IL SC to issue rulings on 2A cases

[press1280]

http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Antic_Ops/2013/091213.pdf

The Aguilar case deals with the same statute struck down in Moore. It will be interesting what happens if they split with Moore and leave the door open for a SCOTUS appeal. While I don't think this plaintiff is who we want before SCOTUS, it may be that the IL statute(which will be defunct in its current form) involving a total public ban on carry IS what they want.

Opinion should be found on this link: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp

Oral arguments here: http://www.state.il.us/court/media/On_Demand.asp The Aguilar case will be on the 2012 page.

 

[Benanov]

While I like my legal briefs pretty verbose, I'm having trouble following. Do you have anything with background on the case?

A split with Moore v Madigan would be really weird, considering that Moore v Madigan is mooted by the passage of the new 2A law in IL.

 

[243hunter]

the Moore V Madigan case was mooted by the circuit court, but has been reappealed to the 7th, with oral argument on 10-3. the 7th issued an order for a permanent injunction, and the circuit court refused to issue it. So the case may not be moot. Either way the Moore, Shephard v Madigan cases are the law of the land in the 7th circuit.

Now if the ILSC rules against Aguilar, it will conflict with Moore and most likely will go to SCOTUS.

 

[SilverBulletZ06]

the Moore V Madigan case was mooted by the circuit court, but has been reappealed to the 7th, with oral argument on 10-3. the 7th issued an order for a permanent injunction, and the circuit court refused to issue it. So the case may not be moot. Either way the Moore, Shephard v Madigan cases are the law of the land in the 7th circuit.

Now if the ILSC rules against Aguilar, it will conflict with Moore and most likely will go to SCOTUS.

I didn't think that was how it would go. I thought the CA7 has to clean its lower houses so to speak for the lower court situation. SCOTUS review was for Federal Circuit level splits IIRC.

 

[243hunter]

A case if appealed from the ILSC is directly appealed to the SCOTUS. If the ILSC rules against Aguilar then 7th precedence will be cited in the appeal to SCOTUS

We had a Cook County prosecutor say in hearings during the CC debate claim that 7th appeal decisions aren't binding against IL law, and only ILSC is binding. IF ILSC says the UAAW is constitutional then that is a direct conflict with the Moore ruling. Most likely will go to SCOTUS for decision. Doesn't mean they will take it, but bet it will be appealed.

I heard, but can't confirm that the supremecy clause comes into play also.

 

[jrosenberger]

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/Summaries/112116s.htm

Looks like the IL state supreme court reversed Aguilar's conviction for AUUW (carry) as Moore held the AUUW statute unconstitutional. They remanded for sentencing on the unlawful possession charge for which Aguilar was also convicted.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside th

BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the Home

From the Decision:

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller, 554 U.S. at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 935-36. Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.” (Emphasis added.) Heller, 554 U.S. at 593-94

Hope this helps Woollard and I'm sure Gura will make a reference to it in his Reply.

 

[CrazySanMan]

BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the Home

From the Decision:



Hope this helps Woollard and I'm sure Gura will make a reference to it in his Reply.

That sounds like the best possible decision for us.

 

[jpo183]

BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the Home

From the Decision:



Hope this helps Woollard and I'm sure Gura will make a reference to it in his Reply.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

the Moore V Madigan case was mooted by the circuit court, but has been reappealed to the 7th, with oral argument on 10-3. the 7th issued an order for a permanent injunction, and the circuit court OR DID YOU MEAN DISTRICT COURTrefused to issue it. So the case may not be moot. Either way the Moore, Shephard v Madigan cases are the law of the land in the 7th circuit.

Now if the ILSC rules against Aguilar, it will conflict with Moore and most likely will go to SCOTUS.

See bold above.

 

[243hunter]

The Federal district court. I said circuit which implies state level not federal level. Now that the ILSC has also ruled the ban as unconstitutional it is precedent in IL.

Something that is being discussed is the new CC law, which list the CC license as a exception to the AUUW, but the AUUW statute has been ruled unconstitutional, which make it act like the law never existed, so how can you have an exception to a law that never existed.

 

[press1280]

BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the Home

From the Decision:



Hope this helps Woollard and I'm sure Gura will make a reference to it in his Reply.

It ought to help. Only problem is the circuits that rule against us are so wishy-washy with the outside the home question that we don't get a definitive split. I believe CA2-4 are desperately doing this to avoid taking a stand and having SCOTUS step in.
We'll see with Woollard very soon.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the Home

From the Decision:



Hope this helps Woollard and I'm sure Gura will make a reference to it in his Reply.

Who would have ever thought that Illinois would be a pro 2a state. (Sort of)
Glad to see this.

 

[Mr H]

I feel a little better!!

 

[jonnyl]

It ought to help. Only problem is the circuits that rule against us are so wishy-washy with the outside the home question that we don't get a definitive split. I believe CA2-4 are desperately doing this to avoid taking a stand and having SCOTUS step in.
We'll see with Woollard very soon.

Yeah, they've been pretty creative. "You may have the right outside the home, and for the sake of argument lets say you do. It's just that we've decided it's too dangerous to let you exercise that right. mmmkay"

 

[esqappellate]

I feel a little better!!

You should. The Illinois SCT decision is a big deal as it was based on a reading of the federal constitution, not state law. It creates more potential for a split for purposes of cert. See Rule 10, Rules of the US SCt (a federal court of appeals "has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort."

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

You should. The Illinois SCT decision is a big deal as it was based on a reading of the federal constitution, not state law. It creates more potential for a split for purposes of cert. See Rule 10, Rules of the US SCt (a federal court of appeals "has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort."

Good to know. I was hoping you'd chime in on that point.

 

[Inigoes]

You should. The Illinois SCT decision is a big deal as it was based on a reading of the federal constitution, not state law. It creates more potential for a split for purposes of cert. See Rule 10, Rules of the US SCt (a federal court of appeals "has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort."

That is impressive, the first rule in the "JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf

 

[GTOGUNNER]

I think this should be a new thread. Give some Shooters a little hope in the future. Seems it's not being widely reported. It is a very big deal I believe.

 

[danb]

That is impressive, the first rule in the "JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf

And, it was 9-0, basically agreeing with the 7th circuit. Not 7-2, not 6-3, but 9-0. No one even wanted to waste time on a dissent.