Illinois AG delaying Concealed Carry Legislation with appeal


PDA






JRH6856
April 30, 2013, 01:49 PM
According to this alert by the Illinois State Rifle Association (Retired (computer systems, graphics & publishing)), "Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that she has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a 30-day extension for filing an appeal of the lower court's requirement that Illinois pass concealed carry."

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois AG delaying Concealed Carry Legislation with appeal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cooldill
April 30, 2013, 01:55 PM
Oh my God! PATHETIC! Hope it is denied obviously. They're trying to buy more time so they can butcher a concealed carry plan as much as possible before they have to pass one.

wildbilll
April 30, 2013, 02:41 PM
The decision to stay the Appellate ruling pending a hearing by the USSC falls to Kagan. What are the odds?

joeschmoe
April 30, 2013, 03:32 PM
The decision to stay the Appellate ruling pending a hearing by the USSC falls to Kagan. What are the odds?
Why do you say that? I thought that 4 of the justices are needed to hear a case; accept certiorari.

JRH6856
April 30, 2013, 05:28 PM
Why do you say that? I thought that 4 of the justices are needed to hear a case; accept certiorari.

To accept the case, but not to issue an injunction or stay pending the appeal. That can be done by the supervising Justice for the appellate court.

This will be a good test of Kagan.

TheSaint
April 30, 2013, 06:07 PM
Given her friendship with Obama, I wouldn't hold our hopes up too much. This saga just never seems to end in IL.

joeschmoe
May 1, 2013, 04:14 AM
To accept the case, but not to issue an injunction or stay pending the appeal. That can be done by the supervising Justice for the appellate court.

This will be a good test of Kagan.
I've never heard of this position. Can you point me somewhere I can read more about how this works? I did a google search, this thread came back up. lol.

ilbob
May 1, 2013, 07:30 AM
The court never said anything about LTC being required. It only held that a few things in the UUW law were unconstitutional. It issued a mandate against enforcing them that was stayed for 180 days.

The state does not have to do anything at all. It is even possible that a LTC law might not meet the court's requirements.

If nothing in the way of LTC happens and the mandate goes into effect there will be a big mess.

As I understand it, extensions of this type are almost routinely granted as are stays of these kinds of mandates while the petition for cert is being considered.

I think there is a good chance SCOTUS takes it up and we find out what the 2A means in June 2014.

JRH6856
May 1, 2013, 09:17 AM
I've never heard of this position. Can you point me somewhere I can read more about how this works? I did a google search, this thread came back up. lol.
Try this from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Justices_as_Circuit_Justices)

The United States is divided into thirteen circuit courts of appeals, each of which is assigned a "Circuit Justice" from the Supreme Court. Although this concept has been in continuous existence throughout the history of the republic, its meaning has changed through time.

Today, the Circuit Justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may be addressed by a single Justice. These include applications for emergency stays (including stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as routine requests such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, Circuit Justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal. Ordinarily, a Justice will resolve such an application by simply endorsing it "Granted" or "Denied" or entering a standard form of order. However, the Justice may elect to write an opinion—referred to as an in-chambers opinion—in such matters if he or she wishes.

joeschmoe
May 1, 2013, 03:34 PM
Thanks. Interesting.

littlebob3
May 1, 2013, 04:55 PM
What is LTC and UUW ?

ming
May 1, 2013, 07:15 PM
LTC=license to carry
UUW= unlawful use of a weapon

Trent
May 9, 2013, 12:54 PM
30 days left.

Been busy with work so I haven't had a chance to keep up on things, but I'm still watching that clock tick down to June 9. :)

Blackbeard
May 9, 2013, 10:30 PM
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think getting an extension on the time to file an appeal does anything to the 180 day stay of the circuit court's ruling. They didn't ask for an extension of the stay, so a month from now we get constitutional carry.

usmarine0352_2005
May 9, 2013, 10:41 PM
.


The extension granted by Kagan does not stop the 180-day clock imposed by the 7th Circuit, meaning the legislature still has to come up with a concealed-carry law by June 9. That could change, however, if Madigan does decide to appeal..
.

JellyJar
May 10, 2013, 03:17 PM
If no bill is adopted by June 9th will it only be residents of Illinois that have a state issued FOID card that will be able to CCW?

JTHunter
May 11, 2013, 11:52 PM
Jelly - you would have to check the FAQ's on the Ill. State Police website, but I believe non-residents would NOT be allowed to carry. They say on there that non-residents have to carry it in a case, not accessible, and unloaded.

wildbilll
May 12, 2013, 12:45 AM
If no bill is adopted by June 9th will it only be residents of Illinois that have a state issued FOID card that will be able to CCW?

It is true that Resident of IL will need to have a valid FOID card to be in possession of either a firearm or ammunition, just as is the case today.

It is also true that non-residents will not need anything to carry a firearm and/or ammunition in IL, just as it is today.

The only thing that will change is that there will be bo restrictions on the manner of the carry of a firearm in IL, at the state law level.

Be advised that there are lots of local laws that basically prevent the carry of a loaded firearm, those laws closely mimic the state laws. Of course, it follows that those local laws would be deemed invalid as well, but the local police may not get the memo to stop enforcing those local laws until a few lawsuits follow.

Dframe
May 12, 2013, 12:48 AM
Our reason challenged governor wants exactly THAT. A patchwork of conflicting laws.

HC_Jack
May 12, 2013, 11:01 PM
Also note that Tom Dart has said they have a may issue law queued up in Cook County should the state fail to pass anything.

rugerman07
May 13, 2013, 05:59 AM
Also note that Tom Dart has said they have a may issue law queued up in Cook County should the state fail to pass anything. Dart's "may issue" law is only for Cook County should the state fail to pass anything by June,9th. Cook County cannot just inact anything statewide.

ilbob
May 13, 2013, 08:00 AM
Dart's "may issue" law is only for Cook County should the state fail to pass anything by June,9th. Cook County cannot just inact anything statewide.
My suspicion is that this proposal is just about putting pressure on our side to cave to some of the more onerous things that the other side wants in any LTC bill.

No one on either side really wants the mandate to be issued without some kind of LTC bill in place due to the sheer chaos it would create.

The Dart proposal is a warning of what Cook County will do if no preempted LTC bill is passed.

Kingcreek
May 13, 2013, 09:22 AM
My suspicion is the same as yours, ilbob.
meanwhile, Springfield continues to be dysfunctional as always...

Hypnogator
May 13, 2013, 11:14 PM
Y'all are getting up false hopes. Madigan will appeal on 8 June, staying the 7th Circuit's order.:cuss::cuss::cuss::fire:

usmarine0352_2005
May 13, 2013, 11:59 PM
Y'all are getting up false hopes. Madigan will appeal on 8 June, staying the 7th Circuit's order.




This is actually the best thing if she does.
.

HC_Jack
May 14, 2013, 12:27 AM
Dart's "may issue" law is only for Cook County should the state fail to pass anything by June,9th. Cook County cannot just inact anything statewide.
Understood. Since about 40% of the state's population resides within Cook county, it is still notable.

lilguy
May 14, 2013, 08:09 AM
I live on the border of cook county. Sounds like I will need two permits to carry, one if I turn right out of my drive way and a 2nd one if I turn left. This is so Illinois.

ilbob
May 14, 2013, 08:15 AM
Y'all are getting up false hopes. Madigan will appeal on 8 June, staying the 7th Circuit's order.:cuss::cuss::cuss::fire:
A couple of things about this. IANAL, so take these with a grain of salt, but as I understand it.

the state does not have to ask SCOTUS to grant cert, but they could.

Even if the state asks for it, there is no guarantee that cert would be granted.

If cert is asked for, the state might or might not ask for the mandate to be stayed.

SCOTUS might or might not issue a stay of the mandate. IMO if they accept the case they will likely issue a stay of the mandate.

There are a lot of ways this can go. It is even possible that there could be a short period of time where the mandate is in force and then stayed pending a SCOTUS decision, although I seriously hope that does not happen.

ilbob
May 14, 2013, 08:19 AM
I live on the border of cook county. Sounds like I will need two permits to carry, one if I turn right out of my drive way and a 2nd one if I turn left. This is so Illinois.
My guess is that your chance of getting a Cook County permit if such a thing were to come into existence would be essentially zero unless you are a regular political contributor to the machine.

JohnsXDM
May 15, 2013, 12:26 AM
Chicago Dems are up to no good ! Expect a bill this week or next in the Senate. Very behind the door hush hush as no one has seen any of the language yet. Leaked info says its called a "shall issue" but is really a "may issue" . Increased fees, 40 hrs of training, and a carve out for Chicago. Sounds like they want to pull a Pelosi, pass it then you can read it and find out whats in it !! They are hopeing and pressuring down state Dems to cave in. Is time to get on the phone with your state rep and senator and tell them not to give in to the Chicago machine !! ONE STATE - ONE GOOD LAW

rugerman07
May 15, 2013, 07:20 PM
Here's what I think is going to happen: No agreement will be reached, no ccw law will be inacted. Lisa Madigan will file an appeal with SCOTUS before June, 9th, which will stop constitutional carry from going into effect on that date.
This is going to be a long, drawn out, ugly affair, and when it's all said and done we'll be lucky to come out of this with a may issue law.

usmarine0352_2005
May 16, 2013, 05:54 PM
Here's what I think is going to happen: No agreement will be reached, no ccw law will be inacted. Lisa Madigan will file an appeal with SCOTUS before June, 9th, which will stop constitutional carry from going into effect on that date.
This is going to be a long, drawn out, ugly affair, and when it's all said and done we'll be lucky to come out of this with a may issue law.


I agree with this although not sure about may issue. Hopefully shall issue.
.

JTHunter
May 17, 2013, 12:55 AM
Chicago-based rep. Kwame Raoul (sp?) has submitted a bill to allow an exemption to the June 9th mandate. :cuss: :banghead:

As for Madigan: imagine this - she appeals to the SCOTUS and they agree to hear it. But, in so doing, they also pull in all the restrictive laws in NY, esp. NYC, NJ, CA, MD, etc. If they do that and the People prevail (I'm not going to call it a "win" - there are no winners or losers in this battle), Madigan's career in politics would be over. She would end up being the most hated and despised person, male or female, in the Democratic party.

ilbob
May 18, 2013, 05:19 PM
Chicago-based rep. Kwame Raoul (sp?) has submitted a bill to allow an exemption to the June 9th mandate. :cuss: :banghead:

As for Madigan: imagine this - she appeals to the SCOTUS and they agree to hear it. But, in so doing, they also pull in all the restrictive laws in NY, esp. NYC, NJ, CA, MD, etc. If they do that and the People prevail (I'm not going to call it a "win" - there are no winners or losers in this battle), Madigan's career in politics would be over. She would end up being the most hated and despised person, male or female, in the Democratic party.
The only people that matter are the voters and the vast majority of voters do not care much about this issue one way or the other.

Dframe
May 18, 2013, 05:54 PM
This entire disgusting mess can be boiled down to one issue.
"Chicago DOESN'T want to have to obey Illinois State Law".
As it is, they exempt themselves from almost every other state law written.
Rauol still believes in the preposterous idea that "Gun Free" zones actually work.

wep45
May 18, 2013, 06:49 PM
Y'all are getting up false hopes. Madigan will appeal on 8 June, staying the 7th Circuit's order

mike n the boys n gals have tried everything but the foxtrot and the polka. the dance is over and we, in the land of Lincoln, SHALL be packing in three weeks time.:neener:

ilbob
May 19, 2013, 11:25 AM
mike n the boys n gals have tried everything but the foxtrot and the polka. the dance is over and we, in the land of Lincoln, SHALL be packing in three weeks time.:neener:
Since the chances of a LTC bill being passed and licenses actually being issued by then are nil, you would appear to be suggesting you would carry based on the court's mandate against the few sections of the UUW law that were challenged.

How do you plan to deal with all the other issues that make legal carry regardless of the UUW law a problem?

wildbilll
May 19, 2013, 03:35 PM
Since the chances of a LTC bill being passed and licenses actually being issued by then are nil, you would appear to be suggesting you would carry based on the court's mandate against the few sections of the UUW law that were challenged.

How do you plan to deal with all the other issues that make legal carry regardless of the UUW law a problem?
This makes for a good discussion. As I see it, if the UUW and AUUW laws are invalidated come June 9, 2013, then it appears that an IL resident that has a FOID card cannot lawfully be charged with a state crime for the mere possession of a loaded firearm.
I do see a lot of home rule communities on the ILSP website that have their own laws that seem to mimic or actually contain more restrictive language that the state laws.
I seems that these areas could still pose legal problems to a loaded firearm carrier.
But it also seems that since the state law was deemed unconstitutional as they ban all forms of loaded carry, these local laws banning all forms of loaded carry would also be in the same boat.

ilbob
May 19, 2013, 04:29 PM
This makes for a good discussion. As I see it, if the UUW and AUUW laws are invalidated come June 9, 2013, then it appears that an IL resident that has a FOID card cannot lawfully be charged with a state crime for the mere possession of a loaded firearm.
I do see a lot of home rule communities on the ILSP website that have their own laws that seem to mimic or actually contain more restrictive language that the state laws.
I seems that these areas could still pose legal problems to a loaded firearm carrier.
But it also seems that since the state law was deemed unconstitutional as they ban all forms of loaded carry, these local laws banning all forms of loaded carry would also be in the same boat.
just how do you plan to get past

(720 ILCS 5/21-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 21-6)
Sec. 21-6. Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons.
(a) Whoever possesses or stores any weapon enumerated in Section 33A-1 in any building or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds or in any building on such land without prior written permission from the chief security officer for such land or building commits a Class A misdemeanor.

That "in whole or in part" thing is pretty expansive. It would ban you from carrying in a lot of places. It even prohibits you from having it in your car, even unloaded and encased such places. A lot of TIF districts out there.

The other side is not dumb. Instead of charging you with UUW, they with just charge you with this, and this one is a lot tougher to fight. At present it is just not enforced in favor of charging UUW.

By the way, in the long list of weapons in section 33A-1 are things like hatchets and axes, so it is already illegal to bring one of these with you when you go camping in a public park.

There are also a bunch of home rule units that have various firearms laws that would apply.

For instance, it appears that somewhere along the way the village of Loves Park enacted this gem.

Sec. 54-242. - Unlawful use of weapons.

(a)
A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he/she knowingly:

It is a virtual duplicate of the IL UUW act.

One might think that if the courts struck down a few sections of the IL UUW act that it would also apply to similar local laws. And it probably would. After you get a court to agree that it does.

Dekalb has this buried in its ordinances.

c) Unlawful Carrying. No person shall carry concealed upon or about his person within the City, any
pistol, revolver, derringer, bowie knife, switch blade knife, razor, slingshot, metallic knuckles or any other
weapon.

By the way, this is also illegal in Dekalb

b) Selling to Minors. No person shall sell, give, loan, or furnish to any minor within the City, any pistol,
revolver, air gun, derringer, bowie knife, switch blade knife, dirk or other weapon of like character (shotguns and rifles excepted.)

This would appear to ban you from teaching your kids safe handling of handguns.

I would be willing to bet a lot of similar ordinances exist throughout the state.

wildbilll
May 19, 2013, 05:18 PM
Agreed, it's a minefield.
The one with the permission required is a misdemeanor. And the logic behind the unconstitutionality of the UUW and AUUW laws is the same logic as to it's constitutionality. I once tired to get this permission from the Sheriff, he merely referred the matter to the county prosecutor and that was the end as far as he was concerned. That law has nothing in it to compel them to give the permission. I don't know the case law that is behind it except for one where the woman had the pistoi in her purse and was going into the courthouse.

Please take notice that all of the various iterations of proposed CCW laws for IL do not even bother to address the 21-6 law we are discussing. This makes me wonder if there is something missing in that law that makes it irrelevant.

ilbob
May 19, 2013, 06:27 PM
Agreed, it's a minefield.
The one with the permission required is a misdemeanor. And the logic behind the unconstitutionality of the UUW and AUUW laws is the same logic as to it's constitutionality. I once tired to get this permission from the Sheriff, he merely referred the matter to the county prosecutor and that was the end as far as he was concerned. That law has nothing in it to compel them to give the permission. I don't know the case law that is behind it except for one where the woman had the pistoi in her purse and was going into the courthouse.

Please take notice that all of the various iterations of proposed CCW laws for IL do not even bother to address the 21-6 law we are discussing. This makes me wonder if there is something missing in that law that makes it irrelevant.
last year an exemption for LTC holders was added at the tail end of the process shortly after I brought it up on IllinoisCarry. Perhaps a coincidence on the timing.

I suspect that "our side" thinks it will be too hard to pass if they put the exemption in up front.

there are some interesting aspects to this that are probably better not discussed in an open forum. I don't really believe the other side is so dumb they don't get it, but no reason to stir things up.

I seriously doubt that a sheriff would be considered the chief security officer of anything other than the courthouse and other buildings protected directly by his employees.I am not sure there is a designated chief security officer for most of these facilities which would make it very hard for someone who does not exist to grant permission.

A search of the ILCS for the term chief security officer found only this reference. Didn't find it in the IAC either.

Willie Sutton
May 19, 2013, 10:05 PM
Hypothetical advice for out of state residents traveling thru and packing?

Think "Wisconsin CCW on his way thru Illinois driving to Indiana". No Ill FOID, so what would apply to him when in Illinois under a scenario where no CCW`law has been passed?

Getting darned tired of stopping at the line to unload and lock up.


Willie

.

JohnsXDM
May 19, 2013, 11:56 PM
Hypothetical advice for out of state residents traveling thru and packing?

Think "Wisconsin CCW on his way thru Illinois driving to Indiana". No Ill FOID, so what would apply to him when in Illinois under a scenario where no CCW`law has been passed?

Getting darned tired of stopping at the line to unload and lock up.


Willie

.
Hate to say it, but can you say go to jail , and God help you if you were stopped in Cook County or Chicago. Until things get worked out I just would not risk it.

Trent
May 20, 2013, 12:07 AM
Ditto. Let a few of us downstate get some case law going after the injunction. I know of many who will start carrying June 9th if no law is passed. Some will get charged and go to jail.

We need to make sure the 7th circuit ruling has the teeth we think it does.

wildbilll
May 20, 2013, 08:23 AM
Hypothetical advice for out of state residents traveling thru and packing?

Think "Wisconsin CCW on his way thru Illinois driving to Indiana". No Ill FOID, so what would apply to him when in Illinois under a scenario where no CCW`law has been passed?

Getting darned tired of stopping at the line to unload and lock up.


Willie

.
At least in regard to the non-resident of IL passing through and not having a FOID card, IL Supreme Court decisions have established that non-residents are not required to have a FOID card in order to possess a firearm or ammunition in the state. If, by some miracle, the state goes permit-free for the purposes of carry of a loaded firearm, the only people that will need a FOID card will be residents of IL. And this will only apply to the UUW and AUUW laws.

Willie Sutton
May 20, 2013, 08:33 AM
^^ That was my understanding as well.

Going to be an interesting time in Illinois....


Willie


.

wildbilll
May 20, 2013, 10:53 AM
I have been looking around to see if there is any information out there in regard to Section 21-6.

It is worded in a way that covers almost everywhere in the state that isn't privately owned, and in a stretch, even some of those places too (the TIF reference you made).

Here are some things that I think make it problematic to prosecute this in areas other than the obvious like a court house.
Who is the Chief Security Officer? Not defined.
Paragraph A says you need written permission. Paragraph B says they must grant any reasonable request. The fact that one asks in writing and is then refused an answer means the law is being ignored by that Chief. This is a problem in court.

If the broad definition is taken literally, the roads and sidewalks of the state are in fact on public land. If the courts were to accept this definition, this means that everyone who has ever carried a firearm anywhere is a criminal. Even the ILSP publication on how to transport your firearm legally fails to take this into account.
The statute does not contain any exemptions. This means that even the police are breaking the law.

The burden of proof falls to the government in a criminal court, so it isn't up to me to prove I have the permission, it is upon them to prove I don't have it. They would have trouble determining who was the entity that was to give the permission.

Absurd laws are not constitutional, when they lead to unintended results. In this instance, it means that there is a defacto ban on the transportation of a firearm in the entire state on any land that received or is supported by public money. I call that absurd, and a judge would likely see that that law made them a criminal as well, if they own a firearm. A Jury would also see the same thing.

That is why I think the section 21-6 is not likely to be enforced.

JRH6856
May 20, 2013, 12:20 PM
If the broad definition is taken literally, the roads and sidewalks of the state are in fact on public land.

Roads and sidewalks also have public right of way which may make the difference between them and public lands with no right of way. (I'll leave the details to an attorney.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois AG delaying Concealed Carry Legislation with appeal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!