IL SC to rule on 2A cases on 9/12/13
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
2ndsupporter
Inactive
Negative decisions? Please clarify
I think he means the Ninth is notoriously RKBA-unfriendly, and biased toward limiting carry. They would like to rule on pending cases in a manner that would restrict possession outside the home.
However, if they think SCOTUS may grant cert to a case that could result in a ruling that would overturn a Ninth decision (potentially embarrassing sitting judges on the Ninth), then they will adopt a wait and see attitude.
However, if they think SCOTUS may grant cert to a case that could result in a ruling that would overturn a Ninth decision (potentially embarrassing sitting judges on the Ninth), then they will adopt a wait and see attitude.
A negative decision from CA9 would be another wishy washy "we assume the 2A applies outside the home", then use rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny to dispose of it.
An "only in the home" losing decision would be better, as it would be a direct split with Moore and now Aguilar.
Best scenario would of course be an opinion striking down "good cause". It would then split with the CA2,3, and 4 opinions. I differ with Jim in that I don't think Moore/Aguilar are necessarily a split. The CA3 & 4 opinions(released after Moore was handed down) did their best to create the illusion that there's a world of difference between the old IL statute and the NJ/MD.
I do think from listening to orals that we have a decent shot at winning at CA9.
An "only in the home" losing decision would be better, as it would be a direct split with Moore and now Aguilar.
Best scenario would of course be an opinion striking down "good cause". It would then split with the CA2,3, and 4 opinions. I differ with Jim in that I don't think Moore/Aguilar are necessarily a split. The CA3 & 4 opinions(released after Moore was handed down) did their best to create the illusion that there's a world of difference between the old IL statute and the NJ/MD.
I do think from listening to orals that we have a decent shot at winning at CA9.
Let's go back to talking about Illinois.
We've missed something important.
Several guys on the IL Carry forums (link I provided) are claiming to have contacted their county prosecutors for clarification and so far have gotten bupkis even from ones that normally talk to them. (Cook County's not among that number, obviously!)
Well somebody official needs to make a statement muy pronto. Because this sure as hell looks like the IL Supremes just took the state to Vermont Carry or something damned close. Now, maybe they did and maybe they didn't but guess what guys? If it ain't clear, criminal law sides with "we the people". You can't prosecute if you don't have a "wilful violation of the law" ("mens rea" to a lawyer) when the law isn't clear. Unclear criminal law statutes get tossed out all the time - their existence is an abomination under US legal principles.
So. The ball is now in the hands of the state. Somebody official needs to write an official memo laying out what they think is going on. We can then wrangle over it, hell we can sue over it, we can show it's a steaming southbound product of a northbound male bovine, whatever, but we'll have a starting point.
Right now everybody is standing around wondering what the heck - and in criminal law that's serious bad mojo.
We've missed something important.
Several guys on the IL Carry forums (link I provided) are claiming to have contacted their county prosecutors for clarification and so far have gotten bupkis even from ones that normally talk to them. (Cook County's not among that number, obviously!)
Well somebody official needs to make a statement muy pronto. Because this sure as hell looks like the IL Supremes just took the state to Vermont Carry or something damned close. Now, maybe they did and maybe they didn't but guess what guys? If it ain't clear, criminal law sides with "we the people". You can't prosecute if you don't have a "wilful violation of the law" ("mens rea" to a lawyer) when the law isn't clear. Unclear criminal law statutes get tossed out all the time - their existence is an abomination under US legal principles.
So. The ball is now in the hands of the state. Somebody official needs to write an official memo laying out what they think is going on. We can then wrangle over it, hell we can sue over it, we can show it's a steaming southbound product of a northbound male bovine, whatever, but we'll have a starting point.
Right now everybody is standing around wondering what the heck - and in criminal law that's serious bad mojo.
rwilson452
New member
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that anyone convicted only on that statue could get their conviction overturned. Somebody set me straight here.
Good decision! Straight forward and concise.
I will add that those previously convicted may not necessarily have their convictions overturned. Under federal constitutional law, a case announcing a new rule of law cannot be used to overturn previous convictions unless their direct appeal is still pending. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) available at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/.
Teague and its principles are difficult for lawyers and judges to apply because there are a million shades of grey in whether a decision is announcing a new rule of law. I won't pretend to know whether this Illinois decision is "new law." Of course, Illinois can give greater retroactive effect under state law if it wants to do so.
I will add that those previously convicted may not necessarily have their convictions overturned. Under federal constitutional law, a case announcing a new rule of law cannot be used to overturn previous convictions unless their direct appeal is still pending. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) available at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/.
Teague and its principles are difficult for lawyers and judges to apply because there are a million shades of grey in whether a decision is announcing a new rule of law. I won't pretend to know whether this Illinois decision is "new law." Of course, Illinois can give greater retroactive effect under state law if it wants to do so.
The new law is officially on the books in IL, however, with no permits issued at this point, it's still in reality the old law. CA7 will hear this next month. The conflict is that IL claims someone must challenge the new law, which means months in district court and the case mooted when the first permits go out. Our side(specifically NRA) is claiming the old law is in effect and that the statute is invalid UNTIL permits are issued.
Unless I'm missing something, under the old law, no carry was permitted. Under the new law, concealed carry is permitted, but only with a proper license.
Under Aguilar and Moore, you can't be prosecuted for UUW or AUUW, because the laws violates the 2A. Except, the new law says with a permit, you can carry, albeit concealed.
That appears to leave open carry (at the moment) as the only viable means of carry, until the permitting process is actually established (up and running).
Even then, it may mean that unfettered open carry will still remain a viable means of carry.
I think that it is this, that has caused the massive huddle between the State Attorneys.
Under Aguilar and Moore, you can't be prosecuted for UUW or AUUW, because the laws violates the 2A. Except, the new law says with a permit, you can carry, albeit concealed.
That appears to leave open carry (at the moment) as the only viable means of carry, until the permitting process is actually established (up and running).
Even then, it may mean that unfettered open carry will still remain a viable means of carry.
I think that it is this, that has caused the massive huddle between the State Attorneys.
maestro pistolero
New member
It's hilarious that after all the machinations, that Illinois could well end up a so-called constitutional open carry state.
Al, under the old law one could carry in Illinois, with these specific requirements,
Unloaded,
Enclosed in a case,
Must have valid FOID.
The language is clear, as this link explains. It's been discussed and disputed, but it's there in black and white.
Key word emphasized by me....
Unloaded,
Enclosed in a case,
Must have valid FOID.
The language is clear, as this link explains. It's been discussed and disputed, but it's there in black and white.
720 ILCS 5/24-2(i) said:
Key word emphasized by me....
Last edited:
Yeah, it isn't the greatest option, but until now, it was the only option. As the website said, 6 seconds to safety, and we all know that you might not have 4 seconds, let alone 6.
hermannr, you could carry your ammo with you, but of course, not in the firearm. A loaded magazine can even be carried in the same case as the firearm, just not in the weapon. Still not optimal, but it was all we had.
Yeah, it sucks.
hermannr, you could carry your ammo with you, but of course, not in the firearm. A loaded magazine can even be carried in the same case as the firearm, just not in the weapon. Still not optimal, but it was all we had.
Yeah, it sucks.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
It actually may be better for us in the long run that CA has now outlawed UOC. The Supreme Court might not strike down a UOC statute because it allows one to "bear arms," but outright prohibition should be off the table.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
New member
Congratulations, Hambrick!
Congratulations to this man and the 100+ others who's charges have been dropped in light of the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in the People v. AGUUWlar
.
A representative of State's Attorney Anita Alvarez had the audacity to say this when pressed by Fox 32 News to explain their policy: "It would not be prudent for citizens to carry loaded firearms in public, whether they possess a valid Firearm Owners ID card or not. As for whether these cases would result in criminal charges...I would only say that we would evaluate any individual incident on a case-by-case basis."
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/2...-gun-law-ruled-unconstitutional#ixzz2fJj841Vx
I'd sue for $3 million.
Congratulations to this man and the 100+ others who's charges have been dropped in light of the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in the People v. AGUUWlar
. A representative of State's Attorney Anita Alvarez had the audacity to say this when pressed by Fox 32 News to explain their policy: "It would not be prudent for citizens to carry loaded firearms in public, whether they possess a valid Firearm Owners ID card or not. As for whether these cases would result in criminal charges...I would only say that we would evaluate any individual incident on a case-by-case basis."
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/2...-gun-law-ruled-unconstitutional#ixzz2fJj841Vx
I'd sue for $3 million.
Last edited: