The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 9, 2013, 04:35 PM   #576
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
So now the only question is when will little Lisa go running to the SC pleading for a stay. Or will little Paddie boy run down to the SC behind her back? But you gotta know that the line in Vegas is 10:1 in favor of the petition. Its now just a matter of when...........

Stay Tuned. Here we go again.......
Huh? State AG's don't generally file suit against their own state's laws, much though they might like to. Moreover, there's no federal issue here. Ms. Madigan mayn't like that Illinois is now a shall-issue state, but she has no standing upon which to change that (administrative sour-grapes foot-dragging aside).

The unfortunate part of this is that the 7th circuit's decision is now made moot.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 05:32 PM   #577
hgmeyer
Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 95
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.
hgmeyer is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 05:43 PM   #578
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,258
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.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 06:00 PM   #579
PoiDog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 1999
Location: IL
Posts: 219
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.
PoiDog is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 06:00 PM   #580
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,326
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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 06:22 PM   #581
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
It has not escaped my notice, also, that Illinois now replaces Texas for having the most burdensome training requirement of all states.
Shhhhhhh....people might realize that Tejas isn't the gun owners' paradise it's so widely reported to be.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 06:38 PM   #582
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 06:58 PM   #583
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss
Shhhhhhh....people might realize that Tejas isn't the gun owners' paradise it's so widely reported to be.
[whisper]Sorry! Didn't intend to spill the beans.[/whisper]
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 07:50 PM   #584
Armybrat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2009
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 211
Quote:
It has not escaped my notice, also, that Illinois now replaces Texas for having the most burdensome training requirement of all states.
Texas, as of September 1st, cut the first time CHL course hours down to 4-6 plus range qualification, and to renew, no class time at all.
Armybrat is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 08:48 PM   #585
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,306
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
Jim March is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 09:00 PM   #586
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
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.
mack59 is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 09:08 PM   #587
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
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
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 09:08 AM   #588
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Moore MTD as Moot.pdf (75.5 KB, 3 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.

Last edited by Al Norris; July 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM. Reason: added file
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 11:26 AM   #589
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
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.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 05:03 PM   #590
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
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:
The Rifle Association believes lawmakers did not meet their deadline because the state's ban on carrying guns outside the home remains in effect. Newly filed motions ask the U.S. District Court to allow people to carry by next Tuesday, July 16.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 05:35 PM   #591
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
Here's the relevant portion of the Sheppard docket, with links to the motions:


Quote:
2013-07-09 73 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) by Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn. Responses due by 8/12/2013 (Triebel, Karl) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

2013-07-10 74 RESPONSE to Motion re 73 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)

2013-07-10 75 MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)

2013-07-10 76 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Plaintiffs' re 75 MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 10:17 AM   #592
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 54
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
Dan F is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 10:21 AM   #593
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
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.
godot is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 10:54 AM   #594
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 01:05 PM   #595
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Here is the statement from ISRA:

Quote:
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District, Benton, Illinois division, to dismiss the Illinois State Rifle Association and Mary Shepard case. Lisa Madigan is saying that since Illinois has passed a concealed carry law, the case is moot and should be dismissed.

On Wednesday, July 10, attorneys for the Illinois State Rifle Association and Mary Shepard filed a motion requesting a permanent injunction against the State of Illinois because even though the concealed carry bill has passed, people are still not allowed the right to carry and won't be for at least another 270 days. In short, our civil rights are still being violated even though the concealed carry bill has passed. Furthermore, because neither the federal court decision nor the new Carry Act have repealed the AUUW and UUW statutes, law enforcement will continue to enforce both statutes unless a citizen has a valid carry license. We have asked for immediate relief by Tuesday, July 16, 2013. We are asking that citizens with FOID cards be allowed to carry in compliance with provisions in HB0183. We will keep you informed with the court's decision.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 01:09 PM   #596
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
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.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 01:11 PM   #597
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
I imagine Ms. Madigan will waltz up to the 7th circuit requesting (yet another) stay...
csmsss is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 01:19 PM   #598
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 203
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.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 01:47 PM   #599
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
If I'm not mistaken, the court said
Quote:
This court’s mandate is STAYED until July 9, 2013. No further extensions to stay the court’s mandate will be granted.
The state was given a total of 110 days right?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 04:35 PM   #600
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
180 + 30 = 210 days. Now add the 270 days the State has granted itself....
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris 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 10:18 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 0.20508 seconds with 8 queries