Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Alan Gura will still have to file for cert in Woollard, but if cert is granted in Moore, I expect that Woollard will be held.
Click to expand...

Al, what are the odds of a GVR in Woollard? Could SCOTUS conceivably take Woollard (after holding it) and tackle discretionary issue and expound on the right outside the home?
 
Madigan, Rahm, and Quinn don't have the votes to pass a restrictive may issue concealed carry bill and are afraid that a shall issue bill will pass with the June 9th deadline, so they are playing their last two cards, one to make sure a shall issue bill doesn't pass, which it won't now since the appeal process will eat up months at least and allow legislators afraid of the default carry deadline fast approaching in June an out. Meanwhile they will be free to keep trying to get the votes to pass a restrictive may issue bill. And two even if the USSC agrees to hear the case, a hearing and decision now would probably be more than a year away in late 2014. They are probably also banking that even if the USSC hears the Moore case and upholds the decision, that the court will issue a narrow decision that may rule in carry, but doesn't rule out may issue. Thus even appealing and losing the case would lose them nothing. Theoretically, if the USSC accepted the case and gave a narrow decision, there could be another election in Illinois before any action would have to be taken as a result, and thus it gives the powers that be a chance to get more gun control friendly politicians elected and pass a restrictive may issue law. The Chicago way - politics first, second, third, and always.
 
Chuck, it really depends upon what the actual intent of the Court is. They could GVR Woollard after a decision in Moore, or they could take Woollard and decide the issue of carry.

I see the Court taking Moore as the first step in issue of carry: Is it or is it not part and parcel of the right to self defense? A decision here, might include some hints on how to proceed with may issue/shall issue cases. That would mean a GVR.

Percolate the question with the cases already in the pipe for a couple more years before they decide to actually take another case. Past actions would indicate this route.

Mack, I suspect you are correct in how IL politics is being played out.
 
Challenging Chicago no carry ordinance

Moore v Madigan challenged Illinois AUUW /UUW law, and Chicago has a similar city ordinance. Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez made a statement that CA7's decision in Moore had no bearing on Chicago ordinances since Chicago wasn't a party to the Shepard v Madigan or Moore v Madigan cases (this is the same office that employs Paul Castigliano who said
“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional...I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”
Click to expand...

The case is Michael Hall and Kathryn Tyler v. The City of Chicago. It was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - Eastern Division, after the Moore decision (and I believe after Cook County SA's statement concerning Moore v Madigan) Docket number is 1:13-cv-00441.

Complaint:

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068.1.0.pdf

Chicago's motion to dismiss:

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279068.19.0.pdf

The city's argument seems to be that the court cannot redress harm because even if the city ordinance were over turned - Illinois State law prohibits carrying (the law that CA7 declared unconstitutional and Justice Kagan just granted an extension on...)

But one aspect of Chicago law that is more restrictive than Illinois law is that Chicago ordinance prohibits having a firearm outside of your home - (if you remember the orals from Moore, Judge Posner and Asst AG Karl Triebel had an exchange about "the four corners" of one's home).

The city's argument to dismiss that aspect of the case is that the matter is pending before another judge.
 
Plaintiff's response to AG Lisa Madigan's motion to stay

I think David Sigale wrote this... but I could be wrong...

It was posted over at IllinoisCarry.com:

Plaintiff's Response



I think the IL AG is just trying to create safe time period for the law to be enacted and prevent a temporary switching of Ill fro current UUW to "court" carry to the new CCW law. But if the Circuit Court grants her stay - it takes the pressure off the governor to sign it, and it could be delayed another 60 or so days.
 
Poking the bear a little?
Click to expand...

Ya...

Maybe even encouraging or daring Lisa Madigan to meet them in Washington... :D

But as much as the rest of us would like to see this go to SCOTUS, gun owners in Illinois want the damn bill to be signed ASAP. Most of them are chomping at the bit to get started on their training and apply for their CWPs, and they seem to be freaking out over this motion.
 
I'd be going nuts right now if I lived in Illinois.

It's the 4th quarter of the game, they're down 15 points with less than a minute left and they're fouling on the inbound.

They're in the Bonus too!
 
Seems to me if it cost the state an extra 100 million to delay the implementation of this law another day that they'd do it.
 
I believe she is preserving options in case the governor is able to somehow sabotage the will of the people and prevent the law from taking effect. Nothing would surprise me here.

I have no idea how the governor might accomplish this, but I fully expect a very creative attempt to kill the new law, at which point the AG would file for certiorari and petition for (and be granted) a stay of the circuit decision. Delay, delay, delay, and hopefully (from her point of view) deny.
 
The governor of Illinois is not limited to veto or sign; he can selectively veto with recommendations for a law he will sign, and that puts the ball back in the Legislature's court to approve the changes or override the veto. There is some discussion as to whether he might gut and replace with the "Chicago" bill that was voted down (giving Chicago home rule).

Of course, the whole thing has a hidden political calculus that has more to do with who will be then next governor of Illinois, Quinn or Madigan. Whoever blocks concealed carry in the state will almost automatically lose the vote of the Southern Illinois democrats. The tricky thing is that they both want to block CC. but neither wants to be responsible for it. Quinn is trying to force Madigan to file for cert (and seek a stay of the appellate decision and injunction pending the cert app), while Madigan is trying to wait Quinn out on his response to the bill that is in front of him. Whoever acts first loses.

Right now, it seems that Madigan has the upper hand; the time on the extension to pass a bill or face an injunction runs out before the time to file the petition for cert. Technically, however, Quinn gets 60 days to respond to a bill on his desk, and that time runs out after Madigan's extension--but after the injunction is set to issue. Will he risk constitutional carry to force Madigan to file?
 
Of course, the whole thing has a hidden political calculus that has more to do with who will be then next governor of Illinois, Quinn or Madigan. Whoever blocks concealed carry in the state will almost automatically lose the vote of the Southern Illinois democrats. The tricky thing is that they both want to block CC. but neither wants to be responsible for it. Quinn is trying to force Madigan to file for cert (and seek a stay of the appellate decision and injunction pending the cert app), while Madigan is trying to wait Quinn out on his response to the bill that is in front of him. Whoever acts first loses.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What this really means is that, once again, the people of the formerly great state of Illinois LOSE, as politicians again put their own freaking political aspirations ahead of the will of the people they were hired to represent.
We're simply pawns in the game of chess between Madigan and Quinn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top