New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
House voted: 77-31

Senate voted: 41-17

Illinois enacts nation's final concealed-gun law

Updated 12:17 pm, Tuesday, July 9, 2013

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - Illinois has become the final state in the nation to allow the public possession of concealed guns, just ahead of a federal appeals court's deadline.

The state Senate voted 41-17 Tuesday to override Gov. Pat Quinn's veto of the concealed carry legislation lawmakers sent him. The House took the same action earlier in the day.

Illinois enacts nation's final concealed-gun law - seattlepi.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
I know a lot of people don't differentiate, but I consider "May Issue" to be only marginally better than no carry at all. If it is a privilege and not a right, is it really a victory for freedom?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
In other news, the same day that the IL legislature overrode Quinn's amendatory veto, the 7th Circuit issued its mandate (actually, it was issued before the votes were taken).

Then to top it off, after the override was successful, Lisa Madigan filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of mootness with both the district courts in Moore and Sheppard. [this also moots any supposed petition for cert at SCOTUS]

What's now left for both these court cases is the wrangling for fees by the NRA and the SAF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
What? You thought it was all over?

Yeah, so did I....

"Not So!" says the fat lady, "I have yet begun to sing!"

The ISRA has filed a response to the MTD and contemperaeously has filed motions to quash the newly enacted law, as it doesn't meet the timeline set by the court. Gun Group Demands Concealed Carry By Next Week | WUIS 91.9 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)
For those that don't want to read these short documents, the NRA (through the ISRA) is saying that the law does not meet the time limits of the mandate, as it adds another 9 months for anyone in IL to be able to lawfully carry. That's not to be tolerated, since they've already been infringed these last 7 months of the Stay. The State has had plenty of time to come up with a practical law. They dithered. Then they have given themselves another 9 months of "stay" via the enacted law to make the law work. Since the UUW and AUUW laws are still on the books (although they are now excepted by the carry statute, but...) and they will still be enforced (so says the IL State Police), the court needs to issue the injunction immediately.

In addition, the ISRA is asking for FOID carry in the same manner and with the same restrictions as the current law would allow, if permits were available, today. The ISRA wants an immediate hearing and to have this resolved by July 16th.

Over at the central district, Judge Myerscough has indicated she wants a response from Moore on the States MTD, so David Jenson has filed a motion to extend the time to file costs so that he can answer the MTD.... This time around, the SAF should copy the NRA briefs and file similar motions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Here's a question.

If the SCOTUS had granted certiorari on Kachalsky, could Madigan have received another stay from the 7th Circuit, delaying enforcement of Moore until the SCOTUS decided the applicability of the Second Amendment outside the home? After all, a SCOTUS ruling in Kachalsky may very well have rendered the Moore decision moot.

In other words, in a way isn't it possible that denying certiorari in Kachalsky at least helped the citizens of IL get concealed carry?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Here's where the case stands at the end of today:

  • 07-09-2013 - Madigan files an MTD, doc #73, on jurisdiction grounds (case is moot).
  • 07-10-2013 - Plaintiffs file a response to the MTD, #74. Plaintiffs then file a motion for misc. relief, #75, and an expedited hearing, #76.
  • 07-11-2013 - State Defendants respond to Plaintiffs motions, #77.
  • 07-12-2013 - Sheriff Livesay files an MTD, #78, using the same reasoning as the State. Plaintiffs immediately respond, #79. The Court issues an order, #80, to brief on 2 specific questions. All responses due by NOON on the 18th of July.

The referenced documents can be found at the docket on the Internet Archive.

Of note is what Judge Stiehl has ordered. After briefly stating what has happened in the last few days, the judge then writes:

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties leave to file an additional brief addressing the
following issues ONLY:

A. Whether the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction in light of the passage of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act? and/or,

B. Whether any challenges to the constitutionality of the 2013 Firearm Concealed Carry Act must be raised in a separate lawsuit?

Any party which desires to file a brief on this matter shall do so on or before Noon, July 18, 2013.
My answer to the first question is that, YES, the UUW and AUUW laws are still in effect. The court must issue the injunction.

The second question is a bit harder. Yes, correctly, a new case should be filed. However, going by what happened in Ezell, the plaintiffs may wish to amend the complaint and continue on. The State would probably not agree.

So by next Thursday, we will know more about where this all stands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
So, Thursday has come and gone. Here's what has happened with the NRA case (Sheppard):

2013-07-18 86 MEMORANDUM in Support re 73 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn. (Triebel, Karl) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

2013-07-18 87 SUPPLEMENT by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. Supplement to 79 Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
Doc #86 is the State saying that, "We changed the law, your case is moot!"

Doc #87 is the NRA saying that, "Yes you created a new law, but you didn't repeal the old law."

See, the old laws in question are still there and still being enforced, at least at the State level. There are several Sheriffs and States Attorneys in certain Counties that are saying they will no longer enforce the unconstitutional UUW and AUUW laws.

All the new law did was to create an exception to the laws. IF you have an IL carry permit, you can not be charged with UUW or AUUW. But of course, the rub is that the permitting process is months away. The harm still exists and an injunction must be issued, per the mandate of the 7th circuit.

Actually, it is a very well put argument. It is going to be interesting to see if judge Stiehl will uphold the mandate or if he will somehow find an excuse to defy the circuit.

If he defies the circuit, expect a petition of mandamus to be filed.

Meanwhile, over at the Moore case....

Now its quite possible that I'm reading this entirely wrong, not being a legal expert of any kind...

David Sigale is arguing that the case is not moot, because wrangling over §1988 attorney fees have not concluded. Nothing else.

Knowing how McDonald panned out (Chicago changed its laws, but after the decision by SCOTUS but before the mandate could be applied, mooted the case but did not moot prevailing party status and therefore §1988 attorney fees were awarded), this argument appears to be specious, at best.

I agree with the reply by Madigan that the plaintiffs in Moore failed to properly respond to the matter of the dismissal. This gives judge Myerscough the perfect out to dismiss the case. Thus, further fees for the case will basically cease.

Meanwhile, the NRA will continue to rack up fees, because they have a legitimate challenge to the MTD.

I believe this to be a grave error on the part of Moore. I hope I'm wrong.

2013-07-15 53 RESPONSE to Motion re 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Plaintiffs Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Illinois Carry, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

2013-07-17 55 Defendants' REPLY in Support of Motion re 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Defendants Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan. (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
The MTD was granted in Sheppard, this morning:

07/26/2013 89 ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction 75 filed by Mary Shepard, Illinois State Rifle Association is DISMISSED; MOTION to Expedite Briefing 76 filed by Mary Shepard, Illinois State Rifle Association is DENIED as moot; MOTION to Dismiss 78 filed by David Livesay, AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 73 filed by Tyler R Edmonds, Patrick J Quinn, Lisa M Madigan are GRANTED. ACTION DUE by 8/9/2013--parties to brief issue of award of costs and fees. Signed by Judge William D. Stiehl on 7/26/2013. (jaf ) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
Nothing yet in the Moore case, but I fully expect the same.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top