Phatty Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:54 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:54 PM Even when expecting bad news, it's still disappointing when it comes. Judge Stiehl's order was painful to read and shows that he just doesn't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:56 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:56 PM I really get lost with all this legalese. What really concerns me is if the "new law" moots the claim. What prevents the GA from changing the law, re install a total ban? Yes the law is in place, but no permits for months.I was thinking that. IL passes a new UUW law that then has to be challenged and found unconstitutional. Then they pass a new new UUW law that then has to be challenged and found unconstitutional, etc.... That would be fun to watch. I don't think it'll happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:58 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:58 PM ... and people ask me why I am always in a bad mood. When will my wife let me leave this state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macster Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:58 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:58 PM How can a lower court dismiss an upper courts ruling? I don't understand. Can someone give me some clarification? That's not what occurred. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:59 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 06:59 PM ... and people ask me why I am always in a bad mood. When will my wife let me leave this state?Yours and mine can stay. You and me buddy, like Lewis and Clark. We're off to explore. http://hotopics.askcarlos.com/lewis-clark/lewis-and-clark-painting.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supprmann Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:03 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:03 PM Why does this NOT surprise me???? And to think......I didn't drink, smoke, nor cuss....prior to moving here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:09 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:09 PM The ruling didn't matter because either way it was ruled, the motion would've been appealed to the CA7. What matters is that a ruling was issued instead of being pocketed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2dawson Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:09 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:09 PM Did anyone realistically expect anything different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:10 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:10 PM So there is no UUW anymore in Illinois? No, the judge ruled the UUW law is NOW constitutional since the passage of the FCCA. He also said since it's a new law the plaintiffs will need to file a new lawsuit to challenge any parts of it. So the UUW law stands, at the moment, with an exception for citizens who have a permit under the new FCCA, which of course won't be issued for months at the earliest. Next April at the latest (if they follow the guidelines laid down by the GA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w00dc4ip Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:12 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:12 PM Page 7 of the ruling: "Although the licensing scheme is not yet completed, the law does permit theplaintiffs to apply for, and assuming that they meet the statutory requirements for issuance of alicense, receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm." This is simply not true.There is no way for the plaintiff or any other citizen to apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm at the present time.What stops the ILGA from amending the law next session to provide for another 180 days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:13 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:13 PM So there is no UUW anymore in Illinois? No, the judge ruled the UUW law is NOW constitutional since the passage of the FCCA. He also said since it's a new law the plaintiffs will need to file a new lawsuit to challenge any parts of it. So the UUW law stands, at the moment, with an exception for citizens who have a permit under the new FCCA, which of course won't be issued for months at the earliest. Next April at the latest (if they follow the guidelines laid down by the GA). That is what I don't understand, how can the lower court say UUW stands since the higher court already said it is unlawful? What am I missing here? I understand the new carry law was passed as per the option of the 7th Court, that doesn't change the fact that the 7th Court said the law was UUW was illegal. I'm confused, is this just how the legal system works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:14 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:14 PM Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. I would not be surprised at all if Cooper et al planned for this and had drafted a petition for appeal ahead of time and will file it today, asking for it to be expedited as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:15 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:15 PM Page 7 of the ruling: "Although the licensing scheme is not yet completed, the law does permit theplaintiffs to apply for, and assuming that they meet the statutory requirements for issuance of alicense, receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm." This is simply not true.There is no way for the plaintiff or any other citizen to apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm at the present time.What stops the ILGA from amending the law next session to provide for another 180 days... I'm sure that will be argued in the 7th, as it's patently false, but admitting it's false would be admitting the right is still a right denied under a blanket ban and the case is not moot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:17 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:17 PM Page 7 of the ruling: "Although the licensing scheme is not yet completed, the law does permit theplaintiffs to apply for, and assuming that they meet the statutory requirements for issuance of alicense, receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm." This is simply not true.There is no way for the plaintiff or any other citizen to apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm at the present time.What stops the ILGA from amending the law next session to provide for another 180 days... Posner will see this differently. Won't make a bet on FOID carry, but his words will be way different. At least the court recognizes it as a "scheme." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDP Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:19 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:19 PM So I have a Florida CCW Permit....but I can not carry, even in my car because I am an Illinois resident and taxpayer. This is clear cut discrimination. I thought discrimination was unconstitutional ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:20 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:20 PM So there is no UUW anymore in Illinois? No, the judge ruled the UUW law is NOW constitutional since the passage of the FCCA. He also said since it's a new law the plaintiffs will need to file a new lawsuit to challenge any parts of it. So the UUW law stands, at the moment, with an exception for citizens who have a permit under the new FCCA, which of course won't be issued for months at the earliest. Next April at the latest (if they follow the guidelines laid down by the GA). That is what I don't understand, how can the lower court say UUW stands since the higher court already said it is unlawful? What am I missing here? I understand the new carry law was passed as per the option of the 7th Court, that doesn't change the fact that the 7th Court said the law was UUW was illegal. I'm confused, is this just how the legal system works?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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:20 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:20 PM I REALLY love this, it truly shows how out of touch with reality he is if he believes the ISP won't take up the entire time period and then some. "Although the statutory scheme of the new Act gives the State Police 'up to 180' days to get the application process into effect, and the screening process may take up to an additional 90 days, these are one-time events. Moreover, the fact that this time period for establishing the permitting process is specified in the statute does not mean that it actually will take that amount of time for the State Police to complete the process." What is this? He contradicts himself. First he says CA7 directed the ILGA to pass a bill, then he says CA7 didn't. The Seventh DID NOT direct the ILGA to pass ANYTHING, it gave them time to remedy the finding of unconstitutionality. It DID NOT order the ILGA to pass a carry bill. "The Seventh Circuit clearly directed the State of Illinois to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment. . . on the carrying of guns in public.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 942 (emphasis added), and gave the State legislature 180 days (with a 30 day extension) to complete that task. Most notably, the Court of Appeals did not direct the State of Illinois to both pass new gun legislation and have the permitting or licensing processes operational before the expiration period of the stay of the mandate." Direct defiance of the mandate, and I mean DIRECT. "The Court FURTHER FINDS that the mandate’s directive for a declaration of unconstitutionality and issuance of a permanent injunction to prohibit the State of Illinois from enforcing the now superseded statutes has been rendered MOOT." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear226 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:20 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:20 PM No surprise at all from an IL court. I am really tired of all this crap but can't find anyone to buy my house in the Republic of Illinois (most communist state in the land). Why do we let chicago ruin...I mean run this state? No wonder no one wants to live here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzhawk Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:22 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:22 PM I don't understand the following. In the conclusion of the ruling, it states the following: "the Court FINDS that the Illinois Firearm Conceal Carry Act of 2013, Public Act 098-0063, supersedes 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4),(10) and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6" The legal definition of supersede is the following: To obliterate, replace, make void, or useless.Supersede means to take the place of, as by reason of superior worth or right. A recently enacted statute that repeals an older law is said to supersede the prior legislation. So he is saying that the concealed carry act replaces the UUW law; however, the concealed carry act doesn't have any UUW provisions in it. Where is the UUW currently at in the ILCS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:22 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:22 PM Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. I would not be surprised at all if Cooper et al planned for this and had drafted a petition for appeal ahead of time and will file it today, asking for it to be expedited as well. If the appeal was filed by "us" today how long does the state get to file a reply or does the 7th get set the time for replies etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:24 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:24 PM The FCCA has the new UUW at the end of it, that's why it's over 100 pages long. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supprmann Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:25 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:25 PM If E. St. Louis is gonna be a disappointment.........it might as well be one on all levels and on all fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:26 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:26 PM I don't understand the following. In the conclusion of the ruling, it states the following: "the Court FINDS that the Illinois Firearm Conceal Carry Act of 2013, Public Act 098-0063, supersedes 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4),(10) and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6" The legal definition of supersede is the following: To obliterate, replace, make void, or useless.Supersede means to take the place of, as by reason of superior worth or right. A recently enacted statute that repeals an older law is said to supersede the prior legislation. So he is saying that the concealed carry act replaces the UUW law; however, the concealed carry act doesn't have any UUW provisions in it. Where is the UUW currently at in the ILCS? I made this point in an earlier post in another thread. The FCCA does NOT replace the UUW law, it provides an EXCEPTION to the law. Meaning the law is still in effect EXCEPT for those of us who have a permit issued under the new FCCA. Oh wait, NO ONE has those permits yet and won't for MONTHS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningHP Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:26 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:26 PM Skinny, I think what that sentence means to say is that the criteria was never that the licensing process has to be immediately operational, right? It would seem like this argument would be a lot more tenable if: A- the delay wasn't likely to be at least half a year to 9 months, andB- the FOID system was in working order Most notably, the Court of Appeals did not direct the State of Illinois to both pass new gun legislation and have the permitting or licensing processes operational before the expiration period of the stay of the mandate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:28 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:28 PM I don't understand the following. In the conclusion of the ruling, it states the following: "the Court FINDS that the Illinois Firearm Conceal Carry Act of 2013, Public Act 098-0063, supersedes 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4),(10) and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6" The legal definition of supersede is the following: To obliterate, replace, make void, or useless. Glad to see I'm not the only one confused. All the penalties I read in the new law dealt with licensee, but since I'm not a licensee, those penalties don't apply to me and I couldn't find any that dealt with non-license person. Supersede means to take the place of, as by reason of superior worth or right. A recently enacted statute that repeals an older law is said to supersede the prior legislation. So he is saying that the concealed carry act replaces the UUW law; however, the concealed carry act doesn't have any UUW provisions in it. Where is the UUW currently at in the ILCS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:28 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:28 PM I wonder if he would side with us if the time to implement was 10 years? 5 years? 3 years? How long is too long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarCry Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:30 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:30 PM I don't understand the following. In the conclusion of the ruling, it states the following: "the Court FINDS that the Illinois Firearm Conceal Carry Act of 2013, Public Act 098-0063, supersedes 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4),(10) and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6" The legal definition of supersede is the following: To obliterate, replace, make void, or useless.Supersede means to take the place of, as by reason of superior worth or right. A recently enacted statute that repeals an older law is said to supersede the prior legislation. So he is saying that the concealed carry act replaces the UUW law; however, the concealed carry act doesn't have any UUW provisions in it. Where is the UUW currently at in the ILCS? Section 155 amends the previous code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:31 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:31 PM I REALLY love this, it truly shows how out of touch with reality he is if he believes the ISP won't take up the entire time period and then some. "Although the statutory scheme of the new Act gives the State Police 'up to 180' days to get the application process into effect, and the screening process may take up to an additional 90 days, these are one-time events. Moreover, the fact that this time period for establishing the permitting process is specified in the statute does not mean that it actually will take that amount of time for the State Police to complete the process." Out of touch he is, but it's also pretty much an admission by him that there is still a blank ban and denial of rights dependent upon how fast the ISP acts... The whole ruling is a farce, it's become clear that IL courts are still wholly in denial of the 2nd Amendment Rights as outlined by courts above them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningHP Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:31 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:31 PM I wonder if he would side with us if the time to implement was 10 years? 5 years? 3 years? How long is too long? Right. If FOIDs are supposed to take 30 days and now take 90 days, does that mean the State can wait 180*3+90*3 = 810 days = over 2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:33 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:33 PM Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. I would not be surprised at all if Cooper et al planned for this and had drafted a petition for appeal ahead of time and will file it today, asking for it to be expedited as well. If the appeal was filed by "us" today how long does the state get to file a reply or does the 7th get set the time for replies etc? FRAP Rule 3 governs appeals. But I'm not sure how they'd go about this. Possibly file a motion for a stay pending appeal with the District Court. I'm really not sure which Rule they'd file under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.