Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Luger_carbine said:
Where will Gura's answer be posted?
Click to expand...

If you open the 2A Cases Thread and scroll down to Item #44, you will see the Moore case and among the links, you will find, Justia Summary at 7th Circuit.

If you click on that link, you will find a legal synopsis of the case. Along with Judge Posner's decision. Just below this, you will see a link to access additional information through the courts PACER system: Access this case on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System.

Now, please go back and re-read the very first post of the 2A Cases Thread. That explains what these links are for and what they do.

Basically, for everything on PACER, that you might see posted here, it has cost someone some money. The only thing that is free, are the actual decisions themselves.

Finally, to answer your question: When Alan Gura (and NRA attorney, Charles Cooper) files the response(s), it will be posted on the 7th Circuits ECF page and accessible through PACER. Either one could be filed as early as tomorrow or as late as midnight CDT, Wednesday... Assuming I have the filing date calculated correctly.
 
Alan Gura may have already submitted his answer but being the weekend and yesterday a holiday the clerk may not have filed it yet... :)


EDIT: Or not... :(
 
Last edited:
It's almost a course in how the courts operate and what the various filings mean in plain language.
Click to expand...

I have learned a lot from reading what you post.... But I still get a headache thinking about it all. Thanks for all you are doing by keeping us informed.
 
As of 5 minutes ago, Alan Gura had not filed. He has until midnight.

01/23/2013 62 Filed Response in Opposition by Appellants Illinois State Rifle Association and Mary E. Shepard in 12-1788 Attorney Charles J. Cooper to DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. [62][6458851] [12-1788, 12-1269] (Cooper, Charles)
Click to expand...

I'm reading it now. Here's a look at the TOC:

I. THE PANEL DECISION’S HISTORICAL ANALYSIS ACCORDS WITH HELLER AND SEVENTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT AND DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUITS.
A. The Panel Decision Comports with Circuit Doctrine.
B. The Panel Decision Does Not Conflict with Decisions from Other Circuits.​
II. THE SCRUTINY APPLIED BY THE PANEL DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH SEVENTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT OR THE DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUITS
A. The Panel Decision Comports with Circuit Doctrine.
B. The State Bears the Burden of Proof.
C. No Remand for a Trial on Legislative Facts Is Needed.​
CONCLUSION
Click to expand...

The PDF is 18 pages.
 

Attachments

The brief by Cooper was very good ... Until he hit upon the point that undermines Gura's point in Kachalsky.

I'm not sure, but perhaps this is why we don't see a response for Moore. Alan Gura may be rewriting his response or he may not file one altogether (can't imagine that, but...).

What I do know is that Cooper is not stupid. He had to have known that this would mess with the cert petition in Kachalsky.
 
Alan Gura's response in Moore is in. It was a rewrite.

Without calling Cooper a lier, Gura's brief goes into quite the detail of why the 2nd was wrong. Never once does Gura say there is a split in circuits, but he all but lays out the roadmap.

All the while doing this, Gura doesn't hold back in blasting the State for its stance that the right is not worth protecting or even having, if the IL legislature thinks its "safer" for citizens to suffer threats of criminal action, instead of being able to defend herself in the face of violence.
 

Attachments

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

So the case has not been remanded back to the lower courts.

Then what is next - cert?
 
It hasn't been remanded to the lower courts - the court is in the process of responding to a petition by the defendant (Illinois) to re-hear the case en banc. What's next is waiting to see if a judge will call for a vote on whether or not to hear the case en banc (someone probably will).

I see Cooper & Gura addressing two different aspects of Kachalsky that aren't necesarily in conflict with each other. My interpretation of what Cooper is saying is that Kachalsky supports the decision in Moore/Shepard because CA2 judges said that “New York’s proper cause requirement does not operate as a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public.” which Cooper is using to say that If New York did have a complete ban on the possession of all firearms in public, it's law would have been ruled unconstitutional by the CA2 judges in Kachalsky - Illinois does have a ban on the possession of firearms in public - so even CA2 with their comments in Kachalsky are indicating that it would be unconstitutional. - No conflict.

Gura says the CA7 panel rejected Kachalsky, and CA2 got it wrong anyway. Gura points out that the court in Kachalsky never dealt with what it means to "Bear Arms". And also that the court in Kachalsky dismisses the whole issue of self defense being an enumerated right in the constitution in the Second Amendment. Heller says that the Second Amendment spells out a right to self defense - CA2 in Kachalsky ignores that.


I don't see Cooper & Gura in direct conflict - just addressing different things.
 
Last edited:
Question, if a judge calls for a vote on the petition, would we know about it?
Sounds like it has to happen by Wednesday or the petition is automatically denied, but if it's an internal thing, would we know if it happens or would we have to wait until there is some sort of notification to the AG's office?
 
If no vote is called for, we could know, as soon as Wed.

If the vote is called for, it can take up to 14 more days. Should the majority decided against rehearing the case, any judge with a strong feeling can write a dissenting opinion on why the court should have taken the case. That takes time. So it could be weeks, before we know.

If there is to be a rehearing, there is no certain date by which the Court must notice the parties. We will certainly know, before the 180 day stay is withdrawn.
 
Al Norris, thanks for the answer, but I don't mean "would we know" the final outcome, I simply mean would we know that a vote has been called for? If some judge called for a vote on the 24th, would we even know that it happened?
 
Sorry... I do get long winded, don't I? :o

For all practical purposes, we can make an intelligent guess, when we read the results.
 
For all practical purposes, we can make an intelligent guess, when we read the results.
Click to expand...

Does the court post something like a notification of expiration of the voting period?

Or a final disposition of the en banc process?

Does the court notify the parties privately?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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...
Click to expand...
The clock doesn't start ticking until the request for rehearing is decided and a mandate issued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top