Charles Nichols Posted June 6, 2019 at 11:00 AM Share Posted June 6, 2019 at 11:00 AM Any news here?Yep, Trump pretty much screwed you with his appointments to the court of appeals. 05/13/2019 56 ORDER: Plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 26, 2019. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the original panel have voted to deny panel rehearing. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED. [56] [7004211] [17-2998] (AG) [Entered: 05/13/2019 02:34 PM] 05/21/2019 57 Mandate issued. No record to be returned. [57] [7005991] [17-2998] (DS) [Entered: 05/21/2019 08:19 AM] 05/21/2019 Open Document FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 04/12/2019 Final Opinion and Final Judgment, with 05/13/2019 Rehearing Denial Order, with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7005992-2] [7005992] [17-2998] (DS) [Entered: 05/21/2019 08:24 AM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted June 7, 2019 at 02:49 PM Share Posted June 7, 2019 at 02:49 PM Any news here? Yep, Trump pretty much screwed you with his appointments to the court of appeals. 05/13/2019 56 ORDER: Plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 26, 2019. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the original panel have voted to deny panel rehearing. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED. [56] [7004211] [17-2998] (AG) [Entered: 05/13/2019 02:34 PM] 05/21/2019 57 Mandate issued. No record to be returned. [57] [7005991] [17-2998] (DS) [Entered: 05/21/2019 08:19 AM] 05/21/2019 Open Document FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 04/12/2019 Final Opinion and Final Judgment, with 05/13/2019 Rehearing Denial Order, with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7005992-2] [7005992] [17-2998] (DS) [Entered: 05/21/2019 08:24 AM]Yea, he definitely screwed the pooch with Scudder it looks like, although I can't say I was happy with the way this case was handled from the get go.The likely scenario now is they file for cert and will end up having this decision vacated via NYSRPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted June 13, 2019 at 10:02 PM Share Posted June 13, 2019 at 10:02 PM Will Culp be filing for cert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmallie Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:01 PM Share Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:01 PM They have until Aug. 9 if my math is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 2, 2019 at 03:23 AM Share Posted August 2, 2019 at 03:23 AM They have until Aug. 9 if my math is correct. Justice Kavanaugh approved an extension to Oct 10 to file, should the petitioners choose to do so. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19a123.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted August 2, 2019 at 03:32 AM Share Posted August 2, 2019 at 03:32 AM They have until Aug. 9 if my math is correct. Justice Kavanaugh approved an extension to Oct 10 to file, should the petitioners choose to do so. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19a123.htmlHoly Crap! You are still around. I've been thinking about messaging you, but didn't want to bother you. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 16, 2019 at 03:17 AM Share Posted October 16, 2019 at 03:17 AM Supreme Court updated docket Cert petition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 16, 2019 at 03:54 AM Share Posted October 16, 2019 at 03:54 AM This Court has held that the Second Amendment “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Illinois prohibits the non-residents of 45 states from applying for an Illinois concealed carry license, regardless of their individual qualifications and training. The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed carry license. I think Sigale means "Illinois prohibits the residents of 45 states from applying for a non-resident Illinois concealed carry license." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 31, 2019 at 06:44 PM Share Posted October 31, 2019 at 06:44 PM Raoul has asked for an extension to January 13 to reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted November 1, 2019 at 04:59 AM Share Posted November 1, 2019 at 04:59 AM Raoul has asked for an extension to January 13 to reply. When does that kind of bovine excrement get forced to stop, as a f#<&ing delaying tactic that should not be tolerated any longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted November 1, 2019 at 05:55 AM Share Posted November 1, 2019 at 05:55 AM Raoul has asked for an extension to January 13 to reply. I'm betting that delay date (that pushes it into next years General Assembly session that starts January 8) is so they can attempt to pull another 'too clever by half' quick revision of the law in an attempt to moot the case especially if NYSRPA goes our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 2, 2019 at 11:38 AM Share Posted November 2, 2019 at 11:38 AM The delay probably won't matter; it'll take a few months for SCOTUS to decide NYSRPA anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted November 2, 2019 at 06:43 PM Share Posted November 2, 2019 at 06:43 PM The delay probably won't matter; it'll take a few months for SCOTUS to decide NYSRPA anyway. On a positive note, if my guess is correct that Illinois is delaying so they can revise the law in a last ditch attempt to moot the case, if NYSRPA is not resolved by then it adds credibility to the argument that 'anti-gun' states like NY and IL, are guilty of 'conduct capable of repetition, while evading court review' a reason a court should deny mootness when there are last minute law changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted November 5, 2019 at 10:54 PM Share Posted November 5, 2019 at 10:54 PM Raoul has asked for an extension to January 13 to reply. Raoul's motion was granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted November 6, 2019 at 04:14 AM Share Posted November 6, 2019 at 04:14 AM Raoul has asked for an extension to January 13 to reply.Raoul's motion was granted. The one word I would like to use here is too impolite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted November 15, 2019 at 06:46 PM Share Posted November 15, 2019 at 06:46 PM The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia have submitted an amici brief supporting Culp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted November 16, 2019 at 02:44 AM Share Posted November 16, 2019 at 02:44 AM The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia have submitted an amici brief supporting Culp. So, would that mean we should be living in one of those states instead of Illinoying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted January 12, 2020 at 02:25 PM Share Posted January 12, 2020 at 02:25 PM IL response due tomorrow. Let's see if they try to extend it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 12, 2020 at 07:17 PM Share Posted January 12, 2020 at 07:17 PM IL response due tomorrow. Let's see if they try to extend it again. At what point can some sort of punitive action be taken for the obvious delaying tactic? Otherwise, they can keep asking for extensions in perpetuity, since there is no pressure or penalty for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted January 12, 2020 at 07:43 PM Share Posted January 12, 2020 at 07:43 PM If they wanted an extension, I think they would have had to request one 10 business days before the deadline. If I'm correct on that assumption it's too late to do so now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 13, 2020 at 05:24 AM Share Posted January 13, 2020 at 05:24 AM If they wanted an extension, I think they would have had to request one 10 business days before the deadline. If I'm correct on that assumption it's too late to do so now. So, does that mean they are actually going to face off and take kicks in the teeth, or are they going to capitulate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted January 13, 2020 at 06:49 PM Share Posted January 13, 2020 at 06:49 PM So was a response filed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted January 13, 2020 at 07:37 PM Share Posted January 13, 2020 at 07:37 PM Maybe they have until 2359 tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted January 13, 2020 at 08:52 PM Share Posted January 13, 2020 at 08:52 PM If they wanted an extension, I think they would have had to request one 10 business days before the deadline. If I'm correct on that assumption it's too late to do so now.They'll just file "emergency" petitions etc, same way they did with the Moore case. Probably waiting to see what SCOTUS does with the NY case. I have a sinking feeling that they're going to punt NY for mootness and all the other cases that are on hold will start grinding forward again. Anything to put off a 2a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 13, 2020 at 10:39 PM Share Posted January 13, 2020 at 10:39 PM Raoul's response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted January 14, 2020 at 02:58 PM Share Posted January 14, 2020 at 02:58 PM It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 15, 2020 at 05:22 AM Share Posted January 15, 2020 at 05:22 AM It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something? If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted January 15, 2020 at 12:01 PM Share Posted January 15, 2020 at 12:01 PM It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something?If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert. So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted January 15, 2020 at 03:48 PM Share Posted January 15, 2020 at 03:48 PM It seems like he puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there is no circuit split. Yet, since this is an Illinois law and Illinois is covered by one circuit (if my understanding is correct), then how would you have a circuit split? It isn't like you are going to take the case to another circuit since it is an Illinois law. AM i missing something?If the decision of CA7 in this case is different from that of similar (non-resident concealed carry) cases in any other circuit, that would be a reason for the SC to grant certiorari, so that laws across the country could be more homogenized. If there is no split, even if it's because there are no similar cases, then the SC would not grant cert. So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case? Its not quite that cut and dry. A lack of a split makes it so SCOTUS will usually not grant cert, although sometimes they will if the case of high profile (or the violation egregious enough, as your slave law would be if the circuit court upheld it) or sometimes to set a precedent to preemptively prevent a split from occurring When there is a split they almost have to grant cert, to settle the split and create a single precedent nationwide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 15, 2020 at 08:28 PM Share Posted January 15, 2020 at 08:28 PM So regardless of how illegal a law is, if there is no split then SCOTUS will not grant a cert? So, if a single state passes a law saying you can keep slaves under the age of 30, but no other state does and no other circuit rules on it, then SCOTUS won't hear the case? Such a law would violate well-established legal precedent. To get to the SC, the case would have to go through the applicable appeals court first. The SC would most likely just send the case back to the appeals court without hearing it and order the appeals court to apply the appropriate law. As always, IANAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.