Willie, the 30 second meaning for both the Richards and Woollard 28J's are: In Moore, the 7th Circuit said that carry for self-defense is the core right. The people must be able to exercise that right in some form both inside and outside of the home. The 7th Circuit also called into question the Kachalsky decision from the 2nd Circuit and criticized their historical interpretation by saying the history used by the Heller Court precludes the history used by the dissenters in Heller.
das1115, I can almost guarantee that should Lisa Madigan petition for cert, it will be denied. Add to this, that she would be spending political capital she cannot afford to lose. She could motion for reconsideration/en banc and she might even get it. Chances are good that the CA7 would grant the en banc hearing. That would automatically stay the current panel decision, because that decision would be rescinded. That would stall everything for about a year.
But if the en banc court affirms the panels decision, Madigan again loses capital she cannot afford to lose (see, she wants to run for Governor and needs every Democratic vote she can garner). Madigan has less than an even chance of winning this case.
Now let's assume she does file the petition for cert and the Court grants it. I firmly feel the Court will affirm Judge Posner's decision. That would cast the right to carry inside and outside the home as a national right. That would be disastrous for the anti-gun crowd. Madigan is much smarter than that (Chicago isn't, but that's another thread).
The case to be watching is Woollard. Should that decision be in our favor, then a clear circuit split would force the Court to take Kachalsky. While there is a technical split between the 2nd Circuit and the 7th Circuit, it is very slight. Not enough at this point in time for the Court to worry about it.
At the moment, I really believe the Court is simply watching what percolates out of the circuit courts. That's why I don't think the Court would grant cert in the Moore/Shepard decision.
Here's some internal courtroom politics to think about!
The 2nd Circuit basically says that the right to carry exists outside the home, but it is far removed from the Heller decision and therefore can be regulated away (the panel stated they were using intermediate scrutiny, but it was in fact, rational basis) to the point it doesn't exist for the common man.
Judge Legg however, said that the right exists outside the home and cannot be regulated out of existence. Judge Posner used some very strong words, in a well crafted decision, to say much the same thing.
That puts the CA4 panel in a quandary. No circuit intentionally wants to create a split. So their choice is to affirm Judge Legg's decision, creating a split with the CA2, or dismissing Judge Posner's legal acumen. Rock? Meet hard place!
Also recall from the oral arguments that this panel (CA4) appeared to be woefully ignorant of the basic issues. I really can't make a call on which way they will decide.