Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Gura's answer may very well tell us if the circuit will take the en banc route.

I kind of hope they will not rehear the case. This will force Madigan to file for cert (she will have nothing to lose at that point). If that happens, I suspect that the SCOTUS will hold Kachalsky and grant cert in Moore.

This may in fact be what Alan Gura wants.

Oh, and the date for response is the 23rd of Jan.
 

Attachments

Whoops

9+14=23

When Gura argued before the court originaly, he really didn't get to talk, and of course there was all that time wasted dancing around firearms in places that server alcohol - yada yada...

When the court does an en banc review does counsel get to talk more?

I'd actually like to hear Gura make the case against Illinois without getting interrupted.
 
At the en banc panel, Gura will have 3 times as many judges to face... And 3 possibly times as many interruptions! :eek:
 
The purpose of oral argument is to respond to the court's concerns and questions. It is not to give a speech. I have had several en banc arguments and they are just plain fun with all those judges asking questions. You really got to be on your toes as the questions come fast and overlap and are often utterly unconnected with each other. This favors Gura, who is very good on his feet. Short of a SCT argument, en banc arguments are an appellate lawyer's dream. They are extremely rare.
 
Will any of the new Obama gun control rules affect the right to carry that is currently being panned out here in IL?

I still hope the carry will proceed, even if it is along with a limited round count. Most of the smaller carry semi-autos only have 6-8 magazine capacity anyway.

Or do we just have to wait to see how the courts are deciding on the repeal from the District Attorney?
 
Welcome to our little corner of the internet Gene.

(For those unaware, Gene Hoffman is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the CalGuns Foundation)

However, the problem as I see it is that a major IL law has been struck down and Courts always take this as serious business. Because of this the court is more likely to grant a rehearing than not.

Best case scenario is that the Court will not grant the request and Judge Posner's decision will stand (until Madigan files for cert).
 
Welcome, Gene.

It seems this is as close to a direct split as we've had to date with regard to Kachalsky (NY).

I'm hopeful about a cert grant (should we reach the petition stage) but I am pessimistic about a possible bad en banc decision. The Supreme Court MUST realize that, eventually, 'bear outside the home' must be answered more plainly than it was in Heller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top