SAF files Suit in Illinois over Right to Carry

[krucam]

Defendants thought the Court ought to hear about a case just ruled upon in NY State...

09/12/2011 33 MOTION to Cite Supplemental Authority re 24[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss, 26[RECAP] Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. Responses due by 9/29/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Kachalsky Opinion)(Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 09/12/2011)

 

[press1280]

Defendants thought the Court ought to hear about a case just ruled upon in NY State...

At least in this case(and the parallel NRA case), the judge can't simply follow along blindly with Ezell as 7th circuit law.

 

[krucam]

I've got a secret....

11/02/2011 35 TEXT ORDER: The Court has received a letter in reference to this case that it has forwarded by United States Postal Service mail to the Parties. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/2/2011. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)

11/02/2011 36 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNREDACTED Letter. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2011)

Red highlighting is "as-shown" on PACER, not my doing..."36" has a hyperlink, but it leads to page that reads:
"This document is not available."

Something may be shaking in this long overdue PI ruling.

 

[Oreo]

Hmm... you think the circuit court judge has been following the shenanigans & decided to step in of her own accord or perhaps SAF counsel sent a discrete letter to the circuit court asking them to look into the matter? Or perhaps a wild card that this letter is from / about something else entirely?

 

[press1280]

Hmm... you think the circuit court judge has been following the shenanigans & decided to step in of her own accord or perhaps SAF counsel sent a discrete letter to the circuit court asking them to look into the matter? Or perhaps a wild card that this letter is from / about something else entirely?

Possible it's some technical matter that just so happens to have a bad link right now? Maybe it's tied in some way with the Ezell debacle that just happened?
No idea, IANAL.

 

[Patrick]

Letter from SCOTUS: Don't bother. We're taking this up soon.

Or Publisher's Clearing House has really good news for one lucky household...

 

[yellowfin]

Hmm, I wonder what the guys in Vegas have for the odds on this. Do they have a betting pool for SCOTUS?

 

[krucam]

David Jensen purchased the Transcripts for the PI hearing of last August. We still await the results of this hearing...

12/01/2011 37[RECAP] NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Proceedings held on August 4, 2011, before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Transcript purchased by: David Jensen.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e-filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
(ME, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

http://ia700603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.37.0.pdf

 

[MDFF2008]

It seems to be that there would be a sealed document in a 2A civil case.

Wonder what that was.

 

[press1280]

OK, I'm a little confused. So, apparently there was something sensitive brought up during the hearing and now Jensen can have it redacted? Or something else???

 

[Al Norris]

The hearing was on August 4th.

Transcripts are usually available 90 days after the hearing. The redaction notice is something that you would normally see, once the announcement was made that it would be available to the public.

In many of the other federal districts, you would normally see an entry of the hearing and the transcript availability. Here, it (the notice of the hearing) shows up on PACER, but is not showing on the Internet Archive.

Also left out of the public docket is a notice of grant of motion (#27) for the Brady's to file their amicus brief and an order to the plaintiffs that they had until Aug. 3rd to respond (#29), due to the hearing on the 4th.​

On Nov. 2nd, the court received some kind of communication, forwarded copies to the parties, entered it into the record and then sealed the record. We don't have a clue as to what this was and we may never find out.

Plaintiffs attorney, David Jensen, purchased the transcript (at some point after it became available) and filed it on Dec. 1st, making it a public document.

The filing of the transcript and the (presumably) ex parte letter are probably unrelated.

 

[MDFF2008]

I hope no one was ignorant and sent a threatening letter on our side.

Or it contains something bad about I'LL.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[yellowfin]

Daley et al. wrote a threat, perhaps, against them ruling for us? The Chicago machine isn't above anything and is known to threaten and extort regularly.

 

[krucam]

Transcripts for the Preliminary Injunction Hearing have been RELEASED.

 

[jrosenberger]

Thanks, that was enjoyable reading. I'm glad we have Mr. Jensen on our side.

 

[press1280]

The new strategy for the antis-try to get the courts to ignore the 19th century cases like Nunn and instead go back to the English BoR, and rely heavily on the Statute of Northampton(1328) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html

Highly unlikely SCOTUS will ignore those 19th century cases(especially after citing in Heller), and overwhelming public opinion on the matter.

 

[krucam]

The new strategy for the antis-try to get the courts to ignore the 19th century cases like Nunn and instead go back to the English BoR, and rely heavily on the Statute of Northampton(1328) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs1.html

Highly unlikely SCOTUS will ignore those 19th century cases(especially after citing in Heller), and overwhelming public opinion on the matter.

Thanks for that. The Defendants in this case's Hearing said something along the lines of:
- Heller said original intent
- The right pre-existed the 2A
- Brits (Blackstone) say the right to Carry doesn't exist (circa 1300's).

Thats taking original intent just a tad too far in my opinion.

 

[Kharn]

Considering the Revolutionary War started over the Brits marching to seize cannon and muskets, I think these guys are missing a bit from their strategy...

 

[press1280]

Thanks for that. The Defendants in this case's Hearing said something along the lines of:
- Heller said original intent
- The right pre-existed the 2A
- Brits (Blackstone) say the right to Carry doesn't exist (circa 1300's).

Thats taking original intent just a tad too far in my opinion.

Our side is aiming for the time of the 14th's ratification. Even if they wanted to go back to 1789, they'd be hard pressed to find any significant carry bans in the country. The concealed carry bans didn't start popping up until maybe the 1820's or so. So we win again, or should anyways.

 

[05FLHT]

2/3/12 Denial of PI & Appeal filed

What can I say...the fight goes on.