Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

[esqappellate]

He or any 7th Circuit Judge can request an answer. Rule 5(b) of the internal procedures says he must make that request within 14 days of the distribution of the petition. A request for an answer does not trigger review. Indeed, such a request does not mean necessarily that he will request a vote after the answer, but a request for an answer means the petition has raised the interest of at least one judge. Under the internal operating procedures, a judge then has 14 days after an answer is filed to request a vote and then another 14 days for everyone to vote on the petition. (see "whichever is later"). En banc is not granted unless a majority of the active judges vote for it.

[esqappellate]

We can wonder no longer. Attached.

[Patriot86]

And there goes Lisa's chances of ever running for Gov. in Illinois.

[esqappellate]

Ii am not up on Illinois politics, but I would be surprised if that stopped her. Political ambition knows few bounds.

[Patriot86]

@esqappellate:
Not to go too far off topic but Illinois politics basically mandates that you get a good showing outside of the Metro-Chicago area or you don't win. That means winning over moderates "Down State" if you want to win.


This move without a doubt is going to push a lot of moderates downstate away from her.
She might TRY to run in a primary against our current Gov. Quinn, but it has all but been announced that Bill Daley (Ex-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's brother) is going to run for Gov. He would probably beat the both of them in the primary.

Our current Gov. is so unpopular right now the political establishment pretty much has to pick someone to run against him in a primary if they hope to fend off an as yet unknown Republican Challenger.

Mind you that’s IF Quinn runs for Re-election at all. The powers that be could still convince him its time to step aside and let someone else have a go at it.

On another interesting note, just to provide some context on how things work here in Illinois:
Unlike many states the Gov. is not all that powerful. At best he is #3 "in charge". The Agenda is set primarily by the speaker of the house Mike Madigan (Lisa's dad) and the Mayor of Chicago.

[USA SHARK]

Excuse my ignorance, but in laymen's terms, what does all of this mean and what will happen next for those of us in Illinois?

[Patriot86]

USA: I would say if you have not already you should check out http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/

It will without a doubt be a big topic over there.

I am no legal expert but as I understand it the court has (10?) days to decide if they will rehear the case En Banc. If they do then the 180 day "count down" goes out the window and everything is in limbo until they rehear the case.

As I understand it, someone correct me if I am wrong IF the 7th decides not to re-hear the case En-Banc then they can toss out the 180 day count down all together.

This still leaves an appeal, one way or the other to the SCOTUS open though.

[Luger_carbine]

I thought they had 10 days to respond to the AG also, but I don't think so. I am having trouble understanding the process, but if the judges have 14 days to decide if they want to review the case or not - that obviously exceeds 10 days.

I'm not even sure if they have to notify a petitioner, but it seems like it would be (14+14) 28 days before a decision is made to vote on en banc review. And then another 14 days befre the vote actually takes place.

[esqappellate]

As noted above, the internal rules of the 7th Circuit give a judge 14 days to ask for an answer to the petition. If there is no request for an answer or no request for a vote in 14 days, the panel can deny the en banc petition. If an answer is ordered, the court will set the time for that filing, generally 14 days but that can vary. It could be longer than 14 days. If the request for answer is made on the 14th day and the winner has 14 days to file, the court has another 14 days to consider the answer and call for a vote. If the vote grants en banc rehearing, that is immediately released and acts to vacate the panel's decision. So it could be 14 + 14 + 14 plus time to allow for distribution of the petition and distribution of the answer to the full court.

EDit; A judge is supposed to request a vote within 10 days of the distribution of the answer:
See Rule 5(a): (a) Request for Answer and Subsequent Request for Vote. If a petition for rehearing en banc is filed, a request for an answer (which may be made by any Seventh Circuit judge in regular active service or by any member of the panel that rendered the decision sought to be reheard) must be made within 14 days after the distribution of the en banc petition. If an answer is requested, the clerk shall notify the prevailing party that an answer be filed within 14 days from the date of the court's request. Within 10 days of the distribution of the answer, any judge entitled to request an answer, may request a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc.

[bitttorrrent]

As I understand it, someone correct me if I am wrong IF the 7th decides not to re-hear the case En-Banc then they can toss out the 180 day count down all together.

I thought that this does not affect the 180 day time table. If this appeal request is not granted in the 10-14 day period from now than the 180 day is still on the table?

Not surprising that Lisa Madigan would do this. She probably consulted with her Dad and the Mayor about what to do. She would have received too much backlash if she did not put up a fight.

Way to waste my money on something that was already decided. Hopefully the judges will see the waste in this and move on by not granting an appeal.

I am still picking out my concealed carry gun and by the time the 180 days is up I might have just located a S&W Shield so I am not too worried.

[Luger_carbine]

Thanks esqappellate

[esqappellate]

if en banc is granted the 180 day stay is moot as a grant of rehearing en banc acts to vacate the panel opinion. The cert time would then run from en banc court's decision and the en banc court can stay or not stay its decision as it sees fit. If rehearing is denied, then the cert time runs from the date of the denial but the 180 days stay remains in effect, unchanged, unless the panel changes it or a stay pending a petition for cert is ordered under the Rules.

[Al Norris]

LOL! ... And some of you have wondered why I make so many mistakes!

Thanks, esqappellate for this education.

[esqappellate]

Al From what I have seen you seldom make *any* mistakes of any consequence.

[Al Norris]

Really? OK, how about this one:

Having only skimmed the petition, my mind has changed. The 7th is likely to grant cert.

The arguments by Madigan, on the surface. are quite strong (even if I think they are ultimately merit-less). Strong enough the the court may very well want to hear the case in full.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

is there any chance of this being reversed?

[esqappellate]

There is always a chance of reversal on rehearing. If en banc is granted, that's bad, as by definition, a majority of the court has already voted to vacate the panel opinion. And there is no doubt that invalidating a state statute is always a big deal, particularly a state statute imposing gun control (especially in the current political climate). That all said, Rule 35 imposes a tough standard, requiring an intercircuit or intracircuit conflict and the petition notwithstanding, there is no such direct conflict here. Still, the issue is clearly important so it is a close call. I'll have a better feel if they ask for an answer and I get a chance to see what Gura says in that answer.

[bitttorrrent]

if en banc is granted the 180 day stay is moot as a grant of rehearing en banc acts to vacate the panel opinion. The cert time would then run from en banc court's decision and the en banc court can stay or not stay its decision as it sees fit. If rehearing is denied, then the cert time runs from the date of the denial but the 180 days stay remains in effect, unchanged, unless the panel changes it or a stay pending a petition for cert is ordered under the Rules

Very nice esqappellate
Ok, let me get a law dictionary!

My Uncle and Sister are attorneys in my family. I think I will just try to read what you guys are saying and follow along as things progress.

en banc - the whole panel of judges? How many is that?

[btmj]

For us non-attorneys (I am a confused engineer), how did these judicial rules get set up, and who set them up.... a quick review of the constitution reveals nothing about time limits for en banc appeals... was this all set up by legislation? Or do the courts themselves set up these rules?

[esqappellate]

en banc means all the circuit judges, rather than a 3 judge panel. There are different numbers of judges on each circuit, same principle. (There is a different rule in the 9th Circuit, which uses 11 judge en banc panels with the possibility of the entire court hearing a true en banc from that -- hasn't happened). The basic procedures are established in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which are established by the SCT (mostly through advisory committees) and enacted by Congress. Here rehearing and rehearing en banc are governed by Rules 35 (en banc) and 40 (panel rehearing). These rules have the force of law. Then each of the circuits establish internal procedures by local rule, which don't have the force of law but guide the court and the parties in litigation before that court. Does that help?

[btmj]

Yes, thanks. So legislative branch approves the rules which are recommended by the judicial branch. This makes sense to me.

[esqappellate]

Yes, see Henderson v. U.S., 517 U.S. 654, 116 S.Ct. 1638 U.S.Tex.,1996)("In the Rules Enabling Act, Congress ordered that, in matters of “practice and procedure,” 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a), the Federal Rules shall govern, and “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect,” § 2072(b).")

[Contrast Man]

Just heard on the local news (WGN) that Madigan is petitioning the 7th Dist. to "reconsider their decision, as it grants more gun freedoms than the past two federal rulings combined." (This is from the morning news report, I don't have a text source)

I shouldn't be surprised to hear this, yet I still am. Too many gun freedoms, just from being able to carry like every other state (in some form) in the US?

I'm not quite sure what kind of "petition" this is, be it an actual submission to the court or just a press release. It's a ridiculous statement regardless.

[bitttorrrent]

Yes, thanks Esq. I'll get this lingo whether I want to or not.

[Al Norris]

Contrast Man, you are a bit behind things. This petition for a rehearing has been the exclusive discussion of this thread for the last two pages.

Bittorrent, just keep reading all the posts I make... It's almost a course in how the courts operate and what the various filings mean in plain language.