|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 6, 2013, 09:18 AM | #376 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Quote:
Or a final disposition of the en banc process? Does the court notify the parties privately? |
|
February 6, 2013, 12:52 PM | #377 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The court has no real obligation to "post" anything, until they are ready.
Under the circumstances, if no vote is called for, I suspect the court will notify the parties in short order. If the vote is called for, then it can be a matter of weeks before we here anything, one way or another. |
February 7, 2013, 06:32 PM | #378 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Wouldn't they have to notify the defendant - Illinois AG? Her clock for appealing to SCOTUS is ticking away, if no one called for a vote and the 10 days expired, it would be rotten not to tell the defendant and just let days continue to tick off the cert clock...
|
February 7, 2013, 08:44 PM | #379 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
February 18, 2013, 08:19 PM | #380 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Now that the judges are all rested up with their three day weekend federal holiday, well hear something on this case finally
|
February 19, 2013, 12:51 PM | #381 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 235
|
Yes, you would think we would hear something!
I did notice Rahm Emanual (Chicago-Mayor) has rammed through a few new updates on penalties and fines for gun owners. No big deal, but interesting how quick he can pass things. Will be interesting how big of a deal he makes out of passing a new concealed carry ordinance. |
February 19, 2013, 06:27 PM | #382 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I'm not sure Chicago passed any new ordinances - do you have a link?
What I did see was a press statement from Mayor Emanual with Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez calling for longer sentences for felons caught with firearms, They seemed unaware of current Illinois law since the prison terms they were calling for fell within the current range. They were calling for 5 year terms for repeat offenders and the law currently allows judges to sentence between 3 and 7 years. They also asked that "felon with a weapon" conviction be part of the truth in sentencing guidelines which would mandate that anyone convicted would have to serve 85% of their sentence But I don't think any of that was prompted by the Moore decision or CCW bills in the Illinois General Assembly. Hadiya Hadiya Pendleton, who participated in Obama inauguration festivities, was murdered by Michael Ward, a convicted felon out on parole for a weapons charge. I think the press conference was damage control because they knew that 2A advocates would cite lax laws for felons, lax parole guidlines, monitoring and reporting, and sentencing as the problem - not the object used to commit the murder. I haven't heard of any new laws. |
February 20, 2013, 10:11 AM | #383 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 235
|
Yes, your are right, updates to current, not new. But the point being that the media took hold, had it on the news and then it was passed relatively quickly.
I can't find the link, it is gone. Yes, and I agree about the tragic H. Pendleton shooting. Now that the truth in that it was a felon on parole, they cannot blame responsible citizens who own and register guns. It is the same story over and over. The laws on the books are for citizens, not the animals that ignore all laws and do what they want. That has been the problem on the (mostly) south side since forever. Quote:
But, thanks, I have not seen anything really new on the present discussion on the upcoming Concealed Carry. |
|
February 20, 2013, 04:16 PM | #384 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
The Illinois Supreme Court can't defy the circuit court can they?
I don't think it would happen but what happens if the IL Supreme Court doesn't actually strike down Illinois UUW law? (assuming no en banc and no appeal)
I don't understand this noise coming from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office: http://watchdog.org/70103/cook-count...-court-ruling/ |
February 20, 2013, 04:37 PM | #385 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I hope I get my previous question answered -"can IL Supreme Court refuse to stirke down IL UUW law"
But anyway, I found this video about the recent hearings il IL and the first 4 minutes is a great summation of Heller to Moore and the current situation in IL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lldcs9LVH8 |
February 20, 2013, 04:37 PM | #386 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Hmmm . . . According to the article:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
February 20, 2013, 05:33 PM | #387 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
February 20, 2013, 06:39 PM | #388 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The vote was set for last Friday. Since we have not heard anything, it is pretty safe to assume that there will be no en banc or rehearing. The Court would have notified the parties by now, if there was going to be a rehearing. What we are now waiting for is for a dissenting opinion. Once that is written and notice is given, the clock for time to file for certiorari will start (90 days from that point).
However, the clock for the stay, has been and still is, ticking away. Should AG Madigan file for cert, she can then ask for an extension of the stay, but (generally) not before she files. |
February 20, 2013, 07:41 PM | #389 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
HarrySchell, that's not my quote. What you have in quotes is something that I quoted from the article.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 21, 2013, 11:49 AM | #390 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Quote from the opinion:
Quote:
Does the Illinois Supreme Court take direction from CA7 -would they, on day 181 write an injunction and declare Illinois UUW law unconstitutional, or do they just stand by and do nothing because they don't have to do anything... Regardless of if this guy Paul Gastiglione for Cook County is right or wrong, I'm curious now about the process and the state supreme court's role in it. |
|
February 21, 2013, 12:01 PM | #391 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Spats, sorry to be unclear.
What I meant to say was that you very kindly said the author of the quote was "deeply mistaken". I thought it was a very diplomatic and graceful way to describe the man.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
February 21, 2013, 02:47 PM | #392 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
^ He is policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office advising Illinois lawmakers that there is no need for a new law because even after 180 day stay set out by CA7 - current Illinois law is still in force unless and until the Illinois Supreme Court strikes the UUW law down.
I don't know if Chicago Police & Cook County Sherrif's are going to buy into that, but it could make for some interesting civil action for deprivation of rights cases. |
February 21, 2013, 04:02 PM | #393 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, the Illinois Supreme Court will not write an injunction on day 181. There is not case pending before it, so it has no jurisdiction to do so. It does not have jurisdiction over the parties or the case. An federal court of appeals has declared that the statute, as written, violates the 2A. Now that the 2A has been incorporated to the states, Illinois law has to be permissible under the 2A. If it is unconstitutional under federal law, it doesn't much matter whether it passes muster on a state level. Harry: Thank you. I was trying to be nice about it.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
February 21, 2013, 05:12 PM | #394 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Here is the essential information from the below link on where things stand in the legislature. There are past opponents to CCW that are defecting from Chicago. Support is building for the shall issue bill and no growing support for a may issue bill - many legislators who opposed CCW before the 7th Circuits decision do not believe may issue would be acceptable to the court so they have essentially moved into the shall issue camp. Now they are arguing about details of shall issue and feeling the pressure of having a working law in place before the deadline.
"Gun control supporters in the Illinois Democratic party talked a pretty good game for the most part at the Illinois House Judiciary hearing earlier this week on guns, but in a closed door meeting yesterday, they were set straight as to the reality of things." and "House Democrats were given a lesson in the real-world consequences of ignoring the Seventh Circuit ruling when the 180-day stay expires on June 8th. The technical review staff (legal beagles) told the Democrats that Alvarez was all wet in her office’s pronouncement and that inaction on passing a carry bill would have dire consequences for gun control in Illinois. Specifically, House Democrats were told that Illinois would effectively have “Constitutional Carry” where anyone who was eligible to own guns could carry them freely in public without training, licensing, qualification and precious little in the way of restriction. After a lot of back and forth, one Chicago Representative asked if someone could carry a loaded rifle into the Statehouse. He was told “Yes”. It was reported that you could hear a pin drop for an uncomfortably long time after that as a stunned silence came over the room. The bottom line is that non-ideologues on the gun issue have seen the wisdom of voting for a carry bill that affords the state at least some control in the time, place and manner in which Illinois residents, and indeed non-residents, can carry firearms in Illinois. Of course, there are a handful of die-hards who will never vote for a bill that would allow Illinoisans any firearm rights. But then again, there were no shortage of politicians who opposed Civil Rights legislation of fifty years ago to their dying day. And there were no shortage of politicians who opposed women’s suffrage, either. Today, we recognize how foolish and bigoted those politicians were in opposing these basic civil rights." http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5957&...guns-yesterday |
February 21, 2013, 05:29 PM | #395 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Heh. "When you have them by the 1254's, their hearts and minds will follow."
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
February 22, 2013, 10:22 AM | #396 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I've heard twice now that there is some officicial notification or posting that en banc was denied. I'm looking for a link to post here.
|
February 22, 2013, 10:23 AM | #397 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
En banc denial
|
February 22, 2013, 10:29 AM | #398 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Thanks for the update, Luger_carbine.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 22, 2013, 10:33 AM | #399 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
The CA7 site is getting bombed with the volume of people trying to go there right now - (either that or it's a Chinese denial of service attack), I've timed out a few times trying to read the denial so I'll post the PDF here:
|
February 22, 2013, 10:35 AM | #400 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
DENIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think Rham, Quinn and Both Madigans are getting sick right now! CC is coming to Illinois, like it is not!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|