
I looked at the Post McDonald case thread under your sig. Not to be dense (ok, I'm dense), but I got Hightower in the 1st Cir. (11-j2281) and I have CA 5 as McCraw 12-11091 and of course Kachalsky in the CA2, but I can't seem to find the CA3 case....
jrosenberger
Active Member
Piszczatoski v. Filko, formerly Muller v. Maenza, (NJ, CCW) SAF
Filed: 24 January, 2012 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Case 12-1150
Filed: 24 January, 2012 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Case 12-1150
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Thanks!!
Al Norris
Spud Head
A little late, esqappellate.
If you were to google the phrase "Current 2A Cases," the first link that comes up is the thread on TFL that contains the 70 cases I'm tracking.
Normally, I would just link to it, but vBulletin software won't show it, unless your are 1) a member of that board or 2) you go in through the front door. With google, it goes right to the thread.
I don't have all the PACER numbers attached to the cases, but I do have the Justia page for each case, which does gives the case number and a direct portal to PACER for that case.
Hope that helps.
If you were to google the phrase "Current 2A Cases," the first link that comes up is the thread on TFL that contains the 70 cases I'm tracking.
Normally, I would just link to it, but vBulletin software won't show it, unless your are 1) a member of that board or 2) you go in through the front door. With google, it goes right to the thread.
I don't have all the PACER numbers attached to the cases, but I do have the Justia page for each case, which does gives the case number and a direct portal to PACER for that case.
Hope that helps.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Damn, Al. you're amazing. Thanks a ton. It was late -- couldn't sleep for some reason.
BTW, here is the link
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416973
You have just got your wish..er, sort of.
Posted by the NRA lobbyist, Todd Vandermyde on Illinoiscarry -
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29698
krucam
Ultimate Member
I wanted them to play nice together...not get married....
Moore has the better legal team. Sheppard by far has the better Plaintiff (older lady getting beat up in a Church by thugs...this, after being denied her CCW).
Time to do some poking, thanks!
