Welcome to GSL

This login is for the website administrators.

Please use the member login link in the main navigation bar to access the members sections.

Member Login
Lost your password?

Moore v. Madigan: Motion to dismiss UUW charge today in Springfield

February 6, 2013

From the State Journal-Register

A man charged with carrying a concealed handgun in Sangamon County is asking that the charge be dismissed because Illinois’ ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional.

A hearing on Donnell L. Jackson’s motion to dismiss a charge of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon was continued Wednesday until Feb. 6 to allow the Sangamon County state’s attorney’s office time to review the legal ramifications of whatever action it may take.

Springfield attorney Daniel Noll objected to the continuance, which was requested by assistant state’s attorney Travis Strobach.

“Moore vs. Madigan makes it pretty clear this is unconstitutional,” Noll said. “There is no gray area.”

…Jackson, now of Champaign,  was arrested about 2:10 a.m. on Dec. 11, 2011 when Springfield police patrolling the 1900 block of South 14th Street saw a vehicle stopped in the road and a man wearing a blue, hooded sweatshirt walk away from it.

Police reports said Jackson was asked to remove his hands from inside the sweatshirt, but he removed only one hand. When he was patted down, officers found a gun in the sweatshirt, and Jackson was charged.

Jackson had a valid Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification card.

Lots more…

9 Responses to Moore v. Madigan: Motion to dismiss UUW charge today in Springfield

  1. Jack on February 6, 2013 at 11:33 am

    Don-nell, huh? Sounds like “No Guns For Negros”, except this state hates whites too.

  2. jboch on February 6, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    I talked with his attorney this morning and offered some advice on how to articulate what would be involved if the case was dismissed because of Moore v. Madigan.

    Not sure how much I can divulge so I’m going to shut up there.

    He’s going to get back with me after the hearing.

    I’d be shocked if it was thrown out, but it’s certainly worth a shot. I told his attorney surely there’s Supreme Court precedent that a right delayed is a right denied.

    John

  3. jboch on February 6, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Judge sick. Case continued for a couple of weeks…

  4. ken on February 6, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    My guess is Noll is court-appointed.

    He’s not a very good lawyer if he thinks that an opinion (it is only an opinion so far) that has NOT YET BECOME FINAL is not to be cited nor relied on as precedent.

    That scrawny, pasty-faced twit (cousin Lisa) has asked for en banc review in the 7th Circus and gives every indication she’ll petition the U.S.Supreme Ct. for cert if she loses on en banc review or is denied it.

    I’m guessing the arrestee is going away.

    Don’t get too excited, fellas. Do not be carrying yet. Do not get caught carrying. Until this case is FINAL, it is STILL A CRIME.

    • ken on February 6, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      correction: “if he thinks…opinion …not yet final…may be cited….”

      That is to say, no opinion that is NOT final is to be relied on as binding or persuasive precedent.

      • BHirsh on February 7, 2013 at 5:52 pm

        “That is to say, no opinion that is NOT final is to be relied on as binding or persuasive precedent.”

        Not exactly true. What the appellate court for the 7th Circuit decides is binding in the 7th Circuit, until and unless it’s reversed en banc, or struck by the Supreme Court.

  5. jboch on February 7, 2013 at 8:53 am

    The opinion IS FINAL, Ken.

    The action taken was stayed for 180 days.

    John

  6. jboch on February 7, 2013 at 8:54 am

    I’m more concerned that the offense was committed before the decision was given on Dec 11 2012.

    • BHirsh on February 7, 2013 at 6:10 pm

      Doesn’t matter. It’s been unconstitutional since its inception. It only now reached a meaningful court.