|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 9, 2013, 04:35 PM | #576 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
The unfortunate part of this is that the 7th circuit's decision is now made moot. |
|
July 9, 2013, 05:32 PM | #577 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 147
|
Illinois has enacted a concealed carry law
Both houses on the Illinois General Assembly (House and Senate) passed a "Shall Issue" law subject to a long list of prohibited places. Nevertheless, it was at least a "start". However, at the "eleventh hour" the Governor issued a "veto" that was (permissible under the Illinois Conxtitution) also an offer of several acceptable changes. That veto was overriden today and Illinois now has a concealed carry law. It will be 9-12 months before any licenses are issued. And, there are some real flaws, but Illinois has joined the other 49 states with some kind of concealed cary allowed.
|
July 9, 2013, 05:43 PM | #578 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Merging threads.
The Senate voted 41-17 to override Governor Quinn's veto today. My question is this: does this mean that the stuff Quinn added as part of his amendatory veto gets the axe? If so, Illinois still has a flawed carry law. 16 hours of required training, a ban on public transportation, and a ban on carry in establishments serving alcohol are still big hurdles.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
July 9, 2013, 06:00 PM | #579 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 1, 1999
Location: IL
Posts: 309
|
Yes, it does. Quinn's amendatory nonsense goes away immediately.
You are correct, though, it is a flawed bill. It is however light years beyond what we had which was nothing at all. We will continue to work and try to get the more onerous parts of the bill taken out as time goes on. Congrats to those who worked so hard to get this far. |
July 9, 2013, 06:00 PM | #580 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,495
|
The analysis I read said that Quinn's amendments are void. The law is enacted as it was originally passed.
Congratulations to Illinois on finally having (almost) concealed carry. It has not escaped my notice, also, that Illinois now replaces Texas for having the most burdensome training requirement of all states. |
July 9, 2013, 06:22 PM | #581 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2013, 06:38 PM | #582 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The judgment made by the CA7 panel is not moot. It stands on its own.
What is now moot are the 2 cases that initiated the judgment. Madigan can not now appeal anything. The two statutes at contention, should they still exist, are still barred from being enforced. That's the force of the injunction. But Illinois has passed into law a method of carry (onerous as it may seem to be to some of us) that meets the criteria set out by the opinion in Moore and Sheppard. At this point in time, that's all that matters or all that really counts. Is this law constitutional, as passed? The courts will presume it is. There is at least one other case in IL federal courts that will be affected by this change in the laws. Review the docket in Benson v. Chicago. The last entry is informative. |
July 9, 2013, 06:58 PM | #583 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,495
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2013, 07:50 PM | #584 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 10, 2009
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 976
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2013, 08:48 PM | #585 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
To challenge the ban on public transit carry we need a plaintiff that for some reason can't drive, but is otherwise OK to pack. Please God NOT because of DUI convictions! Lemme think...epileptic? (scratches head)...amputee of some sort? Or some other wheelchair-bound individual?
The other answer is to prove that blacks take the bus in higher numbers by proportion, that this was well understood and that there's a deliberate racial bias in the rule. Call it the "Hunter v. Underwood" attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_v._Underwood It'd be hard to prove that was the intent though. Pretty damn obvious what the barsterds were doing but...the courts would want proof. The final option is an equal protection "scrutiny test". Get it bumped to strict scrutiny and it's a win as many other states allow packing on public transit with no problems. Intermediate...hmmm...might still win. Rational basis we'd get reamed.
__________________
Jim March |
July 9, 2013, 09:00 PM | #586 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
The law does allow church carry, voids all of Chicago's handgun laws, allows transport of firearms unloaded and encased in many areas - like public transit where carry is barred, makes it legal for a carrier to leave their gun in their car even in places that bar firearms such as schools, employers, etc..., creating a safe harbor in one's car, and allows carry in businesses except those that have 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol, so one can carry in a restaurant or business that serves alcohol, just not bars.
|
July 9, 2013, 09:08 PM | #587 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Very happy with the precedent. There are a few things we'd all agree on changing, specifically public transportation. However, outside of Downtown Chicago, the vast vast majority of concealed carries wont be drastically affected by this.
I can only hope that Cali comes next. Sigh
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
July 10, 2013, 09:08 AM | #588 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, Lisa Madigan filed a Motion to Dismiss for mootness, with the District Courts in both cases.
This will be granted and then the wrangling over fees (NRA and SAF are the prevailing parties) will begin. ETA: Because RECAP is refusing to work properly, here is the MTD. Last edited by Al Norris; July 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM. Reason: added file |
July 10, 2013, 11:26 AM | #589 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I'm so disappointed that Shepard/Moore is not going to SCOTUS.
It was such a good case, both plaintiffs were great plaintiffs and what Posner wrote was brilliant. |
July 10, 2013, 05:03 PM | #590 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Illinois State Rifle Association files for relief
http://wuis.org/post/gun-group-deman...arry-next-week
I can't find the motion but basically the ISRA is saying that the state has not met the deadline and is still violating citizen's rights. The law sets some timelines and I think CCW for Illinois citizens is actually 6 months out. Quote:
|
|
July 10, 2013, 05:35 PM | #591 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here's the relevant portion of the Sheppard docket, with links to the motions:
Quote:
|
|
July 11, 2013, 10:17 AM | #592 |
Member
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 57
|
Good reads... the responses, that is.
Al... what do you think is the likelihood that the 7th will compel Illinois to accept FOID's as carry permits? Just the thought of that happening is exquisite. Such a bitch-slapping would be epic! Dan |
July 11, 2013, 10:21 AM | #593 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 105
|
Given that the Ill Foid card is not even listed as a proper form of ID to cash a check, I think that's a little doubtful. Great idea though.
|
July 11, 2013, 10:54 AM | #594 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Stay has expired and the Mandate has issued. That means that the finding of the 7th Circuit prevail: That the UUW and AUUW statutes are now unconstitutional, as a stand-alone premise.
The district court Judge is now caught between a rock and a hard place. Unlike in Ezell, where the City changed the law that was complained and was enacted with emergency provisions, the law here remains the same... At least for the next nine months. Since the ISP has stated that it will continue to enforce the UUW and AUUW statutes, the judge really has no leeway. Judge Stiehl must issue a preliminary or permanent injunction, as nothing has actually changed (I will admit that I hadn't thought this through, with everything else that happened on the 9th). The only question is when the injunction will issue, not if. Judge Myerscough (Moore v. Madigan) is manifestly aware of all of this, hence calling for a rebuttal to the MTD in the companion case. She did not have to do this, but probably doesn't want to get caught in the wringer, like the Judge in Ezell. Now, as to the possibility of FOID carry... That I will wait to see what the State has to say, before I really can opine on that happening. Now these are all my best guesses and suppositions. Remember, I'm no attorney.... Those who are, may be along at any minute to confirm or change my premise. |
July 11, 2013, 01:05 PM | #595 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Here is the statement from ISRA:
Quote:
|
|
July 11, 2013, 01:09 PM | #596 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I don't see any legal logic in tying the FOID to RTKBA in Illinois in absence of the defunct AUUW/UUW law, though it makes sense politically.
FOID provision and AUUW / UUW were different statutes. |
July 11, 2013, 01:11 PM | #597 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
I imagine Ms. Madigan will waltz up to the 7th circuit requesting (yet another) stay...
|
July 11, 2013, 01:19 PM | #598 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
ISRA lawsuit
Mary Sheppard sued because she couldn't carry; she won; the court's timeline for relief has expired; and she still can't carry.
I hope a judge gets to this in the year long window of opportunity we have. |
July 11, 2013, 01:47 PM | #599 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
If I'm not mistaken, the court said
Quote:
|
|
July 11, 2013, 04:35 PM | #600 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
180 + 30 = 210 days. Now add the 270 days the State has granted itself....
|
|
|