The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 16, 2012, 05:51 PM   #301
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
The opinion did not specify May/Shall.
Thus setting up the next great battle. The prohibitionists will want to pass may-issue laws like New York and California where issue can be denied for any reason, and applicants must prove that they are shot at almost daily to stand a prayer of getting a license. The ISRA and their cohorts will want shall-issue with minimal prerequisites.

It'll be interesting to watch the fireworks and see who ultimately wins. Pass the popcorn!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 08:57 PM   #302
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by NukemJim View Post
A point of clarification please due to my confusion.

If Illinois passes a CCW law does is have to be "Shall Issue" or does the court order allow "May Issue" to be passed.

I have read different opinions about the above and was wondering.
Please realize that this is only my inexpert opinion (based upon what I think I know ),

In the Kachalsky case (2nd Circuit), Alan Gura has pretty much signaled he will petition the SCOTUS for a grant of cert. He has 90 days from Nov. 27th to file (give or take about 4 days for holidays). That puts things right at the end of Feb. or very early Mar.

Given that the 7th Circuit has decided the Moore/Shepard cases (7th Circuit), I believe he may be in the process of writing 2 drafts. Why 2, you ask?

Because we have yet to hear the decision in the 4th Circuit Woollard case. That could conceivably come out within the time frame Alan has to file. That panel is either going to uphold the MD Good & Substantial (G&S) clause of their carry law (most likely using the reasoning of the 2nd Circuit), or it will uphold Judge Legg's decision at the district court (adopting some of the reasoning of the 7th Circuit).

So one draft will be written as a direct circuit split between the 2nd and the 4th, with substantiating data from the 7th. The other draft (should the 4th not publish within the time frame) will be with the technical split between the 2nd Circuit and the 7th Circuit, with more of the push that "carry" in whatever form is the correct interpretation and does not lie outside the core meaning of the 2A - Self-Defense.

It thus becomes extremely important as to when the 4th publishes their decision. Equally important is what that decision says.

The Kachalsky case could very well be the case that settles the Shall Issue/May Issue question. It will have a profound effect throughout the US, however it is decided.

Right now, with the way things are today, it is slightly less than even odds the Court will grant cert. With a Woollard win, the odds go up dramatically. With a loss, I doubt the Court will grant cert.

Now, taking all of that into consideration, let's look at what Judge Posner said in Moore/Shepard.

Quote:
Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
We need to ask, what are reasonable limitations that address both the right and the public safety, the this court would be comfortable with?

I suggest that 37 States have laws that do not prohibit the bulk of the population. One "May Issue" State (Alabama), operates for all practical purposes, as "Shall Issue." I would also point to the decision in Ezell for further guidance on"reasonable."

None of the above takes into any consideration what Lisa Madigan may decide to do, in the next few days.

As you can see, a whole bunch of stuff is happening, nearly in parallel. So the actual answer is very complicated, both by matters inside and outside of Illinois.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 12:59 AM   #303
NukemJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2002
Posts: 279
Thank you.

NukemJim
__________________
"Half of being smart is knowing what you are dumb at"

"Guns shoot bullets.
People shoot people."
NukemJim is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 10:18 PM   #304
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
Illinois motion for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing. Filed today.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf moore.motionExt.pdf (77.7 KB, 15 views)
esqappellate is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 10:29 PM   #305
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I hope it is denied. I have a feeling Lisa is just trying to waste as much time as possible
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:40 AM   #306
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
OK, so they're saying that they need time to determine if they want to file for an en banc hearing - but, oh, by the way, since one person is gone from the AG's office they wouldn't be able to draft the petition in time. IANAL, but this seems a bit ridiculous to me.
Scimmia is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:49 AM   #307
Gray Peterson
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 18
....Peterson 28(j) is filed in the 10th Circuit
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Peterson 28(j) for Moore v MadiganTruncated.pdf (102.8 KB, 32 views)
Gray Peterson is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 11:08 AM   #308
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Thanks Gray, for bringing that 28J letter here.

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to esqappellate. He is the appellate attorney, over at MDShooters.com that has been essential to many (myself included), in understanding the intricacies of law.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 06:24 PM   #309
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
WELCOME!

I'm not a lawyer, so I definitely appreciate those who explain how things work within the legal system.
raimius is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 09:37 AM   #310
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
Thanks. This is a great forum. Al does a very good job with explaining things. I'll be glad to add my two bits worth from time to time.
esqappellate is offline  
Old December 19, 2012, 12:25 PM   #311
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
I'll be glad to add my two bits worth from time to time.
Your perspective and insights will be greatly appreciated.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:53 PM   #312
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 678
So do we know if the time extension was granted or denied?

Even a layman as myself know this is a quick and direct stall tactic.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:03 PM   #313
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 24
Extension request was granted through/including Jan 8th. No more Mr Nice Guy either...


Quote:
12/18/2012 48 Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file petition for rehearing en banc. The appellees' petition for rehearing, if any, is due by January 8, 2013. No further extensions of time will be allowed. [47] BCM [48] [6450820] [12-1269, 12-1788] (FP)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Moore CA7 EnBanc Ext Granted.pdf (107.2 KB, 6 views)
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
krucam is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 10:52 PM   #314
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Thanks for that, Mark. I was just heading over from MDShooters....
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 10:10 AM   #315
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
Here is what Maryland is saying about Moore in their 28j letter filed yesterday.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 28jStateMoore.pdf (90.6 KB, 37 views)
esqappellate is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 10:29 PM   #316
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
Can anyone educate me about the process for deciding whether or not to do an en banc review?

I think the court has 10 days to respond to a a petition?

So what would happen if Lisa Madigan asked for an en banc review?

Do all of the judges have a meeting where they first vote to have a review?

I'm sorry I can't figure this out from reading the rules:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/rules.htm#opproc5
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 01:07 AM   #317
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
In a few hours this may all be moot if the Illinois AG doesn't petition for en banc, but I'm still curious about what the process is - how the procedure for deciding whether a case will be reviewed or not.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 01:35 AM   #318
Mastiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Posts: 115
If Lisa Madigan doesn't request an en banc hearing, does that also mean she can't appeal to the Supreme Court??

Denis in Cook County
__________________
What are the facts? Again and again and again—what are the facts? —what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! -Robert A Heinlein
Mastiff is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 01:50 AM   #319
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Madigan has until midnight, the 8th, to file for an en banc rehearing. The 7th circuit has 10 days to decide to rehear the case, or not.

If the case is not reheard, the clock is still ticking on any possible petition of cert to the SCOTUS.

If the case is to be reheard, the clock stops. That clock will be reset and won't start again until the decision of the en banc rehearing.

My personal opinion? Judge Posner is very, very respected within the 7th Circuit and unless there is some glaring error, I don't expect the court to grant the rehearing. That leaves Madigan with about 65 days to decide if she will file a petition for certiorari.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 03:12 AM   #320
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,328
Quote:
That leaves Madigan with about 65 days to decide if she will file a petition for certiorari.
Right, but she'd have to separately file for a "stay of execution" on the current carry bans, right? Appealing to SCOTUS or even getting granted cert doesn't automatically freeze the existing 7th Circuit commandments?
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 10:11 AM   #321
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
It's called a "stay of mandate" pending a petition for cert and such stays are common in high profile cases such as this one. All Illinois need show under Rule 41 FRAP is that the petition for cert would present a "substantial question" and there is "good cause for a stay." They really don't need it to merely file a petition, as they already got a 180 stay of mandate, which is way more than the 90 days for seeking cert. Of course, a stay of mandate would operate to stay the case until the SCT issues an order on cert. If cert is granted, then the stay continues in place. If cert is denied, then the mandate issues "immediately." They have until midnight tonight (Jan 8, 2013), Chicago time, to file any rehearing petition.

PS: Al, I think the 7th Circuit can take as much time as they want to decide whether to grant rehearing. Nothing in the rules impose any 10 day limit for consideration of such a petition.
esqappellate is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 11:13 AM   #322
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
I thought I had read something about a time limit in their local rules... But I'll take your expert word on this.

This wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken... It won't be the last!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 12:01 PM   #323
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
But what is the inner workings on how the court decides?

Do they meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays and go over every en banc request and just do a show of hands or something? Are there 7 judges set aside just to vote on en banc petitions? Do all the judges get together and vote on it?

I'm wondering how that happens.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 12:12 PM   #324
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
All active court of appeals judges on the 7th Circuit can participate in deciding whether to grant en banc. Any judge can request an answer to a petition for rehearing and no answer may be filed unless requested. Such a request for an answer is made before a vote as no petition will be granted without requesting an answer first. If one active judge requests a vote after receiving an answer, then every active judge votes on whether to grant. If no active judge requests a vote after a certain amount of time, then the en banc petition is denied without a vote. That certain amount of time varies from circuit to circuit, as does the internal operating procedure. In the 7th Circuit, here is part of Rule 5 of the 7th Circuit internal procedures:

d) Voting.

(1) Majority. A simple majority of the voting active judges is required to grant a rehearing en banc.
(2) Time for Voting. Judges are expected to vote within 14 days of the request for a vote or within 14 days of the filing of the answer pursuant to the request for a vote, whichever is later.
(e) Preparation of Order. After the vote is completed, the authoring judge, or the presiding judge of the panel if the author is a visiting judge, will prepare and send to the clerk an appropriate order. Minority positions will be noted in the denial of a petition for rehearing en banc or the denial of a petition for rehearing unless the judges in the minority request otherwise. Minority positions will not be noted in orders granting a rehearing or rehearing en banc unless so requested by the minority judge. An order granting rehearing en banc should specifically state that the original panel's decision is thereby vacated.

(f) Participants in Rehearings En Banc. Only Seventh Circuit active judges and any Seventh Circuit senior judge who was a member of the original panel may participate in rehearings en banc.

(g) Similar Procedures for Hearings En Banc. Similar voting procedures and time limits shall apply for requests for hearings en banc except that a staff attorney may circulate such a request.

(h) Distribution of Petitions. Petitions for rehearing that do not suggest rehearing en banc are distributed only to the panel. Petitions for rehearing en banc are distributed to all judges entitled to vote on the petition.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Rules/rules.htm#opproc5


Obviously, if a judge tells his colleagues that he needs more time before voting then the 14 days can stretch out to more time.

Last edited by esqappellate; January 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM.
esqappellate is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 12:27 PM   #325
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
It doesn't sound like they vote on whether to review

It's a matter of abstaining from requesting an answer or requesting an answer.

So, for instance, when the petition comes in Judge Williams could request an answer and that would trigger the review?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.21666 seconds with 10 queries