Illinois House passes shall-issue bill, 85-30

[Maestro Pistolero]

What are her chances on getting this? We screwed around for 170 days and now we need more time? Ridiculous.

My money says 100%.

 

[Storm40]

did she just admit to something here?

State defendants recognize that even the temporary denial of a
constitutional right imposes a burden on the plaintiffs, but the public’s interest in
allowing the challenged laws to remain in effect pending enactment of the new
legislation outweighs such harms here.

Ok, she lost and the court said "this is a Right and you shall abide by it", but it seems oddly incongruous to see the admission here. It has always seemed to me that the anti's arguments are soundly based upon two principles -that the right isn't really a right at all and that it can be legislated away with the barest minimum of scrutiny. Obviously, she stayed true to the second point, but on the first - the State just admitted that the right to bear arms is not only a Right but they're infringing upon it and they acknowledge that - albeit in the context of public safety (again, Anti Standard Argument #2).

maybe it's nothing, but I wouldn't have taken any bet on seeing that language, or anything close to it, in a filing by the State.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

^Doubt she is brave enough to have Quinn veto and appeal stating this.

 

[jrosenberger]

did she just admit to something here?



Ok, she lost and the court said "this is a Right and you shall abide by it", but it seems oddly incongruous to see the admission here. It has always seemed to me that the anti's arguments are soundly based upon two principles -that the right isn't really a right at all and that it can be legislated away with the barest minimum of scrutiny. Obviously, she stayed true to the second point, but on the first - the State just admitted that the right to bear arms is not only a Right but they're infringing upon it and they acknowledge that - albeit in the context of public safety (again, Anti Standard Argument #2).

maybe it's nothing, but I wouldn't have taken any bet on seeing that language, or anything close to it, in a filing by the State.

This filing also seems to fully admit that the new laws are due to plaintiffs prevailing in this action. That should foreclose any shenanigans trying to weasel out of paying fees.

 

[danb]

I suspect Quinn will veto after the legislature is adjourned, to avoid the override. Can he avoid an override that way? To me, thats the only play that adds up to a 30 day stay.

 

[MJD438]

I suspect Quinn will veto after the legislature is adjourned, to avoid the override. Can he avoid an override that way? To me, thats the only play that adds up to a 30 day stay.

It appears that IL has a "Veto Session" scheduled for this fall - http://www.ilga.gov/senate/schedules/default.asp. It appears to be a yearly event, based on searches. News articles seem to imply that it is a yearly scheduled event to allow the legislature to attempt to perform veto overrides on legislation from that year's General Session. I do not see anything in their Constitution that requires/provides for such a session on a standing basis, but did not research the entire document (and, IANAL, as always).

 

[press1280]

I don't think this has anything to do with Quinn. I think she's just flat out trying to keep the law from going into effect for another 30 days, as well as give the home rule municipalities time to craft their own new creative gun control regimes(once the bill is in effect, they only have 10 days). I hope the 7th shuts her down, as they have given IL more than enough time and they chose to wait 10 days before the end of the legislative session to get serious about passing a bill. Gura should oppose this by all means.

 

[pilotguy]

The 30 day request is to give home-rule municipalities time to pass assault weapons bans. The new law only gives them 10 days to do so after the law is passed. With the stay, it gives them more time to do so. Deerfield has already indicated it would do so but needs more time.

 

[press1280]

It's a done deal-Illinois got their 30 day extension.

 

[krucam]

It's a done deal-Illinois got their 30 day extension.

Yep & no surprise...here's the order:
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=11660

July 9th and a statement that no further Stays will be granted.

 

[Kharn]

So Madigan's petition to the SC is due on 24 June (if she chooses to file; she's already received one 30 day extension), while the Governor now has until 9 July to decide if he's going to veto or not. Does anyone else think the Governor is calculating the repercussions if he vetoes the law after her appeal window closes? He might be able to play it to look like she's the one that fell asleep at the switch and forgot to file.

I wonder if Justice Kagan would consider the internal power struggle in IL politics and resulting conflict of interests if Madigan requests a second extension so she could react to Gov Quinn's action.

 

[RightNYer]

For all this who claim that there is no circuit split...

For all those who claim there is no circuit split with regard to Moore in the 7th and Kachalsky/Woolard in the 2nd and 4th, respectively, look at this wording from the 7th Circuit's original stay:

"Illinois was the last state in the union banning the concealed carrying of guns when, in December, the appeals court panel struck down the ban. However, the court ordered its ruling stayed to "allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.""

Kachalsky outright said that ANY limitation is reasonable, as long as the legislature, in its sole determination, thinks it is. That CANNOT be what the 7th hand in mind. There is a clear split, here, and the Supreme Court declined cert solely because even the "conservative" judges are really liberals in disguise, with the exception of Thomas and Alito.

 

[esqappellate]

So Madigan's petition to the SC is due on 24 June (if she chooses to file; she's already received one 30 day extension), while the Governor now has until 9 July to decide if he's going to veto or not. Does anyone else think the Governor is calculating the repercussions if he vetoes the law after her appeal window closes? He might be able to play it to look like she's the one that fell asleep at the switch and forgot to file.

I wonder if Justice Kagan would consider the internal power struggle in IL politics and resulting conflict of interests if Madigan requests a second extension so she could react to Gov Quinn's action.

Madigan will get a second 30 day extension if she asks for it. This is not unusual for gov. petitioners. A 3d extension request would get problematic.

 

[randian]

Madigan will get a second 30 day extension if she asks for it.

The current extension already says they won't grant another.

 

[krucam]

The current extension already says they won't grant another.

I believe Esq was referring to the other extension...that being the deadline for filing a petition for cert with the Supreme Court.

The CA7 stay of mandate runs out 7/9/13 with no further stays.

 

[esqappellate]

The current extension already says they won't grant another.

Two different extensions. The 7th Circuit gave her a 30 day extension on the stay of mandate with no further extensions. I was speaking of the extension to file for a petition for cert.

 

[Haides]

Two different extensions. The 7th Circuit gave her a 30 day extension on the stay of mandate with no further extensions. I was speaking of the extension to file for a petition for cert.

Didn't she already ask for extension to file cert? Is she asking for a second?

 

[press1280]

Didn't she already ask for extension to file cert? Is she asking for a second?

She did ask for one extension to file for cert. This is asking CA7 to hold off on their mandate, which would have made the state FOID-carry until the governor signs the law.

 

[Haides]

Nevermind, I read too fast and missed this.

Madigan will get a second 30 day extension if she asks for it. This is not unusual for gov. petitioners. A 3d extension request would get problematic.