Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)
- Thread starter Don H
- Start date
Other than some cosmetic differences?
Moore is a SAF/Gura case filed in the Central District and is being argued mostly on a point of law. Sheppard is a NRA case filed in the Southern District and has a more emotional argument.
But because they are filed in different districts, they can not be combined.
Now should a (bad) decision be reached in both cases at more or less the same time, then expect them to be combined at the Circuit level, on appeal.
Moore is a SAF/Gura case filed in the Central District and is being argued mostly on a point of law. Sheppard is a NRA case filed in the Southern District and has a more emotional argument.
But because they are filed in different districts, they can not be combined.
Now should a (bad) decision be reached in both cases at more or less the same time, then expect them to be combined at the Circuit level, on appeal.
If Moore v Madigan overturns current IL state gun laws and the State legislature doesn't pass some kind of new regulations in a timely manner - what happens?
I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?
What would happen?
I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?
What would happen?
what happens if Myerscough overturns current IL gun laws?
If Moore v Madigan overturns current IL state gun laws and the State legislature doesn't pass some kind of new regulations in a timely manner - what happens?
I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?
What would happen?
If Moore v Madigan overturns current IL state gun laws and the State legislature doesn't pass some kind of new regulations in a timely manner - what happens?
I mean could people in IL start carrying knowing that if we were arrested, the cases would be thrown out as unconstitutional?
What would happen?
The pro-gun legislators tried to pass 148 and couldn't.
If Myerscough rules Illinois law unconstitutional. Then the anti-gun legislators will suddenly want to pass some kind of legislation. But at that point - all the pro-gun legislators have to do is say "screw you" And after a time - Illinois gun laws can not be enforced - so it reverts to constitutonal carry (I beleive).
If Myerscough rules Illinois law unconstitutional. Then the anti-gun legislators will suddenly want to pass some kind of legislation. But at that point - all the pro-gun legislators have to do is say "screw you" And after a time - Illinois gun laws can not be enforced - so it reverts to constitutonal carry (I beleive).
This was initially posted in the Current 2A Cases thread, but it bears repeating here.
A question I have is that in all the cases I've been watching for these past 2+ years, I have never encountered anything like this PACER entry. Note that the link to item #36 leads to a page that simply says that no file is available.
Can any of our attorneys proffer an explanation of what might be going on?
A question I have is that in all the cases I've been watching for these past 2+ years, I have never encountered anything like this PACER entry. Note that the link to item #36 leads to a page that simply says that no file is available.
Can any of our attorneys proffer an explanation of what might be going on?
Spats McGee
Administrator
I looked at the docket and even consulted with another attorney here in our office (who used to clerk for a federal judge). I don't know what's going on, but the only other sealed documents in the docket are summons, which probably contain Madigan's home address. This thing appears to be a letter, but there's no indication of who sent the letter, or what personal information it might contain. If anyone wants to make a quick call to the court, the clerk should at least be able to provide some general information on what it is and why it's sealed.
On first blush, the "letter" appears to have come from an outside source directed to the Court (Judge Myerscough). So whatever else this may be, it pertains only the SAF/Moore case and not the (almost identical) NRA/Sheppard case (nothing in that docket even remotely similar).
Which only brings up more questions....
Which only brings up more questions....
I doubt the letter just contains isolated personal information such as an address or social security number. Typically, these are simply redacted before filing. The letter might not even be related to the merits of the case. It could, for example, contain a threat of some sort. I have no reason to believe it is. I'm just pointing out how speculative this can get.
Spats McGee
Administrator
KyJim, you're right about all that. It is also ordinarily the responsibility of counsel to redact documents before submission. What I've suggested is speculative, but I'll see if I can find some time today to call the court and see what's going on. (No guarantees, though, as I have a very busy day in front of me.)
Spats McGee
Administrator
Unfortunately, I did not get around to calling the court on Friday.
On the Illinois carry forum people have speculated that someone wrote the judge directly.
Maybe it was someone who was a victim of gun violence and he or she felt the need to wax poetic on the matter.
I hope it wasn't the opposite - a gun nut writing Judge Myerscough to "set her straight".
Maybe it was someone who was a victim of gun violence and he or she felt the need to wax poetic on the matter.
I hope it wasn't the opposite - a gun nut writing Judge Myerscough to "set her straight".
^ It's my understanding that sending a Judge ex-parte communications in reference to a case can be illegal (in some situations). I could be wrong.
But I'm not getting down on someone for exercising constitutional rights. If they want to file for their permit, and protest on the steps of the courthouse and hold up signs, and give a speech about why the judge should rule one way or the other - that's fine.
I'm all for it.
Yay First Amendment.
But that isn't what happened.
But I'm not getting down on someone for exercising constitutional rights. If they want to file for their permit, and protest on the steps of the courthouse and hold up signs, and give a speech about why the judge should rule one way or the other - that's fine.
I'm all for it.
Yay First Amendment.
But that isn't what happened.