SAF files Suit in Illinois over Right to Carry

[SilverBulletZ06]

So they say that they can put the law in effect 20,000 days from today? Makes no sense.

The training aspect was funny. Perhaps we should require training before voting.

 

[esqappellate]

That was the IL Supreme Court in Aguilar. It's now a big question mark if the IL courts can still convict someone for a UUW violation when the exception to the law (CCW permit) isn't available yet.

The 7th Circuit proceedings are effectively moot with the Ill. SCT's decision in Aguilar. With Aguilar, the State can't prosecute anyone under the old law, having declared that law to be unconstitutional. With that decision, you really don't need an injunction against the old law - the old law can't be enforced.

As to Posner at oral argument, that is just his style and everyone the least bit familiar with the 7th Circuit knows it full well. His courtroom is a lion's den for those with whom he disagrees and he clearly didn't like the the appellant's position at all. Without him, the case is lost.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

The 7th Circuit proceedings are effectively moot with the Ill. SCT's decision in Aguilar. With Aguilar, the State can't prosecute anyone under the old law, having declared that law to be unconstitutional. With that decision, you really don't need an injunction against the old law - the old law can't be enforced.

That's how it appeared to me, as well. Thanks for the confirmation.

As to Posner at oral argument, that is just his style and everyone the least bit familiar with the 7th Circuit knows it full well. His courtroom is a lion's den for those with whom he disagrees and he clearly didn't like the the appellant's position at all. Without him, the case is lost.

If the case is lost, it seems to be a distinction without a difference in light of Aguilar, then.

I find Posner's style in dealing with those whom he disagrees terrible. At least let the man make his point before shutting him down. It gives the appearance of unfairness to interrupt EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE for almost twenty minutes. It's infuriating, rude, and intemperate, IMO. My point is punctuated by the court then allowing the state's attorney to be completely unchallenged, unquestioned, and allowed speak uninterrupted until finished. I realize my view is that of an uninitiated non-attorney.

 

[ryan_j]

That was the IL Supreme Court in Aguilar. It's now a big question mark if the IL courts can still convict someone for a UUW violation when the exception to the law (CCW permit) isn't available yet.

Apparently not, because they have started to release people from prison for simple UUW violations.

 

[esqappellate]

That's how it appeared to me, as well. Thanks for the confirmation.


If the case is lost, it seems to be a distinction without a difference in light of Aguilar, then.

I find Posner's style in dealing with those whom he disagrees terrible. At least let the man make his point before shutting him down. It gives the appearance of unfairness to interrupt EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE for almost twenty minutes. It's infuriating, rude, and intemperate, IMO. My point is punctuated by the court then allowing the state's attorney to be completely unchallenged, unquestioned, and allowed speak uninterrupted until finished. I realize my view is that of an uninitiated non-attorney.

As a rule, it is important for counsel to know the predispositions of a judge cuz only then can you respond to those concerns at argument. I love it when I get questions, no matter how hostile. Judges get to interrupt with questions. Good counsel has the answers and can roll with the questions. Time is very limited at argument and they want their questions answered. The rules of normal polite society do not apply. The art form of appellate advocacy is to make your case through your answers to a judge's questions, no matter how many times they cut you off. That is how this game is played. Even if you don't get that judge, you are addressing the whole panel. It is a very particular and different skill set.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

The art form of appellate advocacy is to make your case through your answers to a judge's questions, no matter how many times they cut you off.

Then this attorney was unavailing.

 

[rambling_one]

As a rule, it is important for counsel to know the predispositions of a judge cuz only then can you respond to those concerns at argument. I love it when I get questions, no matter how hostile. Judges get to interrupt with questions. Good counsel has the answers and can roll with the questions. Time is very limited at argument and they want their questions answered. The rules of normal polite society do not apply. The art form of appellate advocacy is to make your case through your answers to a judge's questions, no matter how many times they cut you off. That is how this game is played. Even if you don't get that judge, you are addressing the whole panel. It is a very particular and different skill set.

I guess being a "game" is what makes swallowing the pill all that more difficult.

 

[press1280]

The 7th Circuit proceedings are effectively moot with the Ill. SCT's decision in Aguilar. With Aguilar, the State can't prosecute anyone under the old law, having declared that law to be unconstitutional. With that decision, you really don't need an injunction against the old law - the old law can't be enforced.

As to Posner at oral argument, that is just his style and everyone the least bit familiar with the 7th Circuit knows it full well. His courtroom is a lion's den for those with whom he disagrees and he clearly didn't like the the appellant's position at all. Without him, the case is lost.

What's IL's official position now? They'll still arrest for public carry knowing they can't prosecute anyone for it.

 

[Mr H]

I've become totally confused on the status of things out there.

Fortunately, our next trip will probably not be until late next spring.

 

[esqappellate]

What's IL's official position now? They'll still arrest for public carry knowing they can't prosecute anyone for it.

no way will police continue to make arrests solely on the now invalidated old law That would be foolish

 

[Peaceful John]

no way will police continue to make arrests solely on the now invalidated old law That would be foolish

So right now Illinois law permits both open and concealed carry, both unlicensed save for a FOID? It might be difficult putting that particular kitten back in the bottle.

 

[esqappellate]

So right now Illinois law permits both open and concealed carry, both unlicensed save for a FOID? It might be difficult putting that particular kitten back in the bottle.

I don't what to opine on the legal status of carry under Illinois law. People who carry in Illinois should consult Illinois counsel expert in this field. I observe only that police who continue to make arrests under a law declared unconstitutional by the highest state court will face the wrong end of a 1983 suit in short order.

The genie may well be out of bottle; I am nothing short of impressed by the political power of the down state gun owners in the Illinois state legislature. Wish we had that sort of pull in Maryland.

 

[Brooklyn]

I don't what to opine on the legal status of carry under Illinois law. People who carry in Illinois should consult Illinois counsel expert in this field. I observe only that police who continue to make arrests under a law declared unconstitutional by the highest state court will face the wrong end of a 1983 suit in short order.

The genie may well be out of bottle; I am nothing short of impressed by the political power of the down state gun owners in the Illinois state legislature. Wish we had that sort of pull in Maryland.

10k in lawyers mall or bust. Not kidding. It must be done.

 

[esqappellate]

10k in lawyers mall or bust. Not kidding. It must be done.

 

[press1280]

And you thought Moore was over?

The district judge on remand from CA7 rules the case is NOT moot, due to both the delay for CCW permits, but also no relief for carry of stun guns/tazers. I suppose this was the difference between Shepherd and Moore.

 

[krucam]

And you thought Moore was over?

The district judge on remand from CA7 rules the case is NOT moot, due to both the delay for CCW permits, but also no relief for carry of stun guns/tazers. I suppose this was the difference between Shepherd and Moore.

Excellent ruling. As long as no one has received a concealed carry permit, the case isn't mooted.

 

[danb]

And you thought Moore was over?

The district judge on remand from CA7 rules the case is NOT moot, due to both the delay for CCW permits, but also no relief for carry of stun guns/tazers. I suppose this was the difference between Shepherd and Moore.

this seems like excellent news. So good, i have to ask... whats the catch?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

The question is how this will or did impact the Woollard petition.

SCOTUS really needs to weight in on this issue, which means, what is the best vehicle for it? Moore isn't mooted, but I suppose the state will appeal this back to CA7.

 

[Al Norris]

One has to wonder what Judge Posner will do now!

 

[Mr H]

One has to wonder what Judge Posner will do now!

Don't know about that, but I think Madigan just Froshed herself...