Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

[Al Norris]

And, not to be outdone....

2013-07-11 77 RESPONSE to Motion re 76 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Plaintiffs' re 75 MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction filed by Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/11/2013)

[csmsss]

Al, that's hilarious. Madigan is asking the lower court to rule that it's superior court (7th circuit US Appeals) was ignorant of the implications of what it was ruling upon. The hubris and arrogance of Madigan is stunning. And what's even funnier (in my opinion, anyway), is she'll probably prevail in district court.

[motorhead0922]

Wow. Did anyone catch the last line?

WHEREFORE, defendants pray that this honorable Court deny plaintiffs’ motion to expedite.
Respectfully submitted,
LISA MADIGAN

Emphasis added.

With Mary Sheppard having been attacked at church, I'm thinking prayer won't help Ms. Madigan.

[Herr Walther]

That is standard legal speak in court documents.

[Spats McGee]

The "pray" language is fairly standard in legal pleadings. In the complaint, the paragraph in which a party expressly states what it wants from the other side or from the court is called the "prayer for relief."

ETA: cross-posted

[motorhead0922]

Thanks for the replies. I learned something. I can sleep peacefully now.

[Luger_carbine]

Sorry, I meant 210


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...ois&id=9170452

"The state argues Shepard needs to file a new complaint instead of a motion seeking an emergency hearing from a judge."

Section 9 in the response to plaintiff's motion.

These tactics remind me of the Ezell case, it's just never-ending maneuvering.

[Al Norris]

Here's where we stand at the end of today:

• 07-09-2013 - Madigan files an MTD, doc #73, on jurisdiction grounds (case is moot).
• 07-10-2013 - Plaintiffs file a response to the MTD, #74. Plaintiffs then file a motion for misc. relief, #75, and an expedited hearing, #76.
• 07-11-2013 - State Defendants respond to Plaintiffs motions, #77.
• 07-12-2013 - Sheriff Livesay files an MTD, #78, using the same reasoning as the State. Plaintiffs immediately respond, #79. The Court issues an order, #80, to brief on 2 specific questions (see thread). All responses due by NOON on the 18th of July.

The referenced documents can be found at the docket on the Internet Archive.

Of note is what Judge Stiehl has ordered. After briefly stating what has happened in the last few days, the judge then writes:

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties leave to file an additional brief addressing the following issues ONLY:

A. Whether the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction in light of the passage of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act? and/or,

B. Whether any challenges to the constitutionality of the 2013 Firearm Concealed Carry Act must be raised in a separate lawsuit?

Any party which desires to file a brief on this matter shall do so on or before Noon, July 18, 2013.

So by next Thursday, we will know more about where this all stands.

[Al Norris]

And here we have it.

The defendants Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (12 pages).

The plaintiffs Supplement to Response to Defendants MTD (9 pages).

I don't think Judge Stiehl will need more than a week to decide the issue.

[press1280]

So if this judge rules for Illinois, how fast to get this back in front of CA7?

[Patriot86]

not to be the bearer of bad news but as usual "the machine" is thumbing its nose at the courts and the law and daring someone to stop them.


http://www.suntimes.com/21380581-761...is-served.html


In violation of state law Chicago is going to pass an ordnance that will require any business that sells liquor posts a no carry sign or they lose their liquor licence. State law only requires a business post if more than 50% of sales are in Alcohol. This is a blatant violation of the new state law which says it is the sole authority of the state to regulate the possession of handguns...

Ontop of that Cook County, also in violation of the new state law barring local regulation of handguns, handgun magazines and handgun ammunition decided they can regulate handgun magazines....

all and all its business as usual. A lot of blood sweat and tears given to get a carry law only to have the provisions that made those sacrifices worth it unlawfully ignored by Chicago and Cook County.

Sadly out state AG will do nothing about it because now that she is not running for governor she needs to make no attempt to be palatable to downstate voters.

[press1280]

Just means those localities will have to be sued, and keep cutting large checks.

[Herr Walther]

14 counties in Illinois are now refusing to prosecute for CCW if ISP arrests you.

Fortunately I live in one of them. We've been carrying here without fear of prosecution since 12JUN.

[Al Norris]

Now its quite possible that I'm reading this entirely wrong, not being a legal expert of any kind...

We've read the MTD that Madigan filed, which is identical in both Moore and Sheppard. We've read and analyzed the response that the NRA has given, which is to oppose the dismissal. The laws in question are still active and being actively pursued by the State (the new exception of the CC permits - which will not be available for some time - is not active).

The NRA has made an extremely valid argument against the State. Judge Stiehl really doesn't have much recourse here. Should the judge balk at issuing the injunction, the case can be immediately appealed to the Posner panel. I have no question in how that panel will rule. It will come quickly and in language that will brook no leeway for the district court.

On the other side of the aisle, David Sigale is arguing that the case is not moot, because wrangling over §1988 attorney fees have not concluded. Nothing else.

Knowing how McDonald panned out (Chicago changed it laws, but after the decision by SCOTUS but before the mandate could be applied, mooted the case but did not moot prevailing party status and therefore §1988 attorney fees were awarded), this argument appears to be specious, at best.

I agree with the reply by Madigan that the plaintiffs in Moore failed to properly respond to the matter of the dismissal. This gives judge Myerscough the perfect out to dismiss the case. Thus, further fees for the case will basically cease.

Meanwhile, the NRA will continue to rack up fees, because they have a legitimate challenge to the MTD.

I believe this to be a grave error on the part of Moore. I hope I'm wrong.

2013-07-15 53 RESPONSE to Motion re 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Plaintiffs Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Illinois Carry, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

2013-07-17 55 Defendants' REPLY in Support of Motion re 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

[maestro pistolero]

Slightly OT:

If there isn't already, there ought to be a private think-tank of vetted individuals who look these briefs over before they're filed. The several fine lawyers here, Equapellate, also Al Norris, Patrick and few others I'm not thinking of just now.

Nobody, not even Gura is infallible. Sometimes when I see typos and grammar errors (though not much recently) I can't help but wonder how few sets of eyes have actually seen the drafts.

An error like not actually addressing the matter of the dismissal is unimaginable.

[Patriot86]

Moore schmoore (Kidding)

interesting synopsis Al. I am really waiting to see what happens with Wilson or an as yet unfiled clone of Wilson vs one of the Lake County(much friendlier courts) localities that banned "assault weapons" in the past month.

[Luger_carbine]

I think the plaintiffs requested an answer by July 25th ??

Does that get any consideration?

[Al Norris]

The MTD was granted in Sheppard, this morning:

07/26/2013 89 ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction 75 filed by Mary Shepard, Illinois State Rifle Association is DISMISSED; MOTION to Expedite Briefing 76 filed by Mary Shepard, Illinois State Rifle Association is DENIED as moot; MOTION to Dismiss 78 filed by David Livesay, AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 73 filed by Tyler R Edmonds, Patrick J Quinn, Lisa M Madigan are GRANTED. ACTION DUE by 8/9/2013--parties to brief issue of award of costs and fees. Signed by Judge William D. Stiehl on 7/26/2013. (jaf ) (Entered: 07/26/2013)

Nothing yet in the Moore case, but I fully expect the same.

[Carry_24/7]

The state is going to slow-roll CC into complete dysfunction. I moved to IL early in the year, been waiting on my FOID since April, no end in sight. Calls to the ISP result in endless excuses and apologies...the CC process will no doubt be the same or worse.

It's like the old saying, "you can make me work, but not necessarily hard or fast" The state of IL is making that come true.

[motorhead0922]

On the other hand, non-residents can car carry right now.

Originally Posted by handgunlaw.us

You must have a valid resident Permit/License from your home state to Carry a Loaded Handgun in a Vehicle in Illinois.
Section 40
(e) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a non-resident from transporting a concealed firearm within his or her vehicle in Illinois, if the concealed firearm remains within his or her vehicle and the non-resident:
(1) is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under federal law;
(2) is eligible to carry a firearm in public under the laws of his or her state or territory of residence; and
(3) is not in possession of a license under this Act. If the non-resident leaves his or her vehicle
Unattended, he or she shall store the firearm within a locked vehicle or locked container within the
vehicle in accordance with subsection (b) of Section 65 of this Act.
Subsection (b) of Section 65 States:
(b) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (a-5), and (a-10) of this Section except under paragraph (22) or (23) of subsection (a), any licensee prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into the parking area of a prohibited location specified in subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section shall be permitted to carry a concealed firearm on or about his or her person within a vehicle into the parking area and may store a firearm or ammunition concealed in a case within a locked vehicle or locked container out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area. A licensee may carry a concealed firearm in the immediate area surrounding his or her vehicle within a prohibited parking lot area only for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving a firearm within the vehicle's
trunk, provided the licensee ensures the concealed firearm is unloaded prior to exiting the vehicle. For purposes of this subsection, "case" includes a glove compartment or console that completely encloses the concealed firearm or ammunition, the trunk of the vehicle, or a firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container.

Many thanks to Gary Slider for his efforts to educate all of us!

[Luger_carbine]

Mary Shepard's attorneys filed notice of appeal last night, hopefully they have their appeal ready to file with CA7.

Hiram Grau head of Illinois State Police made a statement that the ISP was basically ready to issue permits, but I wonder if that was to bolster the argument that Shepard was indeed moot?

People have varying estimates on when permits will actually be issued - some estimating 300 or so days away.

The deadlines outlined in the Illinois Firearms Concealed Carry Act are not legally binding on the ISP and I'm guessing that the only thing that is really motivating them to get the system in place is the fear of the Posner panel enforcing the mandate which I think means anyone with an Illinois FOID card could carry concealed, but it doesn't have to mean that. Technically it would just mean the end to the Illinois AUUW/UUW prohibition on carrying a firearm. But I believe the ISP specifically asked Judge Stiehl for concealed carry for FOID card holders. I guess that is what they would ask the Posner Panel for also?

[csmsss]

14 counties in Illinois are now refusing to prosecute for CCW if ISP arrests you.

Fortunately I live in one of them. We've been carrying here without fear of prosecution since 12JUN.

Not so fast. Most states allow the state's AG to appoint a special prosecutor at his/her discretion (note the Zimmerman case in FL as an example). Just because your county's elected DA chooses to no bill a case doesn't mean Madigan can't decide to override that decision and appoint a prosecutor of her own.

[Herr Walther]

And that would amount to political suicide for that prosecutor.

Have at it but don't expect to have a job after your current term.

Besides, a request for those services has to be made, a motion filed, and accepted by a judge and signed.

Madigan can't just say get your but over to one of those counties and prosecute the offender. This state has six special prosecutors. Just because they are appointed doesn't mean they will prosecute a particular case.

Especially without jumping through all the hoops to do so.

[Spats McGee]

I haven't researched the law on this, but my guess: The appointment must also be accepted by the prosecutor.

[Herr Walther]

The point is, it must be a request made by that county prosecutor.