Quote:
|
This just gave Illinois license to copy New York's statute.
|
Legally, perhaps.
Politically, ain't gonna happen. There's way more than enough pro-gun IL legicritters to block any may-issue bill. And if no new law happens, the whole state goes Vermont Carry...so the grabbers are the ones strongly motivated to make a deal.
Here's how I see the fallout:
* Illinois: Madigan now has to calculate whether to appeal the state's loss in Moore to the US Supremes. If she doesn't the 7th Circuit's holding in Moore stands, which means all existing IL carry bans (open or concealed) vanish in...what, July, right? And it's dicey whether any new law will replace them at all, and if it does it'll be shall-issue, not may-issue.
* California: there are now three carry cases before the 9th Circuit, two involving California. Because the Supremes have decided not to do anything (yet) they now have no grounds to hold off those decisions. In both the California cases lower-court Federal judges said that fair access to concealed carry could be withheld only so long as open-carry (unloaded) was legal. Well the next year, the morons in the California legislature banned unloaded open carry. Whoops. So those are now major hot potatos.
* Hawaii: This is probably the only state now at risk of going may-issue based on the "logic" in Kachalski. Technically they're may-issue now, in practice they're zero-issue (which is at issue in the 9th Circuit case involving them, right?).
* Maryland: Alan Gura is trying for a reconsideration in Woolard en banc. With the US Supremes side-stepping the question for now there's a better chance of an en banc hearing.
* The Remaining May-Issue States: Alabama is now finally going formally shall-issue (via legislation) after being practically shall-issue for years. The remaining may-issue states will rely on Kachalsky for a while...Mass, DE and what, a few others left?
Upshot: I think the US Supremes are going to let things shake out in the lower courts a little more before speaking on this issue. I think they want to see what the Woolard en banc thing holds, see what the 9th does in their three cases, etc. Remember, the exact method of saying there's a "right to bear arms" is complex: is it a right to "Vermont Carry"? A right to open carry where concealed permits aren't a right? And so on.
I think (I sure as hell hope!) that Kachalski just came too early in the cycle.