Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

[MLeake]

JimDandy, I have suggested that concept before - if only because it would be interesting to watch Axelrod et al squirm.

[motorhead0922]

From illinoiscarry.com, by a moderator:

Was at the Capitol all day yesterday and met with Rep. Phelps this morning. As strange as this may sound, we were very close to passing HB997 yesterday. Going into the debate we had 72+ votes.

Two things happened - we had several reps from the Chicago area ready to vote with us and then a senator from Chicago began circulating around the House floor just before the vote, taking notes on the debate and mentioning a bill coming out in the Senate in the next few weeks. Some of our Chicago votes then decided to wait and see what comes out of the Senate.

The other thing that happened is, due to a snafu with all the gazillion different drafts of 997, there were errors in the draft that came up for a vote. A few votes fell off because of that.

One thing we noticed throughout the Capitol is that there is no sense of urgency to pass a bill. We heard several times that "it's still early, plenty of time, we have until May 31st."

Our plan is to defeat any bad bill coming out of the Senate, fix the errors in 997, and come back for another vote. There is no discussion of any kind of carve out for Chicago or Cook Co.

[JimDandy]

It's a double edged sword for both ideological parties. The Republican's will hate it because "those miserable poor people won't be pulling their weight" and the Democrats will hate it because "it's guns!" while they'll love it because "it's the Second Amendment and CCW permits are already treading on thin ice" and "We can't disadvantage the working poor" respectively.

[MLeake]

JimDandy, I think you overstate the case a bit.

I dislike handouts and unending benefit programs. OTOH, I am all for programs that involve job training, and a tapering of benefits as earnings increase. I am not opposed to subsidized daycare, to enable single parents to work. I think many of us "heartless" types feel that way - we don't mind helping people help themselves get back on their feet; we resent those who think we owe them unending help while they do nothing to earn it.

I know very few people who are ok with the idea of malnourished kids, for instance, yet there are quite a few on the other side who would like to paint that picture.

So, I think fewer of those on the right than you might expect would object to subsidizing training and permit requirements.

Actually, I think you would have a hard time finding something with more Libertarian support than the FairTax enjoys, and FairTax is based on a graduated system where low wage earners actually get assistance.

[+1k ammo]

Motorhead...That is very interesting view of the political life on the floor!

So as the date gets closer and the bills get fine tuned, we will probably see one of them get through?

[Luger_carbine]

The Illinois Rifle Association was notified that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed for a 30 day extension to petition for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Moore/Shepard vs Madigan.

I don't have any links to any documents yet.

I am not sure how Illinois gun owners would take it if an extension was granted. But it seems to me that they would count a denial as a victory.

[JimDandy]

I would think a grant of an extension would imply they're willing to hear the case and decide against us, while a denial means either they don't want to hear ANY gun cases now, or they want to affirm the decision. We could also end up paying for the footsie played over DOMA.

[Al Norris]

First and foremost, by asking for a 30 day extension in time to file,this means that IL is in fact going to file. You simply don't play those kinds if games with the SCOTUS (or any federal court, for that matter).

If you remember, D.C. had an extension in ther Heller case.

At this point, Alan Gura has two choices. 1) He can ask the Court to deny cert, or 2) Like in Heller, he can re-frame the question and ask the court to grant cert taking his question and not that of IL.

Considering the stakes, I feel Gura will opt for position #2. This may very well be D.C. v. Heller, all over again.

Now... This also means that IL will be asking for a stay of mandate, pending a grant of cert. This will also be granted, whether or not Gura opposes the stay.

[JimDandy]

I think we all assumed they would as soon as SCOTUS declined to hear which one was it.. Kachalsky? That all but put "Chance for Victory" in neon lights on Broadway for Illinois.

[Al Norris]

Jim, I didn't assume that, at all.

Like D.C., this is a big gamble on the part of Lisa Madigan. Should she lose, it will affect the entire country, not just IL.I'm thinking this was a push from Chicago via the Governor.

[maestro pistolero]

Things are heating up in the Il Legislature. The clip embedded in this post at Calguns shows the degree of panic setting in as the "R's" resist any may issue proposals.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=753097

[Luger_carbine]

This is just my opinion, but I think the filing had more to do with Illinois politics and less to do with judicial strategy.

The gun control advocates made 3 runs at recreating the existing Illinois UUW law piecemeal and they failed. Last week the ISRA came very close to passing a shall-issue concealed carry, but some last minute manuvering by the antis stripped off a few votes.

But it looks like they expending the last trick they had and all indications were that the bill would pass if heard again. There was a lot of pressure on legislators to pass a bill before the 180 day stay expired which I think is in 39 or 40 days from now.

So their backs were up against the wall and by filing for cert, they may relieve that pressure on legislators if the extension is granted

[JimDandy]

Should she lose, it will affect the entire country, not just IL

Politically sure, but she doesn't work for the entire country, she works for the State of Illinois, and she now has a window of opportunity to "win it" for Illinois. If she loses, they won't miss anything the SCOTUS will have decided they didn't have in the first place, and she can get good press as "going down fighitng" if she wins... well everyone loves a winner.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Like D.C., this is a big gamble on the part of Lisa Madigan. Should she lose, it will affect the entire country, not just IL.I'm thinking this was a push from Chicago via the Governor.

I first and foremost want Illinois residents have CCW/OC/etc laws readily available to them for exercising for their 2nd Amendment rights.

But if a national precedent was set, there would be some really happy Southern California gun owners

[Luger_carbine]

She could be stalling to file at the very very last second, to buy the antis time to get a may-issue law passed, possibly at the very last minute. But this is basically a repeat of what they went through last year. The ISRA had a compromise bill before the house, the ISRA said something to the affect that they better take this offer because if the courts ruled in favor of Moore, the next deal would only be worse for antis, the antis rejected it, CA7 ruled in favor of Moore and the antis were suddenly facing constitutional carry (or "court" carry). with a 180 day countdown.

This seems like a repeat.

If they ever expand gambling in Illinois these legislators are going to be the casino owners best customers... they're the worst gamblers since Krusty the Clown.

[maestro pistolero]

Politically sure, but she doesn't work for the entire country, she works for the State of Illinois, and she now has a window of opportunity to "win it" for Illinois.

Madigan has aspirations far beyond the State of Illinois. It's in her blood.

[JimDandy]

Madigan has aspirations far beyond the State of Illinois. It's in her blood.

And filing for Cert (and losing) doesn't cost her anything in her "base". Winning wins her base, and doesn't cost her (much of) anything in her opposition.

Edit to Add: The only thing I think that was keeping her from filing for Cert was the assumption she'd lose after the Heller and MacDonald cases. With the decision not to hear, she gets to rethink that assumption.

[press1280]

Not a good assumption on her part. She should know this case is an easier call for SCOTUS to make than Kachalsky, not to mention that she will say in her brief for cert that a circuit split exists, and Gura will no doubt agree and also ask the court to take the case.
One thing which I thought about is that both DC and Chicago after their total bans were overturned did not try to implement a "may-issue" licensing scheme for handgun possession. If the language is strong enough, perhaps that will be enough for the remaining circuit cases to be decided favorably. Not that Chicago and DC will simply roll over but "may-issue" might just be too much for them to defend.
I'm glad she's doing this though. It gives us another crack at the big one(although the folks in IL will no doubt have to wait a little longer).

[JimDandy]

It doesn't cost her anything. If she doesn't appeal, she's still lost. If she appeals and loses- A) It's not her money, and B) she's not personally worse off than before. If she had appealed before they declined to hear Kachalsky, then it looks worse for her. Now that the door is open, she has cover.

[Al Norris]

Here's what I said over at NYFirearms:

I fully expect that she will file before the mandate is in place, in order to ask for a stay of mandate, contingent upon cert. The cert stage will not end before the current Court calendar expires. So expect to hear of a grant of cert (which I also fully expect to happen) at the "Big Conference" at the end of Sept.

Since both cases were combined (for all practical purposes) at the CA7, we will see a cert brief by Madigan, then any opposition brief (in response) by both Moore (Alan Gura) and Sheppard (NRA attorney Charles Cooper). Then a final reply brief by Madigan. Along the way, there will be amici briefs filed.

Each side will present to the court what it considers the question that the Court should answer. Regardless of that, the Court itself may very well select its own question to answer, should cert be granted. I doubt that this case will answer the question of Shall/May issue, but reduce it to the absolute minimum - Does the right to self defense extend beyond the threshold of the home. That's a simple Yes/No question.

Alan Gura will still have to file for cert in Woollard, but if cert is granted in Moore, I expect that Woollard will be held. Also consider that if the CA( cases have not been decided, they will be held. And the CA# case. Even perhaps the NYC case at CA2.

Should I mention that all the cases at the trial court levels will be held? (Yeah! my PACER bill will drop to zero for almost a year!!!)

[Southwest Chuck]

Alan Gura will still have to file for cert in Woollard, but if cert is granted in Moore, I expect that Woollard will be held.

Al, what are the odds of a GVR in Woollard? Could SCOTUS conceivably take Woollard (after holding it) and tackle discretionary issue and expound on the right outside the home?

[mack59]

Madigan, Rahm, and Quinn don't have the votes to pass a restrictive may issue concealed carry bill and are afraid that a shall issue bill will pass with the June 9th deadline, so they are playing their last two cards, one to make sure a shall issue bill doesn't pass, which it won't now since the appeal process will eat up months at least and allow legislators afraid of the default carry deadline fast approaching in June an out. Meanwhile they will be free to keep trying to get the votes to pass a restrictive may issue bill. And two even if the USSC agrees to hear the case, a hearing and decision now would probably be more than a year away in late 2014. They are probably also banking that even if the USSC hears the Moore case and upholds the decision, that the court will issue a narrow decision that may rule in carry, but doesn't rule out may issue. Thus even appealing and losing the case would lose them nothing. Theoretically, if the USSC accepted the case and gave a narrow decision, there could be another election in Illinois before any action would have to be taken as a result, and thus it gives the powers that be a chance to get more gun control friendly politicians elected and pass a restrictive may issue law. The Chicago way - politics first, second, third, and always.

[Al Norris]

Chuck, it really depends upon what the actual intent of the Court is. They could GVR Woollard after a decision in Moore, or they could take Woollard and decide the issue of carry.

I see the Court taking Moore as the first step in issue of carry: Is it or is it not part and parcel of the right to self defense? A decision here, might include some hints on how to proceed with may issue/shall issue cases. That would mean a GVR.

Percolate the question with the cases already in the pipe for a couple more years before they decide to actually take another case. Past actions would indicate this route.

Mack, I suspect you are correct in how IL politics is being played out.

[Al Norris]

Justice Kagan has granted the motion to extend time for 30 days: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...is-30-day.html

At this point, Lisa Madigan will 1) file a motion to continue the stay of mandate pending cert (before the mandate is entered); or 2) file for cert and a motion to continue the stay before the mandate is entered. Either way, it (the stay) will be granted.

I strongly suspect it will be door #1.

[Luger_carbine]

Moore v Madigan challenged Illinois AUUW /UUW law, and Chicago has a similar city ordinance. Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez made a statement that CA7's decision in Moore had no bearing on Chicago ordinances since Chicago wasn't a party to the Shepard v Madigan or Moore v Madigan cases (this is the same office that employs Paul Castigliano who said

“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional...I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”

The case is Michael Hall and Kathryn Tyler v. The City of Chicago. It was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - Eastern Division, after the Moore decision (and I believe after Cook County SA's statement concerning Moore v Madigan) Docket number is 1:13-cv-00441.

Complaint:

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/ite...279068.1.0.pdf

Chicago's motion to dismiss:

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/ite...79068.19.0.pdf

The city's argument seems to be that the court cannot redress harm because even if the city ordinance were over turned - Illinois State law prohibits carrying (the law that CA7 declared unconstitutional and Justice Kagan just granted an extension on...)

But one aspect of Chicago law that is more restrictive than Illinois law is that Chicago ordinance prohibits having a firearm outside of your home - (if you remember the orals from Moore, Judge Posner and Asst AG Karl Triebel had an exchange about "the four corners" of one's home).

The city's argument to dismiss that aspect of the case is that the matter is pending before another judge.