Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Trent, Jan 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,590
    Location:
    Illinois
    http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130108/news/701089795/

     
  2. ThePunisher'sArmory

    ThePunisher'sArmory Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Belleville, Il
    You would think instead of wasting time fighting they would spend time writing a new bill to license people to CCW. Ya know like the rest of the nation. Do they not see how much extra money this would bring to the state? $200 per license x tens of thousands of participants = ALOT of bailout money for a broke state. Not to mention the lower crime rates due to fact that it would level the playing field for the bad guys. :confused:
     
  3. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    This is a predictable course of action by the state. There is definitely a better chance of success going the en banc route instead of appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Plus, the state does not have to worry about creating further bad law (for them) by keeping it in the appellate court. If they had appealed directly to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have either rejected the appeal or accepted the appeal and likely issued a pro-gun decision.

    The linked article mentions rehearing by all 15 judges, but the en banc petition will only be reviewed and voted on by the 10 active judges in the 7th Circuit. The five senior judges won't participate.

    What happens now is that the plaintiffs will get a chance to file an answer to the petition for rehearing. Then the 10 judges will have a vote and a simple majority is needed to grant the petition. If it is denied, the state's only option is to appeal to the Supreme Court. If it is granted, the original opinion will be vacated (treated as if it never happened) and the case will be heard again by all 10 judges and a new opinion issued.

    Based on the current composition of the Court, it is difficult for me to predict what might happen but I'm leaning slightly towards the petition being denied.
     
  4. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,620
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    This is not at all unexpected. They were angered by the decision and the anger came out in the text of the bans they just proposed. They referred to the decision a couple times and it was like they were flipping off the court.

    Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!
     
  5. BCCL

    BCCL Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,438
    Location:
    So. Illinois
    Best assessment of them I've read in years.
     
  6. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,590
    Location:
    Illinois
    Damn straight.
     
  7. grptelli

    grptelli Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    I am not surprised by Lisa Madigan. She and her dad are terrible for anything related to IL. I wish I could move from here. Oh but the good news is IL is now going to let Illegal Aliens get a 3yr drivers license. ***!!! This.freakin state wants to grab our guns take away our rights and impose $25 gun tax on all guns sold in IL (goes in affect April 2013), but we are giving illegals drivers licenses? Really??? I even.read that they voted down having them finger printed because it would cost the state to much? Again ***! sorry for my rant....


    Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
     
  8. w9trb

    w9trb Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Illinois
    In simpler terms, does this mean a long delay of some type of Concealed Carry? I would rather have open carry but I know that is a day-dream.
     
  9. Davey Wavey

    Davey Wavey Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Near, but not far enough from, Chicago
    "In simpler terms, does this mean a long delay of some type of Concealed Carry? I would rather have open carry but I know that is a day-dream."

    Our 180 day clock is still running. We've ticked off something close to 30 days. If en banc is granted the previous ruling will be null and void. That's my understanding.
     
  10. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,385
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    There were three phone numbers shown to call and try to get this "lame duck" gun ban stopped when the House reconvened on Sunday.
    It worked!
    Now we have to keep at these low lifes to prevent the new session from trying the same thing.
    The numbers are:

    Quinn's "Office of Constituent Affairs" is 217-782-0244. When I called on Sunday, the recording said that "the voice mailbox was full"!

    Awww - ya THINK??

    Madigan's number is 217-782-5350. The man that answered the phone had to put me on hold 3-4 times to answer other phones before I could finish what was on my notes.

    I did NOT try Rahm's number in Chicago but here it is: 312-744-3300.

    Keep these handy as you ALL know we will be doing this again REAL soon!
     
  11. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
  12. Captain*kirk

    Captain*kirk Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Waukegan, IL
    Mumbo jumbo.
    Can anyone translate into layman's terms?
     
  13. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,590
    Location:
    Illinois
    Lisa Madigan is a criminal. Seriously.

    She recently sued Pfizer with a number of other attorneys on behalf of Illinois.

    Was awarded 43 million dollars in a settlement.

    Illinois received 2.1 million of that settlement.

    Her and her fellow attorneys received the other 40.9 million dollars.

    She's in it for the money.
     
  14. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    I'm not going to try to defend Lisa Madigan, but this information about the Pfizer settlement is not accurate. The $43 million settlement was between Pfizer and 32 states plus the District of Columbia. Thus, the settlement was split up 33 ways, with Illinois receiving $2.1 million as its share of the settlement. Each of the states was represented by their respective Attorney Generals. None of the Attorney Generals personally received any of the settlement proceeds.
     
  15. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,590
    Location:
    Illinois
  16. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    She's part of the crime family running the state, an absolute enemy of gun owners. She had no problem releaseing the FOID files to the media. She needs to be challenged every time she moves against us.
     
  17. splattergun

    splattergun Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,678
    Location:
    Utah
    $200 per license

    ?!?! Holy Cow!
     
  18. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,591
    Location:
    Peoples Republik of New Jersey
    I think you are mistaken

    (emphasis added)

    The above is found at pp. 137-38 here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/handbook.pdf
     
  19. Armored farmer

    Armored farmer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,189
    Location:
    South Eastern Illinois
    Painfully true^^^
     
  20. Al Norris

    Al Norris Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Rupert, ID.
    There is evidently more interest in this than at first blush. Earlier today, the CA7 requested a response from the winning counsel.

    Responses due on the 23rd.
     

    Attached Files:

  21. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,591
    Location:
    Peoples Republik of New Jersey
    Majority of voting active judges needed for rehearing en banc.

    Note: the request for an answer, and a rehearing if granted, will delay the issue of the mandate from the original panel decision, giving Illinois more time to comply with panel decision.

    And, if rehearing is granted, the en banc court could overturn the panel decision and reinstate the law. Then it would be off to the Supreme Court.

    If it was not so serious it would be very entertaining.
     
  22. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    Illinois is just going to get its wrist slapped again. They were told it was unconstitutional. If they continue to fight it, will just go to the 9th Court.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2013
  23. NukemJim

    NukemJim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,201
    "If they continue to fight it, will just go to the 9th Court."

    Sorry, I do not understand, could you please explain?

    Thank you

    NukemJim
     
  24. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    This chart explains it well. Works for other states if you just replace "Illinois." When a legal decision isn't decided strongly within state court systems as Illinois has controlled in the past it goes to Federal Circuit courts. The article states the 7th Circuit court. The Supreme Court is the final say and they look more at the lower court decisions (state and federal) and pick who was right in their decision of law interpretation. Or they smash down the hammer and do their own.

    http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/reference/Reference images/federal court diagram.jpg
     
  25. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,620
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    It's already in the federal courts

    It's a 7th Circuit Court decision they are appealing. The next step is for it to be heard by the full court, then if that isn't satisfactory it's on to the USSC.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page