You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)
- Thread starter Don H
- Start date
The judgment made by the CA7 panel is not moot. It stands on its own.
What is now moot are the 2 cases that initiated the judgment. Madigan can not now appeal anything.
The two statutes at contention, should they still exist, are still barred from being enforced. That's the force of the injunction. But Illinois has passed into law a method of carry (onerous as it may seem to be to some of us) that meets the criteria set out by the opinion in Moore and Sheppard. At this point in time, that's all that matters or all that really counts.
Is this law constitutional, as passed? The courts will presume it is.
There is at least one other case in IL federal courts that will be affected by this change in the laws. Review the docket in Benson v. Chicago. The last entry is informative.
What is now moot are the 2 cases that initiated the judgment. Madigan can not now appeal anything.
The two statutes at contention, should they still exist, are still barred from being enforced. That's the force of the injunction. But Illinois has passed into law a method of carry (onerous as it may seem to be to some of us) that meets the criteria set out by the opinion in Moore and Sheppard. At this point in time, that's all that matters or all that really counts.
Is this law constitutional, as passed? The courts will presume it is.
There is at least one other case in IL federal courts that will be affected by this change in the laws. Review the docket in Benson v. Chicago. The last entry is informative.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
[whisper]Sorry! Didn't intend to spill the beans.[/whisper]csmsss said:Shhhhhhh....people might realize that Tejas isn't the gun owners' paradise it's so widely reported to be.
It has not escaped my notice, also, that Illinois now replaces Texas for having the most burdensome training requirement of all states.
Texas, as of September 1st, cut the first time CHL course hours down to 4-6 plus range qualification, and to renew, no class time at all.
To challenge the ban on public transit carry we need a plaintiff that for some reason can't drive, but is otherwise OK to pack. Please God NOT because of DUI convictions! Lemme think...epileptic? (scratches head)...amputee of some sort? Or some other wheelchair-bound individual?
The other answer is to prove that blacks take the bus in higher numbers by proportion, that this was well understood and that there's a deliberate racial bias in the rule. Call it the "Hunter v. Underwood" attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_v._Underwood
It'd be hard to prove that was the intent though. Pretty damn obvious what the barsterds were doing but...the courts would want proof.
The final option is an equal protection "scrutiny test". Get it bumped to strict scrutiny and it's a win as many other states allow packing on public transit with no problems. Intermediate...hmmm...might still win. Rational basis we'd get reamed.
The other answer is to prove that blacks take the bus in higher numbers by proportion, that this was well understood and that there's a deliberate racial bias in the rule. Call it the "Hunter v. Underwood" attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_v._Underwood
It'd be hard to prove that was the intent though. Pretty damn obvious what the barsterds were doing but...the courts would want proof.
The final option is an equal protection "scrutiny test". Get it bumped to strict scrutiny and it's a win as many other states allow packing on public transit with no problems. Intermediate...hmmm...might still win. Rational basis we'd get reamed.
The law does allow church carry, voids all of Chicago's handgun laws, allows transport of firearms unloaded and encased in many areas - like public transit where carry is barred, makes it legal for a carrier to leave their gun in their car even in places that bar firearms such as schools, employers, etc..., creating a safe harbor in one's car, and allows carry in businesses except those that have 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol, so one can carry in a restaurant or business that serves alcohol, just not bars.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
Very happy with the precedent. There are a few things we'd all agree on changing, specifically public transportation. However, outside of Downtown Chicago, the vast vast majority of concealed carries wont be drastically affected by this.
I can only hope that Cali comes next. Sigh
I can only hope that Cali comes next. Sigh
Yesterday, Lisa Madigan filed a Motion to Dismiss for mootness, with the District Courts in both cases.
This will be granted and then the wrangling over fees (NRA and SAF are the prevailing parties) will begin.
ETA: Because RECAP is refusing to work properly, here is the MTD.
This will be granted and then the wrangling over fees (NRA and SAF are the prevailing parties) will begin.
ETA: Because RECAP is refusing to work properly, here is the MTD.
Attachments
Last edited:
Luger_carbine
New member
I'm so disappointed that Shepard/Moore is not going to SCOTUS.
It was such a good case, both plaintiffs were great plaintiffs and what Posner wrote was brilliant.
It was such a good case, both plaintiffs were great plaintiffs and what Posner wrote was brilliant.
Luger_carbine
New member
Illinois State Rifle Association files for relief
http://wuis.org/post/gun-group-demands-concealed-carry-next-week
I can't find the motion but basically the ISRA is saying that the state has not met the deadline and is still violating citizen's rights. The law sets some timelines and I think CCW for Illinois citizens is actually 6 months out.
http://wuis.org/post/gun-group-demands-concealed-carry-next-week
I can't find the motion but basically the ISRA is saying that the state has not met the deadline and is still violating citizen's rights. The law sets some timelines and I think CCW for Illinois citizens is actually 6 months out.
The Rifle Association believes lawmakers did not meet their deadline because the state's ban on carrying guns outside the home remains in effect. Newly filed motions ask the U.S. District Court to allow people to carry by next Tuesday, July 16.
Here's the relevant portion of the Sheppard docket, with links to the motions:
2013-07-09 73 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) by Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn. Responses due by 8/12/2013 (Triebel, Karl) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
2013-07-10 74 RESPONSE to Motion re 73 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
2013-07-10 75 MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
2013-07-10 76 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Plaintiffs' re 75 MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
The Stay has expired and the Mandate has issued. That means that the finding of the 7th Circuit prevail: That the UUW and AUUW statutes are now unconstitutional, as a stand-alone premise.
The district court Judge is now caught between a rock and a hard place. Unlike in Ezell, where the City changed the law that was complained and was enacted with emergency provisions, the law here remains the same... At least for the next nine months.
Since the ISP has stated that it will continue to enforce the UUW and AUUW statutes, the judge really has no leeway. Judge Stiehl must issue a preliminary or permanent injunction, as nothing has actually changed (I will admit that I hadn't thought this through, with everything else that happened on the 9th). The only question is when the injunction will issue, not if.
Judge Myerscough (Moore v. Madigan) is manifestly aware of all of this, hence calling for a rebuttal to the MTD in the companion case. She did not have to do this, but probably doesn't want to get caught in the wringer, like the Judge in Ezell.
Now, as to the possibility of FOID carry... That I will wait to see what the State has to say, before I really can opine on that happening.
Now these are all my best guesses and suppositions. Remember, I'm no attorney.... Those who are, may be along at any minute to confirm or change my premise.
The district court Judge is now caught between a rock and a hard place. Unlike in Ezell, where the City changed the law that was complained and was enacted with emergency provisions, the law here remains the same... At least for the next nine months.
Since the ISP has stated that it will continue to enforce the UUW and AUUW statutes, the judge really has no leeway. Judge Stiehl must issue a preliminary or permanent injunction, as nothing has actually changed (I will admit that I hadn't thought this through, with everything else that happened on the 9th). The only question is when the injunction will issue, not if.
Judge Myerscough (Moore v. Madigan) is manifestly aware of all of this, hence calling for a rebuttal to the MTD in the companion case. She did not have to do this, but probably doesn't want to get caught in the wringer, like the Judge in Ezell.
Now, as to the possibility of FOID carry... That I will wait to see what the State has to say, before I really can opine on that happening.
Now these are all my best guesses and suppositions. Remember, I'm no attorney.... Those who are, may be along at any minute to confirm or change my premise.
Luger_carbine
New member
Here is the statement from ISRA:
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District, Benton, Illinois division, to dismiss the Illinois State Rifle Association and Mary Shepard case. Lisa Madigan is saying that since Illinois has passed a concealed carry law, the case is moot and should be dismissed.
On Wednesday, July 10, attorneys for the Illinois State Rifle Association and Mary Shepard filed a motion requesting a permanent injunction against the State of Illinois because even though the concealed carry bill has passed, people are still not allowed the right to carry and won't be for at least another 270 days. In short, our civil rights are still being violated even though the concealed carry bill has passed. Furthermore, because neither the federal court decision nor the new Carry Act have repealed the AUUW and UUW statutes, law enforcement will continue to enforce both statutes unless a citizen has a valid carry license. We have asked for immediate relief by Tuesday, July 16, 2013. We are asking that citizens with FOID cards be allowed to carry in compliance with provisions in HB0183. We will keep you informed with the court's decision.
Luger_carbine
New member
I don't see any legal logic in tying the FOID to RTKBA in Illinois in absence of the defunct AUUW/UUW law, though it makes sense politically.
FOID provision and AUUW / UUW were different statutes.
FOID provision and AUUW / UUW were different statutes.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
New member
ISRA lawsuit
Mary Sheppard sued because she couldn't carry; she won; the court's timeline for relief has expired; and she still can't carry.
I hope a judge gets to this in the year long window of opportunity we have.
Mary Sheppard sued because she couldn't carry; she won; the court's timeline for relief has expired; and she still can't carry.
I hope a judge gets to this in the year long window of opportunity we have.
Luger_carbine
New member
If I'm not mistaken, the court said
The state was given a total of 110 days right?
This court’s mandate is STAYED until July 9, 2013. No further extensions to stay the court’s mandate will be granted.
The state was given a total of 110 days right?