Jump to content


Photo

Shepard update 7/27 -- dismissed as moot


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
990 replies to this topic

#61 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:42 PM

Eh I dunno, my brain is...dead after this. I'm gonna go tweak the gas system on my .264-LBC-AR and zero my new scope since I finally got the bolt problem fixed and a new adjustable gas block (because they overgas them intentionally....thanks). Put some holes in stuff.


Have fun Skinny. Putting holes in stuff is a great stress reliever.

Any particular faces you'll be imagining in your cross hairs? :P

Uh, never mind, you might want to exercise your Miranda Rights on that last question. ;)


Heh it's cathartic. Nah I didn't see your question. I'd say CA7 gets this banged out in a few weeks, they have to give Madigan time to file her drivel. Then rule that Stiehl is in the wrong, remand it back down...again. Talk about a mess.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#62 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:47 PM

In other words wait until ISP is ready cause this will take time.
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#63 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:48 PM

The bottom line is, don't expect to carry in Illinois before the spring of 2014...

#64 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:48 PM

Eh I dunno, my brain is...dead after this. I'm gonna go tweak the gas system on my .264-LBC-AR and zero my new scope since I finally got the bolt problem fixed and a new adjustable gas block (because they overgas them intentionally....thanks). Put some holes in stuff.


Have fun Skinny. Putting holes in stuff is a great stress reliever.

Any particular faces you'll be imagining in your cross hairs? :P

Uh, never mind, you might want to exercise your Miranda Rights on that last question. ;)


Heh it's cathartic. Nah I didn't see your question. I'd say CA7 gets this banged out in a few weeks, they have to give Madigan time to file her drivel. Then rule that Stiehl is in the wrong, remand it back down...again. Talk about a mess.


LOL. I would imagine when they remand it down again they will be quite specific on what he's to do. I'm sure any appeals court doesn't enjoy holding the hand of a lower court judge and guiding them step by step when they've already made it quite clear what they want done.

Maybe it's not allowed by rules/laws, but why couldn't a judge like Stiehl simply pick up a phone, call Posner and the other members of the panel, and go....

"Okay, here's what I got, what do you want me to do?" :P
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#65 Phatty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:50 PM

@cshipley92, weeks I'd say. This appeal will be expedited but I'm not sure if it's appeal as a right, appeal when taken, or appeal by permission since (and this is messed up) the case is still live. Posner and Flaum are gonna have a field day with this.

skinnyb82, it's an appeal by right. The judge entered a final order dismissing the case.

#66 w00dc4ip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 855 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 07

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:55 PM

LOL. I would imagine when they remand it down again they will be quite specific on what he's to do. I'm sure any appeals court doesn't enjoy holding the hand of a lower court judge and guiding them step by step when they've already made it quite clear what they want done.

Maybe it's not allowed by rules/laws, but why couldn't a judge like Stiehl simply pick up a phone, call Posner and the other members of the panel, and go....

"Okay, here's what I got, what do you want me to do?" :P


7th Circuit Ruling:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

The instructions were pretty clear the first time. According to the ruling I just read, Stiehl's response to the instructions they gave him the first time were, "Uh, No."

This is one symptom of why people no longer trust government.
When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. - Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." - Captain America

#67 BrowningHP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,612 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:59 PM

7th Circuit Ruling:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

The instructions were pretty clear the first time. According to the ruling I just read, Stiehl's response to the instructions they gave him the first time were, "Uh, No."

This is one symptom of why people no longer trust government.


I think this means Stiehl considers 180 more days before the State accepts applications, and another 90 days to issue them, to be a "reasonable limitation".

#68 supprmann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:05 PM

So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering.


Which is exactly why my DA said he wasn't issuing such a statement and said he'd deal with cases on an individual basis. He said it would just create confusion depending on what the ILGA and the courts did.


You must be in St. Clair.....

#69 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering.


Which is exactly why my DA said he wasn't issuing such a statement and said he'd deal with cases on an individual basis. He said it would just create confusion depending on what the ILGA and the courts did.


You must be in St. Clair.....


Nope, Morgan.
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#70 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

skinnyb82, it's an appeal by right. The judge entered a final order dismissing the case.


Yeah under FRAP Rule 3 correct? I figured it was an appeal by right since it's a final judgment, not interlocutory although I'd expect the ISRA/Shepard's counsel to file an emergency petition for a stay pending appeal which I doubt he'd grant since after this I dont have any faith in Stiehl. Would have to go to CA7 for the stay too. I imagine Posner, Flaum, and even Williams are very irritated by now since Stiehl just gave them the finger.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#71 supprmann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:18 PM

skinnyb82, it's an appeal by right. The judge entered a final order dismissing the case.


Yeah under FRAP Rule 3 correct? I figured it was an appeal by right since it's a final judgment, not interlocutory although I'd expect the ISRA/Shepard's counsel to file an emergency petition for a stay pending appeal which I doubt he'd grant since after this I dont have any faith in Stiehl. Would have to go to CA7 for the stay too. I imagine Posner, Flaum, and even Williams are very irritated by now since Stiehl just gave them the finger.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


Stuff just got real........... :cool:

#72 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:19 PM

LOL. I would imagine when they remand it down again they will be quite specific on what he's to do. I'm sure any appeals court doesn't enjoy holding the hand of a lower court judge and guiding them step by step when they've already made it quite clear what they want done.

Maybe it's not allowed by rules/laws, but why couldn't a judge like Stiehl simply pick up a phone, call Posner and the other members of the panel, and go....

"Okay, here's what I got, what do you want me to do?" :P


7th Circuit Ruling:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

The instructions were pretty clear the first time. According to the ruling I just read, Stiehl's response to the instructions they gave him the first time were, "Uh, No."

This is one symptom of why people no longer trust government.

Stiehl is using the same excuse the State is perpetrating, that is that since FCCA provides an means for citizens to obtain a permit, even though the permits aren't even available, that "relief" has been granted.

The state, and Stiehl, in using this tactic is probably hoping that since it's a 3 judge panel, that at least one more of the judges will agree with them.

Remember, it was a 2-1 decision that got us here to begin with. If even one of the other two judges buys into this BS then we might well have to wait until April of 2014 before we can carry.

I'm hoping, and believing, that won't be the case, but that is the reality of the situation.
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#73 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:31 PM

Even then, good luck getting your new permit before 2015. My father is still waiting on his FOID renewal. It's been 12+ months since they cashed his check. His record is spotless.


The bottom line is, don't expect to carry in Illinois before the spring of 2014...


Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#74 JefferyClark

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:41 PM

The original ruling against the UUW statute was due to there being a ban against anyone carrying a concealed weapon. With the FCCA, there is now a permit process which allows people to carry concealed weapons.

The issue now is that there is no immediate relief from the former ban on carrying concealed, as the state can take up to another 270 days before they issue a permit.


The state can take beyond 270 days since there are no penalties for failure to meet the schedule. And as mentioned by w00dc4ip, there is nothing to prevent the GA from changing the law either.

#75 Mack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:41 PM

I don't believe for a minute that the 7th will overturn this decision. A new law is in place and the 7th will agree that the time period set out to implement the new law is reasonable. This is the decision I expected, the courts are happy to take time to make a decision and it takes years for cases to move through the courts so why would the same courts see the time table laid out in the new law as excessive.

#76 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:43 PM

The original ruling against the UUW statute was due to there being a ban against anyone carrying a concealed weapon. With the FCCA, there is now a permit process which allows people to carry concealed weapons.

The issue now is that there is no immediate relief from the former ban on carrying concealed, as the state can take up to another 270 days before they issue a permit.


The state can take beyond 270 days since there are no penalties for failure to meet the schedule. And as mentioned by w00dc4ip, there is nothing to prevent the GA from changing the law either.


And with the FOID returns being months/years slow, and the ILGA's penchant for playing games with the Judical system....

I just hope the 7th moves quickly on this once it gets to them.
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#77 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,085 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:43 PM

So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering.


Chicago has thumbed their noses at the law for years, hopefully the SAs will decide to continue with doing it down south.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#78 ryr8828

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:49 PM

I've had enough.

#79 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:55 PM

Myerscough is gonna have to deal with Sigale's motion for attorneys' fees. Its hard to argue that relief hss been granted when "prayer for relief" contained attorneys' fees.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#80 Googe1227

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,348 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 02:59 PM

I'm done. I've finally convinced my wife that we need to move out of this hopeless, corrupt, and broke state. To name but a few of the problems Illinois has.

Now all I need to do is find another job and break the news to the kids.

12 months from now is the target. Think I can get my carry license before then?

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
NRA, ISRA, GOA, SAF

#81 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 03:02 PM

Myerscough is gonna have to deal with Sigale's motion for attorneys' fees. Its hard to argue that relief hss been granted when "prayer for relief" contained attorneys' fees.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


Skinny, what happens if Myerscough rules for us? Slim chance I know but is she should...

We'd have conflicting rulings so what then? Just another reason for appeal.
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#82 XtremeRevolution

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 03:33 PM

I don't believe for a minute that the 7th will overturn this decision. A new law is in place and the 7th will agree that the time period set out to implement the new law is reasonable. This is the decision I expected, the courts are happy to take time to make a decision and it takes years for cases to move through the courts so why would the same courts see the time table laid out in the new law as excessive.


It is excessive because the courts never asked the ILGA to pass a CCW law. They simply ruled the UUW statute regarding concealed carry as unconstitutional and gave IL 180 days plus a 30-day extension. That was to do whatever they wanted to deal with the impending invalidation of said statute.

Dragging their feet for the entire legislative session and passing a law at the very last minute while they played roll call games and tried to pass bogus bills is not what I would consider a necessary use of time. They waited till the last minute so they can keep citizens waiting as long as possible before getting their permits. They COULD have passed a law 1 month into the session to allow 150 days for the ISP to get its act together and allow them to deal with the now unconstitutional UUW statute appropriately, but they did not.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2



#83 TFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,043 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:05 PM

These people all hang in the same social circles.
The ruling does not surprise me.
~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
I predicted that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
Based on the restrictions on carry in Chicago/Cook County, I was right.

...doing just enough to keep them out of Federal Court...

#84 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,405 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:09 PM

I don't believe for a minute that the 7th will overturn this decision. A new law is in place and the 7th will agree that the time period set out to implement the new law is reasonable. This is the decision I expected, the courts are happy to take time to make a decision and it takes years for cases to move through the courts so why would the same courts see the time table laid out in the new law as excessive.


It is excessive because the courts never asked the ILGA to pass a CCW law. They simply ruled the UUW statute regarding concealed carry as unconstitutional and gave IL 180 days plus a 30-day extension. That was to do whatever they wanted to deal with the impending invalidation of said statute.

Dragging their feet for the entire legislative session and passing a law at the very last minute while they played roll call games and tried to pass bogus bills is not what I would consider a necessary use of time. They waited till the last minute so they can keep citizens waiting as long as possible before getting their permits. They COULD have passed a law 1 month into the session to allow 150 days for the ISP to get its act together and allow them to deal with the now unconstitutional UUW statute appropriately, but they did not.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

^^^This...

The CA7 gave IL 180 (+30) days to craft a gun law (consistent with their opinion regarding the 2nd amendment) that addressed the unconstitutionality of current UUW/AUUW statutes.

This could've been as easy as changing the statutes to allow concealed (or open) carry by FOID holders. But that doesn't provide any extra revenue...

So politicians decided to drag it out until the LAST DAY, then implement a complex law that gives the state 270 days to start issuing permits (300 if the first apps are submitted without electronic fingerprints).
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Gun Owners of America - Annual Member
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year American Hero Member
** Second Amendment Foundation - Life Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

#85 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:13 PM

Actually, they dragged it out beyond the stay. The law was not enacted until the morning. The stay expired the previous night.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#86 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,586 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:24 PM

I don't believe for a minute that the 7th will overturn this decision. A new law is in place and the 7th will agree that the time period set out to implement the new law is reasonable. This is the decision I expected, the courts are happy to take time to make a decision and it takes years for cases to move through the courts so why would the same courts see the time table laid out in the new law as excessive.


It is excessive because the courts never asked the ILGA to pass a CCW law. They simply ruled the UUW statute regarding concealed carry as unconstitutional and gave IL 180 days plus a 30-day extension. That was to do whatever they wanted to deal with the impending invalidation of said statute.

Dragging their feet for the entire legislative session and passing a law at the very last minute while they played roll call games and tried to pass bogus bills is not what I would consider a necessary use of time. They waited till the last minute so they can keep citizens waiting as long as possible before getting their permits. They COULD have passed a law 1 month into the session to allow 150 days for the ISP to get its act together and allow them to deal with the now unconstitutional UUW statute appropriately, but they did not.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2


The "legislated" themselves another 270-day stay of the court's order. Hopefully someone will see through this charade and continuing violation of our rights.

I am not surprised by today's events. And I don't honestly hold out a lot of hope for CA7, but I do have some hope. Hope and patience are about all I have left, and I am running short of both.

-- Frank

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#87 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:24 PM

And recall, Stiehl refused to enter the injunction as per the mandate, de facto defying the Seventh eveb though it would've enjoined the state from enforcing the new statute as well. You cannot just say "We fixed it. We added and exemption for permit holders. Yeah so what if we wont issue permits for another year." Stiehl actually cites the timelone for permit issuance. Yea apparently he has no idea that the ISP cant even FOIDs in 30 days much less 60, 90, 180, some even 366 days. Add an exemption to the EXACT SAME verbiage of a statute declared unconstitutional but then make it impossible to comply for another year, I fail to see how anyone besides IL could construe that as "relief." Let the games begin.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#88 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:31 PM

CA7 made it very clear in its order granting the 30 day extension. "No more extensions will be granted." To me that signals the court was already irritated with the antics. Now...who knows. The ISP wont be adhering to the timeline. It's not legally bound to do so. It could issue permits in 2020 if it wanted barring a writ of mandamus from a federal judge. Look at the FOID delays. Anyone who thinks it'll be any different with permits is naive.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#89 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,886 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:39 PM

GMAFB
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#90 TFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,043 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 26 July 2013 - 05:00 PM

I and many others have stated that if there is no penalty in defying the court order, then there is no incentive to follow it.
I'd say just kick it upstairs and see what happens. At worse, we wait until the state decides to do it.... much the same as we are doing now.
At best, FOID carry until the regulatory infrastructure is in place AND FUNCTIONING.
~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
I predicted that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
Based on the restrictions on carry in Chicago/Cook County, I was right.

...doing just enough to keep them out of Federal Court...