esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Sure. You don't need a stay to file for cert. and when the mandate issues, the case gets remanded to district court for issuance of the injunction that the court's mandate requires.
SAF files Suit in Illinois over Right to Carry
- Thread starter krucam
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Sure. You don't need a stay to file for cert. and when the mandate issues, the case gets remanded to district court for issuance of the injunction that the court's mandate requires.
June 20th is the last SCOTUS conference until September(and the 7th's ruling is due in mid June by my calculations). If IL wants to file and get in by that date they'd have to do it VERY soon. Gura could easily stall it by asking for an extension, although if I were him I'd whip up the response fast to get it to the court before the summer recess.
The shall issue carry bill was again narrowly defeated in IL last week(arms were twisted to accomplish this), so we'll see if Madigan immediately files.
The shall issue carry bill was again narrowly defeated in IL last week(arms were twisted to accomplish this), so we'll see if Madigan immediately files.
Haides
Ultimate Member
Gura can ask for an extension for what?
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
To file the brief in opposition
No need for an extension if you're not appealing.
danb
dont be a dumbass
if they ask for an extension are they then required to appeal, or is this just preserving an option while the legislature negotiates?
I'm sure they're not required to file.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
You're not required to, but if you do not file you displease the Court.
This is a good sign for us, it shows Madigan is almost certainly going to appeal, and her appeal has a better chance of cert than any of our CA losses. The only downside is an extension could disrupt Gura's cert sandwich...
This is a good sign for us, it shows Madigan is almost certainly going to appeal, and her appeal has a better chance of cert than any of our CA losses. The only downside is an extension could disrupt Gura's cert sandwich...
Haides
Ultimate Member
So if this becomes the case that ends up going to SCOTUS, regardless of the ruling, it puts us back at square one with May-Issue, doesn't it?
Kharn
Ultimate Member
The best answer? "It depends."
Not necessarily. When DC and Chicago's ban were overturned neither resorted to "may-issue" for possession permits. The language of the opinion may be enough that the writing is on the wall. We may see all sorts of other restrictions pop up in "may-issues" place.
The court will do what to you in response? They might decertify her but not her whole staff.
That could be the entire point of the extension. Anti-gunners can play chess too.
You're not considering Chicago style politics. If a bill passes, the case is moot. Madigan (the daughter) is gearing up for a run at the Governors Mansion.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
Considering the appeal: there is strong pressure on her to do so. The general sense of anyone I talk to is that the question is inevitable - even if not this session. So there is some consideration of who they would rather argue it. At least with Illinois they can argue the complete ban and maybe get a ruling that let's them keep may-issue on the table for Yet Another Case(tm). If you don't appeal, you remove the option to evaluate a a complete ban from the court; you basically are giving the SCOTUS no choice but to consider a may-issue question (ignoring the never-ending Palmer questions because they are not going to get ahead of anything right now). Failing to appeal the complete ban question basically advances our argument to the end-stage: may issue. At least the IL question leaves open the door to may-issue - depending on how the court responds. Note that they are now coordinating nationwide they way we have been for years. There are no longer any coincidences.
Asking for the extension does not buy IL more time in the legislature. They still have the exact same pressures, though it increases the closer they come to the final date of the order. The primary reason to ask for an extension is to put together an appeal. Not required they actually submit one, but asking for an extension and then failing to appeal strikes me as bad form and might get noticed on a case of initial impression. These are not small questions.
I'd say the chances IL appeals is quite high. I'd also say that the if everyone who claims to be smart is right - this is the case the Supreme Court actually wanted to hear.
This is not an easy case for our side. If it goes bad, it goes real bad. The press would be all over this, assuming that the Kachalsky denial in NY and the Moore acceptance in IL suggests the court is agreeing with Bloomberg. Cannot blame them for not following the nuances.
If it gets picked up this coming term, the answer would be delivered most likely by the end of June 2014.
Asking for the extension does not buy IL more time in the legislature. They still have the exact same pressures, though it increases the closer they come to the final date of the order. The primary reason to ask for an extension is to put together an appeal. Not required they actually submit one, but asking for an extension and then failing to appeal strikes me as bad form and might get noticed on a case of initial impression. These are not small questions.
I'd say the chances IL appeals is quite high. I'd also say that the if everyone who claims to be smart is right - this is the case the Supreme Court actually wanted to hear.
This is not an easy case for our side. If it goes bad, it goes real bad. The press would be all over this, assuming that the Kachalsky denial in NY and the Moore acceptance in IL suggests the court is agreeing with Bloomberg. Cannot blame them for not following the nuances.
If it gets picked up this coming term, the answer would be delivered most likely by the end of June 2014.
Surely they can't spit in the face of the appeals court with a bill that is transparently in opposition to the intent of their ruling and expect to demand the plaintiffs get to the back of the line and restart litigation again.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
This is most excellent!
Haides
Ultimate Member
Kharn
Ultimate Member
They've been fighting may issue vs shall issue. The shall-issue side doesn't have enough votes to over-run Chicago's home rule (requiring 60%), while the may-issue side doesn't have a majority.
Peaceful John
Active Member
- May 31, 2011
- 239
I'm not EsqAppellate.
Would you consider that this is a civil case with no criminal overlay? It focuses on the third (and perhaps fourth) of the four core elements of the 2nd Amendment. The first element was "militia"; the second was "keep". The Justices dealt with both "militia" and "keep" concurrently ((Heller, McDonald). This is the third element: "bear". The last element will be "infringed". The SCOTUS has been stuck on "keep" since 2008, and at that point dicta strongly implied that "bear" would, had it been on the table at that time, have been favorably decided. There is no reason to believe things will be different with Moore. An adverse decision would be dreadful, but, as noted, Heller dicta give reason to be hopeful. The last element ("infringed") will probably be the one that establishes the level of scrutiny required by the 2nd Amendment, and that could come early. It's even possible that elements 3 ("bear") and 4 ("scrutiny") could both be decided in Moore, as items 1 and 2 were in Heller. Be of good cheer. The bones have been cast. It will end well for us.
Last edited:
