The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 6, 2013, 09:18 AM   #376
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote:
For all practical purposes, we can make an intelligent guess, when we read the results.
Does the court post something like a notification of expiration of the voting period?

Or a final disposition of the en banc process?

Does the court notify the parties privately?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 12:52 PM   #377
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,303
The court has no real obligation to "post" anything, until they are ready.

Under the circumstances, if no vote is called for, I suspect the court will notify the parties in short order. If the vote is called for, then it can be a matter of weeks before we here anything, one way or another.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 06:32 PM   #378
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Wouldn't they have to notify the defendant - Illinois AG? Her clock for appealing to SCOTUS is ticking away, if no one called for a vote and the 10 days expired, it would be rotten not to tell the defendant and just let days continue to tick off the cert clock...
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 08:44 PM   #379
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,463
Quote:
Wouldn't they have to notify the defendant - Illinois AG? Her clock for appealing to SCOTUS is ticking away, if no one called for a vote and the 10 days expired, it would be rotten not to tell the defendant and just let days continue to tick off the cert clock...
The clock doesn't start ticking until the request for rehearing is decided and a mandate issued.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 08:19 PM   #380
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Now that the judges are all rested up with their three day weekend federal holiday, well hear something on this case finally
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 12:51 PM   #381
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Yes, you would think we would hear something!

I did notice Rahm Emanual (Chicago-Mayor) has rammed through a few new updates on penalties and fines for gun owners.

No big deal, but interesting how quick he can pass things. Will be interesting how big of a deal he makes out of passing a new concealed carry ordinance.
+1k ammo is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 06:27 PM   #382
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I'm not sure Chicago passed any new ordinances - do you have a link?

What I did see was a press statement from Mayor Emanual with Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez calling for longer sentences for felons caught with firearms, They seemed unaware of current Illinois law since the prison terms they were calling for fell within the current range.

They were calling for 5 year terms for repeat offenders and the law currently allows judges to sentence between 3 and 7 years. They also asked that "felon with a weapon" conviction be part of the truth in sentencing guidelines which would mandate that anyone convicted would have to serve 85% of their sentence

But I don't think any of that was prompted by the Moore decision or CCW bills in the Illinois General Assembly.

Hadiya Hadiya Pendleton, who participated in Obama inauguration festivities, was murdered by Michael Ward, a convicted felon out on parole for a weapons charge. I think the press conference was damage control because they knew that 2A advocates would cite lax laws for felons, lax parole guidlines, monitoring and reporting, and sentencing as the problem - not the object used to commit the murder.

I haven't heard of any new laws.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 10:11 AM   #383
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Yes, your are right, updates to current, not new. But the point being that the media took hold, had it on the news and then it was passed relatively quickly.

I can't find the link, it is gone.

Yes, and I agree about the tragic H. Pendleton shooting. Now that the truth in that it was a felon on parole, they cannot blame responsible citizens who own and register guns.

It is the same story over and over. The laws on the books are for citizens, not the animals that ignore all laws and do what they want. That has been the problem on the (mostly) south side since forever.

Quote:
The City of Chicago has a handgun registration requirement, but according to a recent study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, the majority of illegal handguns arrive in Chicago from elsewhere in the state. From 2005-2010, 56 percent of short-time-to-crime guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes were traced back to sources within the State of Illinois, but outside of Chicago.
All these laws against 2A but nothing that ever or will ever work.

But, thanks, I have not seen anything really new on the present discussion on the upcoming Concealed Carry.
+1k ammo is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 04:16 PM   #384
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
The Illinois Supreme Court can't defy the circuit court can they?

I don't think it would happen but what happens if the IL Supreme Court doesn't actually strike down Illinois UUW law? (assuming no en banc and no appeal)

I don't understand this noise coming from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office:

http://watchdog.org/70103/cook-count...-court-ruling/
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 04:37 PM   #385
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I hope I get my previous question answered -"can IL Supreme Court refuse to stirke down IL UUW law"

But anyway, I found this video about the recent hearings il IL and the first 4 minutes is a great summation of Heller to Moore and the current situation in IL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lldcs9LVH8
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 04:37 PM   #386
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Hmmm . . . According to the article:

Quote:
But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.

“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”
He is deeply mistaken. Perhaps only the Illinois Supreme Court is the only court that can declare an Illinois law unconstitutional under the state constitution, but a federal court most certainly can declare one unconstitutional under the federal constitution.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 05:33 PM   #387
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 545
Quote:
...our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so
Spats, you a diplomat...
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 06:39 PM   #388
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,303
The vote was set for last Friday. Since we have not heard anything, it is pretty safe to assume that there will be no en banc or rehearing. The Court would have notified the parties by now, if there was going to be a rehearing. What we are now waiting for is for a dissenting opinion. Once that is written and notice is given, the clock for time to file for certiorari will start (90 days from that point).

However, the clock for the stay, has been and still is, ticking away. Should AG Madigan file for cert, she can then ask for an extension of the stay, but (generally) not before she files.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 07:41 PM   #389
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
HarrySchell, that's not my quote. What you have in quotes is something that I quoted from the article.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 11:49 AM   #390
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote from the opinion:


Quote:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.
It doesn't sound like the Illinois Supreme Court has anything to do with it.

Does the Illinois Supreme Court take direction from CA7 -would they, on day 181 write an injunction and declare Illinois UUW law unconstitutional, or do they just stand by and do nothing because they don't have to do anything...

Regardless of if this guy Paul Gastiglione for Cook County is right or wrong, I'm curious now about the process and the state supreme court's role in it.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 12:01 PM   #391
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 545
Spats, sorry to be unclear.

What I meant to say was that you very kindly said the author of the quote was "deeply mistaken". I thought it was a very diplomatic and graceful way to describe the man.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 02:47 PM   #392
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
^ He is policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office advising Illinois lawmakers that there is no need for a new law because even after 180 day stay set out by CA7 - current Illinois law is still in force unless and until the Illinois Supreme Court strikes the UUW law down.

I don't know if Chicago Police & Cook County Sherrif's are going to buy into that, but it could make for some interesting civil action for deprivation of rights cases.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 04:02 PM   #393
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luger_carbine
It doesn't sound like the Illinois Supreme Court has anything to do with it.

Does the Illinois Supreme Court take direction from CA7 -would they, on day 181 write an injunction and declare Illinois UUW law unconstitutional, or do they just stand by and do nothing because they don't have to do anything...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luger_carbine
I don't know if Chicago Police & Cook County Sherrif's are going to buy into that, but it could make for some interesting civil action for deprivation of rights cases.
The Illinois state courts and it's LE agencies can "buy into that" or not, but if they choose "not," they do so at their own peril.

No, the Illinois Supreme Court will not write an injunction on day 181. There is not case pending before it, so it has no jurisdiction to do so. It does not have jurisdiction over the parties or the case. An federal court of appeals has declared that the statute, as written, violates the 2A. Now that the 2A has been incorporated to the states, Illinois law has to be permissible under the 2A. If it is unconstitutional under federal law, it doesn't much matter whether it passes muster on a state level.

Harry: Thank you. I was trying to be nice about it.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 05:12 PM   #394
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Here is the essential information from the below link on where things stand in the legislature. There are past opponents to CCW that are defecting from Chicago. Support is building for the shall issue bill and no growing support for a may issue bill - many legislators who opposed CCW before the 7th Circuits decision do not believe may issue would be acceptable to the court so they have essentially moved into the shall issue camp. Now they are arguing about details of shall issue and feeling the pressure of having a working law in place before the deadline.

"Gun control supporters in the Illinois Democratic party talked a pretty good game for the most part at the Illinois House Judiciary hearing earlier this week on guns, but in a closed door meeting yesterday, they were set straight as to the reality of things."

and

"House Democrats were given a lesson in the real-world consequences of ignoring the Seventh Circuit ruling when the 180-day stay expires on June 8th.

The technical review staff (legal beagles) told the Democrats that Alvarez was all wet in her office’s pronouncement and that inaction on passing a carry bill would have dire consequences for gun control in Illinois.

Specifically, House Democrats were told that Illinois would effectively have “Constitutional Carry” where anyone who was eligible to own guns could carry them freely in public without training, licensing, qualification and precious little in the way of restriction.

After a lot of back and forth, one Chicago Representative asked if someone could carry a loaded rifle into the Statehouse. He was told “Yes”.

It was reported that you could hear a pin drop for an uncomfortably long time after that as a stunned silence came over the room.

The bottom line is that non-ideologues on the gun issue have seen the wisdom of voting for a carry bill that affords the state at least some control in the time, place and manner in which Illinois residents, and indeed non-residents, can carry firearms in Illinois.

Of course, there are a handful of die-hards who will never vote for a bill that would allow Illinoisans any firearm rights. But then again, there were no shortage of politicians who opposed Civil Rights legislation of fifty years ago to their dying day. And there were no shortage of politicians who opposed women’s suffrage, either.

Today, we recognize how foolish and bigoted those politicians were in opposing these basic civil rights."



http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5957&...guns-yesterday
mack59 is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 05:29 PM   #395
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 545
Heh. "When you have them by the 1254's, their hearts and minds will follow."
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 10:22 AM   #396
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I've heard twice now that there is some officicial notification or posting that en banc was denied. I'm looking for a link to post here.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 10:23 AM   #397
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
En banc denial

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=12&num=1269
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 10:29 AM   #398
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Thanks for the update, Luger_carbine.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 10:33 AM   #399
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
The CA7 site is getting bombed with the volume of people trying to go there right now - (either that or it's a Chinese denial of service attack), I've timed out a few times trying to read the denial so I'll post the PDF here:
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Denial of En Banc - Moore v Madigan 2-22-13.pdf (102.9 KB, 29 views)
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 10:35 AM   #400
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
DENIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Rham, Quinn and Both Madigans are getting sick right now!

CC is coming to Illinois, like it is not!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 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 10:27 AM.


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 0.23139 seconds with 10 queries