The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 13, 2012, 07:42 AM   #276
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Most people believe that the IL AG will not appeal

Here is an article explaining what factors in to her decision, including of course, politics - meaning how it will affect a possible run by Lisa Madigan for governor:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/g...4d8f09b9c.html

Quote:
With an appeal, Madigan could also face the risk of a high-profile defeat in the nation’s highest court.

“Number one, you’re going to lose,” says John Jackson, political scientist at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. “There’s almost no chance the Supreme Court of the United States, as it’s currently composed, is going to overturn (the ruling).

“The smartest thing (for Madigan) to do,” he said, “is to leave it alone. There’s some voters in Chicago who might not like it ... but I think they’re starting to realize they’ve lost the battle.”
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 08:52 AM   #277
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,927
Honestly, as I see it, Atty. General Madigan has very little to gain from appealing the decision. As has been noted, she would be very unlikely to win an appeal to SCOTUS (either because SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal at all or because they would likely rule against her) and another loss would be something of a black mark on her resume. More importantly, however, she would probably lose a lot of support from downstate where the idea of CC is popular. Remember that unlike her father, Speaker Michael Madigan, and Chicago Mayor Emmanuel who are insulated within their own districts, Lisa Madigan holds a statewide office and needs to retain at least some support from downstate in order to advance her political career as she obviously has ambition to.

It is important to remember that last year the IL legislature passed a CC bill (they just fell a few votes short of the 2/3 majority needed to override Gov. Quinn's veto) so its probably a fairly safe assumption that the majority of downstate voters, if not the majority of all IL voters, want CC. Contradicting the will of the voters is rarely a smart political move and while many in Chicago want her to appeal, I doubt she'd actually lose all that much support by failing to do so.

She could also make a fairly convincing argument that given the deep financial problems that the State of Illinois has right now that spending even more of the taxpayers' money on an unwinnable appeal makes little sense. The die is pretty much cast at this point: IL will have CC sooner or later. The only question that remains at this point is how much time, money, and headache will Springfield expend before they get there and I just don't see Atty. General Madigan having much to gain from drawing things out any more.

Come election time, I rather doubt that this is an issue Madigan's going to want to be talking about and the sooner she can get it over with, the sooner it can begin fading from voters' memories. The politically savvy move, I think, would be to not appeal and let the fight shift into the legislature. This would serve two purposes as I see it: it would get Lisa Madigan out of the issue and shift the voters' attention to the legislature rather than her.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 10:33 AM   #278
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Still, I’m not getting my hopes up for shall issue CCW. I think it will be very limited. A few hundred permits issued, just to make it look good, then the remaining will be denied.
Mike, I wouldn't give up just yet.

Even if IL ends up with a may issue law, it may end up being effectively shall issue in places such as your county for the reason you say- your own police chief is very much in favor of the RKBA. California is a good example of this- while some places in California have the bar set so high for permit issuance that an average person has no hope of a permit, others set the bar so low that it's basically shall issue... any reason shall suffice. It depends on the sheriff. It isn't an ideal situation, but it's better than what you have now.

Even so, I would suspect that if your pro-CCW legislators dig in and stay on the same page, a shall issue bill is not as difficult to obtain as one might think. Fight the good fight.
Technosavant is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 11:13 AM   #279
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,737
As I previously cited Mayor Rahm bloviating that no police support CCW, I give you:

http://www.policeone.com/police-trai...prevent-crime/

I think that's a police site, huh - Rahm?

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 11:18 AM   #280
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
There has been some misconceptions voiced in many other gun forums, and somewhat here also. Allow me to clear up those misconceptions on points of the law, as it applies in these cases.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) apply to every circuit court.

In those rules there is a 14 day window, from the day the panel decision is posted (as "published" or "unpublished") to file a motion for en banc consideration and/or a motion for the panel to reconsider (usually both motions are made in the same filing).

In the present case (Moore/Shepard), the State has until Dec. 26th to file for en banc. Christmas being a holiday, is excluded from the count. If Lisa Madigan does not file for en banc consideration, then the 90 day clock for filing a petition for cert continues, as it started at the same time. That clock runs out on March 11th (excluding Xmas and New Years), if I have counted correctly.

Allow me to further clarify a point of law that some are misconstruing. As it stands, the law in IL is not yet unconstitutional. The panel made the following order (emphasis added):

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.
This means that the cases go back to the District Courts, and the panel orders them to declare the law(s) unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction. But the panel then added a caveat to those orders:

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.
So, at the end of this 180 day period, the District Courts will take up the cases and issue their individual declarations and permanent injunctions.

Then and only then, will the law become unconstitutional.

The IL Legislature can, in the meantime, repeal and/or amend the existing law to comply with the Circuit Court's mandate. This will have the affect of mooting the cases. Unless...

They do what Chicago did in Ezell. I don't see this happening, but one never knows.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 01:17 PM   #281
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Sorry, I got lost on the last part.

What did Chicago do in Ezell that you are referring to?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 01:44 PM   #282
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 507
Quote:
consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion,
To me, the highlighted phrase above should prevent an overly restrictive law. The judge has laid down a very strong ruling.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 01:44 PM   #283
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
All joking aside, if Illinois is to have a concealed or open carry law, then there need to be some reasonable restrictions as to who is and isn't allowed to carry. Reasonable restrictions prohibiting people from carrying who are: named Rahm, Governors of Illinois and Chicago aldermen (who have shown a propensity for criminality), Speakers of the House whose first name is Mike, and members of organizations that evidence an irrational fear of firearms such as the Brady Campaign. Additional restrictions should include places that individuals are not allowed to carry, such as showers and swimming pools as they contribute to rust.
mack59 is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 05:04 PM   #284
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
One reason the city might want to craft its own ordinance, they said, is that Chicago's gang problem is unique in Illinois.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2292585.html

From the latest out of Chicago.

Didn't the court just rule that Illinois was not unique and had to fall in line with the SCOTUS rulings? Its like the Twilight Zone there in Chi-town.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 05:54 PM   #285
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
... And the 28J letter in Richards is filed.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Richards28jMoore.pdf (126.8 KB, 39 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 06:27 PM   #286
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
^^

Al,

Give the 30 second executive summary on the meaning of this?


Thanks,

Willie


.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 06:56 PM   #287
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 688
Excellent and quick work by both Al's (Gura and Norris) as usual.
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 10:57 PM   #288
dsa1115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 428
What I find interesting about this case is that it could have national consequences. If Lisa Madigan wants to appeal to the US Supreme Court, it could invite justices to expand earlier decisions and in effect limit restrictions on concealed carry in other states besides Illinois. Could the Justices rule that "may issue" laws in states like California, Massachusetts and New York are unconstitutional, and that all states must be shall issue? New York City and Washington DC CCW bans too could be ruled unconstitutional. After all, the Illinois Appellate ruling basically said the CCW ban violates a constitutional right to bear arms "outside the home". If Madigan wants to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, national gun control advocates better be careful what they wish for, because if the US Supreme Court concurs with the Illinois Appellate Court, ramifications go far beyond Illinois.
dsa1115 is offline  
Old December 14, 2012, 12:12 AM   #289
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Could the Justices rule that "may issue" laws in states like California, Massachusetts and New York are unconstitutional, and that all states must be shall issue?
Not with this case. They would affirm the 7th Circuit's ruling. Like Heller saying nothing about bearing arms in public, it'll take another case like the one in Maryland or New York to spell the death knell of "may issue."
__________________
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 14, 2012, 12:23 AM   #290
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Willie, the 30 second meaning for both the Richards and Woollard 28J's are: In Moore, the 7th Circuit said that carry for self-defense is the core right. The people must be able to exercise that right in some form both inside and outside of the home. The 7th Circuit also called into question the Kachalsky decision from the 2nd Circuit and criticized their historical interpretation by saying the history used by the Heller Court precludes the history used by the dissenters in Heller.

das1115, I can almost guarantee that should Lisa Madigan petition for cert, it will be denied. Add to this, that she would be spending political capital she cannot afford to lose. She could motion for reconsideration/en banc and she might even get it. Chances are good that the CA7 would grant the en banc hearing. That would automatically stay the current panel decision, because that decision would be rescinded. That would stall everything for about a year.

But if the en banc court affirms the panels decision, Madigan again loses capital she cannot afford to lose (see, she wants to run for Governor and needs every Democratic vote she can garner). Madigan has less than an even chance of winning this case.

Now let's assume she does file the petition for cert and the Court grants it. I firmly feel the Court will affirm Judge Posner's decision. That would cast the right to carry inside and outside the home as a national right. That would be disastrous for the anti-gun crowd. Madigan is much smarter than that (Chicago isn't, but that's another thread).

The case to be watching is Woollard. Should that decision be in our favor, then a clear circuit split would force the Court to take Kachalsky. While there is a technical split between the 2nd Circuit and the 7th Circuit, it is very slight. Not enough at this point in time for the Court to worry about it.

At the moment, I really believe the Court is simply watching what percolates out of the circuit courts. That's why I don't think the Court would grant cert in the Moore/Shepard decision.

Here's some internal courtroom politics to think about!

The 2nd Circuit basically says that the right to carry exists outside the home, but it is far removed from the Heller decision and therefore can be regulated away (the panel stated they were using intermediate scrutiny, but it was in fact, rational basis) to the point it doesn't exist for the common man.

Judge Legg however, said that the right exists outside the home and cannot be regulated out of existence. Judge Posner used some very strong words, in a well crafted decision, to say much the same thing.

That puts the CA4 panel in a quandary. No circuit intentionally wants to create a split. So their choice is to affirm Judge Legg's decision, creating a split with the CA2, or dismissing Judge Posner's legal acumen. Rock? Meet hard place!

Also recall from the oral arguments that this panel (CA4) appeared to be woefully ignorant of the basic issues. I really can't make a call on which way they will decide.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 14, 2012, 07:53 AM   #291
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 345
I made a comment earlier in this thread about the people wrongly arrested getting their records cleared on post 216.
Quote:
Now, the people of Illinois that have been wrongly arrested and weapons confiscated need to file suits on the state and towns for getting their records cleaned up, their firearms replaced at city and state cost, et al!
Their arrests can be expunged in the cases of otherwise honest citizens.
I was asked what I based it on. Today, Annie Dookhan made news in Boston by tampering with evidence. She isn't the first to do this, http://www.vice.com/read/hey-boston-...drug-criminals, but things happen.
I believe otherwise honest citizens arrested under the unconstitutionally of Ill. law can and should seek restitution. Too many restrictive states and cities love building arrest stats and guns removed from the streets by getting citizens on technicalities such as stepping outside the house with a firearm to go to the range but doing it 'wrongly', or whatever instead of arresting criminal. imho, of course.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old December 14, 2012, 07:58 AM   #292
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 345
Darn, I see Don H posted a more relevant rely on post 226.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Don H, I think his rationale is that this particular change will have been due to the prior law having just been ruled unconstitutional. IE, it was not "changed," it was invalidated.

I had time to do some research and came across this tidbit:

Quote:
38 ALR Fed. 617
"Where subsequently to the petitioner's conviction the United States Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals renders a decision holding unconstitutional, as applied to the petitioner, the federal statute under which he had been convicted, the courts have held such decision to be a sufficient or proper ground for granting a petition for a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 to vacate the petitioner's federal conviction, even though the sentence had already been served."

So it appears that a conviction under a federal statute later determined to be unconstitutional can be vacated. It seems reasonable that a similar relief would be available for a conviction under an unconstitutional state statute. I haven't yet run across anything that allows a civil action for damages or to recoup expenses. Perhaps one of our legal experts will be able to address this aspect?

I wish I wasn't so obtuse.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old December 14, 2012, 11:54 AM   #293
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,288
News (or lack therof) about Moore

As a sidelight, there have been articles on the Moore decision in the local TV stations based out of Illinois, but deafening silence on the national news media. I watched NBC both days after the decision to see what Brian Williams had to say, but no mention was made of it. I guess they're operating under the delusion that if you just ignore that horrid thing, it'll go away!
__________________
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 14, 2012, 12:30 PM   #294
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 553
The Lost Angles Times has been silent also. WSJ did a good article.

It's like the destruction of the tent in Lansing and Steven Crowder getting slugged, a few days ago. If information (and ideas) can be kept out of the echo chamber, the event never happened or the ideas don't exist.

Reality will intrude finally, like gravity, prefaced by the word "unexpectedly".

Thanks for your commentary, Al.
__________________
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 December 14, 2012, 04:12 PM   #295
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
I thought the national media might be silent on it because no one in the media realizes the national implications of the Moore decision, but I think there's more to it than that.

There is a priest in Chicago name Michael Phleger who is a gun control activist, and another gun control activist - Lee Goodman, who created "Stop Concealed Carry Coalition" and created an Internet petition and got 7,000 or so signatures. That got a lot of media attention.

The ISRA had something like 14,000 people show up for a protest march at the state capital - and according to the ISRA and Illinoiscarry.com - no media coverage.

10 counties in Illinois had carry referendums on the ballot on Nov 6th and they passed. A quick count of the number of votes for those referendums comes out to be over 100,000 voters. Sometimes a small blurb about 10 counties passing a non-binding referendum - no mention of the thousands and thousands of voters behind it.

It's just odd that the media can mention that Stop Concealed Carry Coalition has 7,000 signatures and not metion the other numbers I've listed.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 14, 2012, 05:12 PM   #296
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luger_carbine
It's just odd that the media can mention that Stop Concealed Carry Coalition has 7,000 signatures and not metion the other numbers I've listed.
It seems most of the time the media only publishes what promotes the media agenda. That can be seen in political, environmental, crime reporting, etc. It's pretty pervasive in this country and a darn shame that often the most neutral reporting on American issues is to be found in the foreign media. It's a sad state of affairs when more truth can be found in Pravda (<---small funny) than in the New York Times.
Don H is offline  
Old December 14, 2012, 10:39 PM   #297
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don H
It's a sad state of affairs when more truth can be found in Pravda (<---small funny) than in the New York Times.
That's not a funny -- when I was involved with a Russian woman some years ago I started looking at Pravda, and I found that their reporting on events in the U.S. was generally accurate, and surprisingly free of malice and propaganda. It may have more of a slant today, but it can't be any more slanted than our own major media outlets.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old December 15, 2012, 11:34 AM   #298
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Actually, I was referring to the play on words.

Al Jazeera can be quite neutral and thought-provoking on non-Islamic news in general. Their coverage of Islamic issues can be surprisingly pithy, pointed and controversial. A number of Islamic countries have shut Al Jazeera offices down or arrested reporters because their reporting was deemed to be too critical of the government.
Don H is offline  
Old December 16, 2012, 04:31 PM   #299
NukemJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2002
Posts: 279
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.

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 16, 2012, 05:01 PM   #300
ming
Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2009
Posts: 65
The opinion did not specify May/Shall.
ming 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 06:14 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 0.21926 seconds with 8 queries