SAF files Suit in Illinois over Right to Carry

[vafish]

There's one pitfall with simply running out the clock and letting FOID carry(not constitutional carry) happen. This doesn't prevent localities from coming up with their own laws, and would create a logistical nightmare for travelers. They go with the shall-issue bill on the table then that issue is off the table;IL will have full preemption.

If the state can't prohibit concealed carry, how can the towns, counties, cities, ect.. prohibit it?

 

[Haides]

If the state can't prohibit concealed carry, how can the towns, counties, cities, ect.. prohibit it?

Nobody said they can. But they'll sure as hell try.

 

[243hunter]

Nobody said they can. But they'll sure as hell try.

They can't have a total ban, but will follow the opinion of the previous court rulings.

Time: between 2:00-2:05 Sunday
Place: the block in front of your house
Manner: while wearing a penguin suit and riding a unicycle.

I am just being sarcastic, but gaurantee that Chicago will put such a restrictive carry ordinance in place it may as well still be a ban.

Will it hold up to court scrutiny, probably not, but may take another 2-3 years to find out.

 

[Afield]

If the state can't prohibit concealed carry, how can the towns, counties, cities, ect.. prohibit it?

If the interpretation of SCOTUS follows both the 7th and recent 10th rulings -- states can ban concealed carry, but cannot ban all manner of carry. States could of course preempt localities' laws also.

So Chicago could force open carry. That will last about 5 minutes being unpalatable to everybody. Out of sight is out of mind.

Time manner and place restrictions would be next of course for cases to be fought.

 

[Mr H]

They can't have a total ban, but will follow the opinion of the previous court rulings.

Time: between 2:00-2:05 Sunday
Place: the block in front of your house
Manner: while wearing a penguin suit and riding a unicycle.

I am just being sarcastic, but gaurantee that Chicago will put such a restrictive carry ordinance in place it may as well still be a ban.

Will it hold up to court scrutiny, probably not, but may take another 2-3 years to find out.

I understand completely...

BUT...

With Woollard still in play, they will need to come up with something LESS restrictive than Maryland, or face another round in the Federal courts.

 

[243hunter]

Here is what is going on today in the House of Representatives

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...2&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=71607&SessionID=85&GA=98

Click on full text, and read the amendments for what could be in the carry bill that will start being debated on today. The amendments by Rep Phelps is what we want, and everything else is what Chicago is going to try to get in the bill.

 

[press1280]

Here is what is going on today in the House of Representatives

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...2&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=71607&SessionID=85&GA=98

Click on full text, and read the amendments for what could be in the carry bill that will start being debated on today. The amendments by Rep Phelps is what we want, and everything else is what Chicago is going to try to get in the bill.

The Chicago amendments would essentially nullify any meaningful carry law. It includes libraries(and their parking lots,exc.). They just need to hold firm and not let any Chicago sheninigans in. They had their chance last year for a watered down carry bill. Time to pay up

 

[MJD438]

And in the current debate, on an amendment for shall issue carry, one of IL distinguished representatives (Rep. Davis) from Chicago has pulled the race card, and is yelling since he does not like the answer (claiming this amendment from Rep Phelps, with a "must notify" statute, will lead to racial profiling).

 

[243hunter]

Well yesterday was a circus at the capitol. they got some of their bad amendments attached to the bill, which includes parking lots, sidewalks, and near or adjoining property. Speaker of the House pulled several of the amendments off the table, against the wishes of the amendments sponsors.

We also got our prized bill pulled from committee yesterday, and it got moved to 2nd reading on the house floor, but the Chicago criminals immediately filled 8 amendments to our bill, while while need to be defeated to keep it clean.

The reason the bad amendments passed yesterday is because by the way they were creating the bill, If the Republicans had voted to defeat the amendments, they would have got it used against them in the next election. IE, see this representative voted to put guns in schools with your kids, they are endangering the lives of your children.

 

[win296]

Illinois has a mere 7 days to file a motion to stay the mandate under Rule 41 of FRAP. Otherwise the mandate issues.

Sorry if I missed something. Since it's been over 7 days, does this mean that Illinois is Not appealing the decision to the SCOTUS?

 

[MJD438]

Sorry if I missed something. Since it's been over 7 days, does this mean that Illinois is Not appealing the decision to the SCOTUS?

IANAL, but reading FRAP 26(a) indicates that weekends/holidays don't count as days for issues under 11 days. That would appear to make today day #7.

 

[243hunter]

Judge Posner put a 180 day stay in with the original ruling, and that is in effect until June 9, Since the En Banc has been denied Madigan has 90 days to appeal. Now there is a descrepancy in how that is determined. Some say it is 90 days from the denial of the En Banc, and others say 90 days from the original ruling.

If from the original ruling than the 90 days is up next week. If 90 days from the denial than sometime in may.

Then if Madigan appeals to SCOTUS, then they may put in a stay until they decide to hear the case or not. Everything is kind of up in the air right now as to what is going to happen.

 

[esqappellate]

IANAL, but reading FRAP 26(a) indicates that weekends/holidays don't count as days for issues under 11 days. That would appear to make today day #7.

Here is Rule 26(a) FRAP:


(a) Computing Time.

The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time.

(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and

(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

 

[MJD438]

Here is Rule 26(a) FRAP:


(a) Computing Time.

The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time.

(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and

(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

Thanks - that differs from something that I read when I posted, but I did not save the link. So, how does this affect IL and their timeline for cert based on the mandate issue?

 

[occbrian]

Here is Rule 26(a) FRAP:


(a) Computing Time.

The following rules apply in computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time.

(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and

(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

ETA: sorry, thought it was 11 days and not 7.

Don't count the day it starts... then count to 11, unless you end on a weekend day or holiday.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that the 11 days were up at 12:00am today. (22nd not counted, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th).

 

[esqappellate]

Thanks - that differs from something that I read when I posted, but I did not save the link. So, how does this affect IL and their timeline for cert based on the mandate issue?

It means that they missed the 7 day time to file a Rule 41 motion to stay the mandate pending cert. Which *probably* means that they are not going to file a cert. petition, as the 180 Posner gave them expires in June and there is no way a cert petition, filed after 90 days, will get considered before June. They could, of course, get a cert petition in very quickly, but the better route for them if they were going to seek cert, is to get the stay, which would continue indefinitely until the cert petition was acted on by the SCT. This is either dumb lawyering or a considered decision to get a legislative fix.

 

[esqappellate]

Don't count the day it starts... then count to 11, unless you end on a weekend day or holiday.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that the 11 days were up at 12:00am today. (22nd not counted, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th).

Don't count the day it starts. Rehearing was denied Feb. 22. Way I count, their time to file a Rule 41 motion expired 11:59 pm March 1, 2013

Here is Rule 41:

Rule 41. Mandate: Contents; Issuance and Effective Date; Stay


(a) Contents. Unless the court directs that a formal mandate issue, the mandate consists of a certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the court's opinion, if any, and any direction about costs.

(b) When Issued. The court's mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later. The court may shorten or extend the time.

****

(2) Pending Petition for Certiorari.

(A) A party may move to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The motion must be served on all parties and must show that the certiorari petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay.

(B) The stay must not exceed 90 days, unless the period is extended for good cause or unless the party who obtained the stay files a petition for the writ and so notifies the circuit clerk in writing within the period of the stay. In that case, the stay continues until the Supreme Court's final disposition.

(C) The court may require a bond or other security as a condition to granting or continuing a stay of the mandate.

(D) The court of appeals must issue the mandate immediately when a copy of a Supreme Court order denying the petition for writ of certiorari is filed.

 

[jkray]

ok so now that IL has missed their window, does Gura and Co. get to sue for fees?

 

[esqappellate]

ok so now that IL has missed their window, does Gura and Co. get to sue for fees?

Yes, they prevailed. On remand to district court, he will file a fee petition, seeking fees. The State will file an opposition, probably disputing the amount. If the SCT does not take the case or reverse, he will get fees under 42 usc 1988

 

[Haides]

So, just to clarify, IL can still file cert petition to the SC, but the time to seek a stay on Posner's ruling is up, so they will have to abide by his 180 day mandate regardless. Is that right?