Jump to content

Motion Granted


SAXD9

Recommended Posts

Seriously, this country is about sunk.

 

A federal court says "you have a right to carry a firearm, BUT you can't have your right for 480 days" (paraphrasing), and we're supposed to listen?

 

The flag is going upside down tonight.

I hear ya , we are upside down now. Why have a Constitution and why have laws . The cork is about to pop. The weather is nice now protests need to start in Springfield and Chicago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between this and the coming income tax increase (google it if you weren't aware that IL wants to raise income taxes yet again) I am no longer torn about moving out of state. I can only hope that my interviews go well.

Do like me, keep the job and move to Wisconsin.

You still get taxed at IL rates though right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between this and the coming income tax increase (google it if you weren't aware that IL wants to raise income taxes yet again) I am no longer torn about moving out of state. I can only hope that my interviews go well.

Do like me, keep the job and move to Wisconsin.

You still get taxed at IL rates though right?

 

Ehhh yes but just income, you avoid all the "hidden" taxes. If my job was portable I would have gone back to FL by now but here I am. Who knows maybe one day I hit the lottery and open Chicagos first gun shop ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you guys win. after looking at numbers and feeling like we had the votes, which we did, my optimism is gone. I will be a pessimist from here on out.

like I said, I am sure there are more maneuvers left to be played out to deny our rights. We need to start playing hardball and lift the transparency cloak. IMHO, we need the SCOTUS to rule on the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you guys win. after looking at numbers and feeling like we had the votes, which we did, my optimism is gone. I will be a pessimist from here on out.

like I said, I am sure there are more maneuvers left to be played out to deny our rights. We need to start playing hardball and lift the transparency cloak. IMHO, we need the SCOTUS to rule on the issue.

 

Which is unlikely they will even take the case, because even Lisa Madigan admitted in her motion to extend that we're being denied our Constitutional rights. At least I'm hoping the SCOTUS is smart enough to realize this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extensions are routinely granted in the court system. Court systems work very slowly. If I told you that your case would be tried in 1 year, you would think that is a long time to wait. The court system, on the other hand, would say that is extremely fast.

 

With this in mind, 30 days is nothing to judges in that court system.

 

Not to mention that courts maintain their independence from the political process by staying independent of the political process and letting politics play out. 1937 still rings with the federal judiciary. Despite what we think, a dispassionate observer likely would agree that the State was not showing any contempt for the court in this process. Concealed carry legislation followed what is the standard dysfunctional political process in this state -- nothing significant happened until the last minute, after months and months of political jockeying and games. No different than pensions, gay marriage, budget, and other issues. The court will presume good faith on the part of the governor and the attorney general, that the governor now legitimately needs time to play out his valid political role. That does possibly include an amendatory veto, a special session of the legislature, and so forth. That's a legitimate part of the political process in this state. *Not* granting the stay could have been seen as interference in that political process, curtailing the role the governor plays. That the court granted this stay, and stated outright that there would be no more, can be seen as being both reasonable, and putting the state on notice that there is finality to this.

 

 

I am therefore displeased personally at this, but in a larger sense not at all surprised.

 

What I am looking forward to is the expiration of this one-time-only stay, and the orders of the lower courts. Illinois will argue, as illustrated by this motion, that the UUW law should not be struck, given that the state amended it and now provides (in about six months, maybe) a means to carry a firearm. My expectation, and that of the plaintiffs, is that this will be like any other law found unconstitutional -- it will not be retroactively rehabilitated by the amendments. Rather, it will be considered unconstitutional from its inception. Given that HB183 amends the existing UUW law, rather than replacing it wholesale, this could be interesting. In retrospect, this is not surprising, given the mantra we've heard from the state that *unless* the UUW law is changed, all prior convictions will be voided. They appear to be under the belief that those convictions, of an unconstitutional law, can be preserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...