SAF files Suit in Illinois over Right to Carry

[fightinbluhen51]

This bodes well for Kalachsky. Rehearing and rehearing en banc denied in Moore

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2013/02/il-en-banc-denied-concealed-carry-soon.html

BAD ASS! That is some good (and much needed) news! Come on CA4!!! You need to rule on Maryland's discretionary garbage!

 

[Kharn]

That's quite a list of possible sensitive places.

 

[esqappellate]

That's quite a list of possible sensitive places.

You mean in the dissent? Indeed, just about everywhere... Fortunately, it was only in the dissent.

 

[Kharn]

Yes, I'm surprised he didn't include public sidewalks.

 

[shawn]

esq,

I am dying to know what this will mean for Chicago/Illinois and to a lesser extent for Kalachsky?

Does this mean that Illinois is out of options? I would have thought that rehearing En Banc was their last/best hope. Do you think the progunners in ILL should just wait out the timeframe and let constitutional carry happen or should they alos rush to get a good CCW bill passed?


What do you think the chances of them petitioning for cert at SCOTUS and is that even a good idea and why would SCOTUS even accept the case?


thanks for taking the time

 

[esqappellate]

Yes, I'm surprised he didn't include public sidewalks.

This will be the next struggle. The wholesale creation of gun free zones that become free-fire zones for mass shootings by criminals and crazy people.

 

[esqappellate]

esq,

I am dying to know what this will mean for Chicago/Illinois and to a lesser extent for Kalachsky?

Does this mean that Illinois is out of options? I would have thought that rehearing En Banc was their last/best hope. Do you think the progunners in ILL should just wait out the timeframe and let constitutional carry happen or should they alos rush to get a good CCW bill passed?


What do you think the chances of them petitioning for cert at SCOTUS and is that even a good idea and why would SCOTUS even accept the case?


thanks for taking the time

All good questions. Illinois is out of options in the 7th Circuit court of appeals and in district court on a total ban. They could, of course, seek cert and ask for a stay of mandate pending a cert petition. I am sure that the court of appeals will give them a stay pending cert. That standard is easily met in this case under the federal rules. That is what I expect the State to do next. There is a very good chance that cert would be granted. STriking down a state statute is a big deal, especially in this area. It is also good news for a cert grant in Kachalsky, as it preserves the sorta split between Moore and that case. Kachalsky is much further along, so there is a chance that the SCT could deny cert before a petition is filed in Moore. With NY's extension of time in Kachalsky, the Friday conference for the case probably won't be until late April. Illinois has 90 days to seek cert in Moore. If cert is denied in Kachalsky, that is a rather clear (and bad) signal that they are waiting for Moore.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

All good questions. Illinois is out of options in the 7th Circuit court of appeals and in district court on a total ban. They could, of course, seek cert and ask for a stay of mandate pending a cert petition. I am sure that the court of appeals will give them a stay pending cert. That standard is easily met in this case under the federal rules. That is what I expect the State to do next. There is a very good chance that cert would be granted. STriking down a state statute is a big deal, especially in this area. It is also good news for a cert grant in Kachalsky, as it preserves the sorta split between Moore and that case. Kachalsky is much further along, so there is a chance that the SCT could deny cert before a petition is filed in Moore. With NY's extension of time in Kachalsky, the Friday conference for the case probably won't be until late April. Illinois has 90 days to seek cert in Moore. If cert is denied in Kachalsky, that is a rather clear (and bad) signal that they are waiting for Moore.

Meaning...they can use Moore to say that the right outside the home exists, but jurisdictions are free to means test it at will?

 

[shawn]

All good questions. Illinois is out of options in the 7th Circuit court of appeals and in district court on a total ban. They could, of course, seek cert and ask for a stay of mandate pending a cert petition. I am sure that the court of appeals will give them a stay pending cert. That standard is easily met in this case under the federal rules. That is what I expect the State to do next. There is a very good chance that cert would be granted. STriking down a state statute is a big deal, especially in this area. It is also good news for a cert grant in Kachalsky, as it preserves the sorta split between Moore and that case. Kachalsky is much further along, so there is a chance that the SCT could deny cert before a petition is filed in Moore. With NY's extension of time in Kachalsky, the Friday conference for the case probably won't be until late April. Illinois has 90 days to seek cert in Moore. If cert is denied in Kachalsky, that is a rather clear (and bad) signal that they are waiting for Moore.

esq,

Thanks for answering my questions. Your reward is .....more questions.

So because Illinois has no other option than to file for cert then they almost have to file for cert at SCOTUS?? (the only other option is conceding defeat which really isn't an option for Illinois)


Who do you think has a better chance of cert being granted, Kachalsky or Moore?

 

[esqappellate]

Meaning...they can use Moore to say that the right outside the home exists, but jurisdictions are free to means test it at will?

Meaning that the SCT likes the result in Kachalsky and does *not* like the result in Moore, so they deny cert in Kachalsky anf take Moore to reverse. Of course, this is idle speculation. My very guarded sense is that they may take Kachalsky. If they do, then they are probably taking it to reverse. Remember, it takes only 4 to grant cert, but 5 to win. April will be interesting.

 

[Afield]

IL may not have the votes for a shall-issue permitting system, but they have the votes to stop a may-issue scheme.....right?
Denial of cert in Moore, and no further action, means constitutional carry in IL.

SCOTUS could deny cert in Kachalsky AND Moore...in theory.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[esqappellate]

esq,

Thanks for answering my questions. Your reward is .....more questions.

So because Illinois has no other option than to file for cert then they almost have to file for cert at SCOTUS?? (the only other option is conceding defeat which really isn't an option for Illinois)


Who do you think has a better chance of cert being granted, Kachalsky or Moore?

Correct, they either file for cert or accept defeat and enact some sort of carry law, the scope of which will depend entirely on Illinois politics. They techically are free under Moore to enact a "may issue" statute like NY or Md. You saw that in the dissent from the denial of rehearing.

As to chances, that's hard to say, given the timing. If Kachalsky and Moore were actually before the SCT at the same time, my bet would be that they would grant in Moore and hold in Kachalsky. But Kachalsky is way ahead of Moore and Illinois might not have filed by the time the friday conference rolls around for Kachalsky. Of course, the Court is free to just hold Kachalsky and relist it for another conference and wait to see what Illinois does. That is probably the most likely option for the Court. If Illinois files, then my bet goes to Moore being granted and Kachalsky being held.

 

[esqappellate]

IL may not have the votes for a shall-issue permitting system, but they have the votes to stop a may-issue scheme.....right?
Denial of cert in Moore, and no further action, means constitutional carry in IL.

SCOTUS could deny cert in Kachalsky AND Moore...in theory.

Fascinating stuff.

Also true. But I see that as the *least* likely outcome. The gun control true believers in Illinois could not tolerate constitutional carry so they are in a corner now. Their only way out for now is to get a stay of mandate and seek cert. Since they control that decision, that is what they most likely will do.

 

[Afield]

Also true. But I see that as the *least* likely outcome. The gun control true believers in Illinois could not tolerate constitutional carry so they are in a corner now. Their only way out for now is to get a stay of mandate and seek cert. Since they control that decision, that is what they most likely will do.

Extrapolating further...SCOTUS acceptance of Moore and upholding the 7th does nothing to Kachalsky's outcome if it is held...since Moore is a total ban. Which of course effectively leaves neutering/not-neutering the 2A outside the home in the hands of legislatures.

If the 4th follows their discussion thread on letting SCOTUS decide, they would affirm Woollard. Making a true no-joke circuit split.

Nothing in McDonald or Heller forecloses a shall-issue permitting system, or establishing sensitive areas. What makes you think SCOTUS would not strike down a may-issue system?

 

[esqappellate]

Extrapolating further...SCOTUS acceptance of Moore and upholding the 7th does nothing to Kachalsky's outcome if it is held...since Moore is a total ban. Which of course effectively leaves neutering/not-neutering the 2A outside the home in the hands of legislatures.

If the 4th follows their discussion thread on letting SCOTUS decide, they would affirm Woollard. Making a true no-joke circuit split.

Nothing in McDonald or Heller forecloses a shall-issue permitting system, or establishing sensitive areas. What makes you think SCOTUS would not strike down a may-issue system?

If they take Moore they will likely hold Kachalsky and then, if they affirm Moore, GVR Kachalsky back to the Second Circuit to reconsider in light of Moore. They would do the GVR so as to allow the ca2 to reconsider in light of the constitutional principles applied by the court in Moore. This lessens the workload for the SCT while according the cA2 a chance to weigh in on the question after a decision in Moore. If the CA2 reaffirms their decision, then the SCT will have the *benefit* of the ca2 considered decision in deciding whether to take up the "may issue" problem. This GVR process happens a lot, even though the cases are not on the same precise issue. If I were a betting man, that would be my bet on the odds. If the court grants cert in *either* Moore *or* Kachalsky, the 4th will likely just hold Woollard pending a decision. That is what I would do if I were them. Makes their lives easier.

 

[jkray]

If the 4th follows their discussion thread on letting SCOTUS decide, they would affirm Woollard. Making a true no-joke circuit split.

Lets hope you are right, and I tend to agree with this line of thinking as well. Now a question of my own. How does this (or does it even) effect the woolard case? Can Gura & Co. use this ruling to file a supplementary brief in support of their position?

 

[esqappellate]

Lets hope you are right, and I tend to agree with this line of thinking as well. Now a question of my own. How does this (or does it even) effect the woolard case? Can Gura & Co. use this ruling to file a supplementary brief in support of their position?

Sure. I expect them to file something with the court advising them of the denial of rehearing. The Ct rules (Rule 28(j) FRAP) allow for that. It would be very short. BTW, I don't expect them to affirm in Woollard just to get the case to the SCT. I *think* that was intended as a joke during argument.

 

[Afield]

While a simplistic view is that SCOTUS thinks may-issue is fine, and no-issue is not permitted....they are surely aware that in states like NJ and HI, may-issue schemes are effectively interpreted as no-issue. At least in states like MD, you can spin up a little business, move cash around, and qualify to get a permit.

So a grant in Moore, then decision upholding Moore, might let SCOTUS answer the simpler question, provide strict guidance to states on the percolating may-issue suits that are inn the CoAs.

Of course there a trio of cases at the 9th right now too.

 

[esqappellate]

While a simplistic view is that SCOTUS thinks may-issue is fine, and no-issue is not permitted....they are surely aware that in states like NJ and HI, may-issue schemes are effectively interpreted as no-issue. At least in states like MD, you can spin up a little business, move cash around, and qualify to get a permit.

So a grant in Moore, then decision upholding Moore, might let SCOTUS answer the simpler question, provide strict guidance to states on the percolating may-issue suits that are inn the CoAs.

Of course there a trio of cases at the 9th right now too.

Agreed. And those Cal. cases may also go on hold pending a grant in either Moore or Kachalsky

 

[BeltBuckle]

Thanks for the warning. We are doing the same here. It's incredible the discipline our community is having over these topics. I think it speaks to the enormity of what we face: we actually have self-discipline on the internet!

I will break rank, though, and point out one glaring flaw in your proposed legislation: the lack of free ice cream for out-of-state reciprocity holders. I think the Midwest has some of the best frozen custard in the nation (Leon's in Milwaukee...I have stood in line outside in sleet near midnight for that stuff). Any chance I get to lobby for free scoops, I do so unapologetically.

Good luck, friend. Let us know how we can help.

You need to schedule a field trip to St. Louis, so you can try some truly superior frozen custard at Ted Drewe's. I thought Leon's was good, and then I discovered Ted Drewe's. I've packed that stuff on dry ice and brought it back to Hawaii before