IL SC to issue rulings on 2A cases

[Hopalong]

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.

And coming out of Illinois? That is HUGE.

 

[esqappellate]

And coming out of Illinois? That is HUGE.

And note that the court reversed a conviction under the old statute declared unconstitutional. That basically means that anyone convicted of the old statute now declared unconstitutional may seek post-conviction relief. If they have not yet been convicted but merely charged, those charges under the old statute must now be dropped. This means, as a practical matter, that the old statute may not now be enforced at all. That leaves Illinois in a interesting positon vis a vis the adminstration of their new statute.

 

[TxAggie]

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, but a 9-0 decision (which means no decent) is a HUGE deal, especially in citing 2 SCOTUS rulings in its decision, and the fact that IL is a Democrat stronghold. If nothing else it gives me a warm fuzzy for the residents of IL.

 

[TxAggie]

And note that the court reversed a conviction under the old statute declared unconstitutional. That basically means that anyone convicted of the old statute now declared unconstitutional may seek post-conviction relief. If they have not yet been convicted but merely charged, those charges under the old statute must now be dropped. This means, as a practical matter, that the old statute may not now be enforced at all. That leaves Illinois in a interesting positon vis a vis the adminstration of their new statute.

I'm not up to the specifics of their new CCW law. How would this affect it? Does it basically mean anyone lawfully owning a gun can carry in public?

 

[press1280]

I'm not up to the specifics of their new CCW law. How would this affect it? Does it basically mean anyone lawfully owning a gun can carry in public?

No-the new law sets up a permit system, although the first permits won't go out until next year. The question here is now that both CA7 and the IL SC have struck down the old law, how do they prosecute someone under the statute when the relief(the permit) is months away. I believe the folks in IL are also asking this question, with many downstate counties publicly saying they'll refuse to arrest or prosecute anyone(with FOID) carrying.

 

[Al Norris]

Unless I'm missing something, under the old law, no carry was permitted. Under the new law, concealed carry is permitted, but only with a proper license.

Under Aguilar and Moore, you can't be prosecuted for UUW or AUUW, because the laws violates the 2A. Except, the new law says with a permit, you can carry, albeit concealed.

That appears to leave open carry (at the moment) as the only viable means of carry, until the permitting process is actually established (up and running). Even then, it may mean that unfettered open carry will still remain a viable means of carry.

 

[esqappellate]

Unless I'm missing something, under the old law, no carry was permitted. Under the new law, concealed carry is permitted, but only with a proper license.

Under Aguilar and Moore, you can't be prosecuted for UUW or AUUW, because the laws violates the 2A. Except, the new law says with a permit, you can carry, albeit concealed.

That appears to leave open carry (at the moment) as the only viable means of carry, until the permitting process is actually established (up and running). Even then, it may mean that unfettered open carry will still remain a viable means of carry.

Before anyone starts to carry, they should consult counsel, who would need to do a careful parsing of the implications of the ruling. I had understood it (and don't rely on this), the new law is an exception to the total ban imposed by the old law, which remains on the books. If the old law is unconstitutional, that means that the new law's premise is flawed. Very interesting

 

[Al Norris]

Before anyone starts to carry, they should consult counsel, who would need to do a careful parsing of the implications of the ruling.

I am just speculating here, not calling for anyone to carry.

I had understood it (and don't rely on this), the new law is an exception to the total ban imposed by the old law, which remains on the books. If the old law is unconstitutional, that means that the new law's premise is flawed. Very interesting

It is being reported that all of the various States Attorneys are in a "huddle" as to what this all means. They are not speaking to citizens as to what the impact of Moore, the new carry law, and now what the IL Supreme Court has said in regards Aguilar. This is being widely reported and talked about over at Illinois Carry.

Hence my speculation. I should have been more clear.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I am just speculating here, not calling for anyone to carry.



It is being reported that all of the various States Attorneys are in a "huddle" as to what this all means. They are not speaking to citizens as to what the impact of Moore, the new carry law, and now what the IL Supreme Court has said in regards Aguilar. This is being widely reported and talked about over at Illinois Carry.

Hence my speculation. I should have been more clear.

So, with the old statute completely invalidated, the decision in Moore, and the new law's reliance upon the old statute, is IL boxed into a corner?

If the new law carves out an "exception" to the now unconstitutional law, and the state can't use that as leverage, what impetus is there for anyone to follow the "exception" if they can't be charged under the law governing the "exception?" Or is that the crux of the situation that IL now finds themselves in?

 

[Brooklyn]

Good timing as well..

 

[Tyeraxus]

So, question. With the IL SC knowing that a ruling is appeal-able to SCOTUS, is it possible that they decided to set up a split as a way of asking SCOTUS to clarify tne scope of the 2A? I mean, if they're striking down as unconstitutional the statute that the IL legislature relied on as the basis of the CCW law, doesn't IL pretty much HAVE to appeal or their entire anti-2A scheme falls apart?