Shepard update 7/27 -- dismissed as moot

[Glock23]

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).

[RoadyRunner]

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

[Frank]

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

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[Tango7]

GMAFB

[TFC]

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.

[Strangebrew]

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.

 

EXACTLY! That's why you will never carry in Illinois. It ain't gonna happen. Period. My FOID expires in 2018, so I guess I'd better renew it now. What a joke this State is.

[supprmann]

I guess the question of the hour would be.........does anyone know when or if they are gonna file back with the 7th???

[Bhawk99]

I guess the question of the hour would be.........does anyone know when or if they are gonna file back with the 7th???

Hopefully the sooner the better

[skinnyb82]

I'd be surprised if they didnt have some canned petition drafted beforehand just in case this happened. They can fill in the specifics regarding Stiehl's ruling etc and file it via CM/ECF a few hours later. That's what I'd do at least.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[ragsbo]

Same old crap from the same old people.

[TTIN]

Page 7 of the ruling:

 

"Although the licensing scheme is not yet completed, the law does permit the

plaintiffs to apply for, and assuming that they meet the statutory requirements for issuance of a

license, 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...

This is what I've been saying all along; I'll celebrate when/if I open the mail one day and there is that shiny new piece of plastic; and not before.I still don't believe we will ever actually get a permit.

[TTIN]

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

Just realized that we have a Phatty and a skinny discussing the legalese.......now that's funny right there!

[BobPistol]

Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. .

 

I thinkthat Stiehl is showboating hoping to be noticed by the Obama Administration. I predict he will be nominated to a federal appeals court.

[Houndawg]

Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. .

 

I thinkthat Stiehl is showboating hoping to be noticed by the Obama Administration. I predict he will be nominated to a federal appeals court.

 

Isn't he like 150 years old? By the time he gets confirmed he'll be dead.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[bear226]

Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. .

 

I thinkthat Stiehl is showboating hoping to be noticed by the Obama Administration. I predict he will be nominated to a federal appeals court.

 

Isn't he like 150 years old? By the time he gets confirmed he'll be dead.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Soon I hope

[JefferyClark]

Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. .

 

I thinkthat Stiehl is showboating hoping to be noticed by the Obama Administration. I predict he will be nominated to a federal appeals court.

 

Isn't he like 150 years old? By the time he gets confirmed he'll be dead.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

He won't get confirmed with 2 overturns on the same issue, which I think (and hope) is where we're headed. At his age, senility is probably grounds for an appeal and overturn.....

 

Back on the issue though, Illinois still has a de facto ban on carry because there is no mechanism in place to grant permits. There is no penalty for not meeting the timeline spelled out in the law, and all it takes is Mr. ISP guy coming to the GA and saying "We can't get it done and need the timeline extended." and there will be enough votes to extend the timeline in the law. They'll keep granting 180 days for the ISP to do its job and then when complaints get loud enough again, they'll have another meeting and extend again, and so on and this carries on ad nauseum.

 

The fact that IL still has a de facto ban on carry since there is no mechanism in place to get a permit has to be the main line of argument. Equal protection probably shouldn't even be brought into it, since then the court might rule that the parts that allow non-residents more power than IL residents right now are unconstitutional and start picking apart the parts of the bill that are actually good. If we stay on target and keep saying "de facto ban" it might sink in and we'll either get a court mandate that the timeline be followed (in which case, if it isn't, we can ask for immediate relief) or, what most of us would prefer instead, FOID carry. I think most of us would even be ok with open carry on a FOID for now.

[G214me]

Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. .

 

I thinkthat Stiehl is showboating hoping to be noticed by the Obama Administration. I predict he will be nominated to a federal appeals court.

Considering he has no respect for 2nd Amendment rights and obviously makes bad decisions I agree. the worthless old fool is just what Comrade Obama wants in a judge.

[F.Ecks]

Now I am Pro2A - I STRONGLY believe in "the right to bear arms"...

 

...BUT (and you just KNEW a "but" was coming, didn't ya?) from a strategic point=of-view, this could be a court battle we lose since Illinois IS in motion to implement concealed carry.

 

To stop the NRA from paying Illinois Attorney's fees (assuming that this is legal), wouldn't it be wiser to go after Cooks ban and the Assault Weapons ban oppose to expediting FOID carry?

 

Hey - don't "shoot me down", I'm just asking from a strategic point of view....

 

Now if there is NO CHANCE that the NRA would have to pay Illinois Attorney's, then this question is moot.

[KarlJ]

Wilson vs. cook county is the case dealing with the AWB

[GlockShooter]

Now if there is NO CHANCE that the NRA would have to pay Illinois Attorney's, then this question is moot.

 

Sorry, but I have to. A little comedic release...

 

http://www.metacafe....estion_is_moot/

 

I think about that skit every time I hear the word moot, which is a lot lately.

[Nic]

Now I am Pro2A - I STRONGLY believe in "the right to bear arms"...

 

...BUT (and you just KNEW a "but" was coming, didn't ya?) from a strategic point=of-view, this could be a court battle we lose since Illinois IS in motion to implement concealed carry.

 

To stop the NRA from paying Illinois Attorney's fees (assuming that this is legal), wouldn't it be wiser to go after Cooks ban and the Assault Weapons ban oppose to expediting FOID carry?

 

Hey - don't "shoot me down", I'm just asking from a strategic point of view....

 

Now if there is NO CHANCE that the NRA would have to pay Illinois Attorney's, then this question is moot.

 

The State and the defendants already LOST at CA7. This is a motion from IL to NOT pay the plaintiffs such as ISRA, NRA, Shepard, Moore, etc. The defendants are asking the court to give them relief which is the attorney costs, court fees, and FOID carry. The FOID carry is just "tacked on" as a Hail Mary, but its a perfectly reasonable and plausible Hail Mary play. What the defendants really want is their money, that they are entitled to after winning at CA7.

[tplane37]

Okay folks, I see a lot of whining about this ruling.

 

Is it BS? Yes.

 

Is there anything anyone can do to change what has been ruled? Yes and No; It can be appealed, which will provide opportunity to change the validity of the ruling, but not the ruling itself.

 

Does the ruling have any bearing on you or me (e.g. not parties to the case at bar)? No; Precedent is set by two actions: (1) A decision from a reviewing Court (e.g. Appellate Court, state Supreme Court, or United States Supreme Court); and (2) the aforesaid decision from one of the foregoing reviewing Courts must be cited and affirmed (relied upon) by a second reviewing Court. -- Therefore, at this time, the ruling has no legal bearing on us unless you are/were a party named in the case.

 

Now, there are ways to enforce the 180 day limitation on the state to issue permits, it is in the law. While the new law indicates that the Illinois State Police have 90 days to provide a form, there is nothing in the new law prohibiting applicants from providing the required information in their own, self-drafted letter. The hold up is on the "approved" training courses; however, can you provide certifiable evidence that you have completed the requisite training? If so, read the law (from the source that you acquire yourself), write a clear and concise request for a permit, briefly explain how you have complied with the mandates of the law, citing your certified evidence of completion, send it all certified mail (get a notarized statement of what you place in the envelope), then wait 180 days. Either (i) you will received some sort of letter authorizing you to carry, (ii) you will receive an actual permit or some other authorization to carry concealed, (iii) you will receive a denial letter that should include an explanation as to why you are being denied authorization...

 

If you receive a letter of denial, there are mechanisms within the law for you to appeal administratively, and then further appeal to the Circuit Court. If the denial letter does not contain explicit reference to one of the stated reasons for denial, you should be able to get an Order from a Court granting you (individually) authorization. Again, such a ruling will have no bearing on anyone who is not a party to the case, but it is your own leg-work and self-study that will pay off. If you don't want to to the research yourself and apply what you learn, then quit whining and wait until everything is handed to you.

 

As for "corrupt" judges and politicians (and other corporate officers and elected persons), two words to study: "Quo Warranto" (See, 9th Article of Amendment, at least).

 

And on a final note, the Constitution of the United States of America grants no rights! There are specific rights protected by the trust indentures for our government (e.g. the Constitution of the United States of America and the individual Constitutions of the states); there is no such thing as a "Constitutional Right," at best, they are "rights protected by the Constitution," but they are always natural rights that cannot be created nor taken by any man, women or government.

 

/rant

[F.Ecks]

Now if there is NO CHANCE that the NRA would have to pay Illinois Attorney's, then this question is moot.

 

Sorry, but I have to. A little comedic release...

 

http://www.metacafe....estion_is_moot/

 

I think about that skit every time I hear the word moot, which is a lot lately.

Ha, ha! Guess what? I didn't know moot was a WORD until that SNL skit!

 

Who says TV doesn't help your vocabulary...?

[TyGuy]

They can't be taken eh? Then what do you suppose IL has been doing all this time?

[F.Ecks]

 

The State and the defendants already LOST at CA7. This is a motion from IL to NOT pay the plaintiffs such as ISRA, NRA, Shepard, Moore, etc. The defendants are asking the court to give them relief which is the attorney costs, court fees, and FOID carry. The FOID carry is just "tacked on" as a Hail Mary, but its a perfectly reasonable and plausible Hail Mary play. What the defendants really want is their money, that they are entitled to after winning at CA7.

Ah, Nic, you forgot to say "your question is therefore MOOT!

[F.Ecks]

They can't be taken eh? Then what do you suppose IL has been doing all this time?

 

They have been ALEVEATING us of our rights...!

 

What does that mean?

 

...Basically that we HAVE them we just can't USE them!

[TyGuy]

You can, just gotta accept the risks.

[Jwg43]

Unfortunately, I can see this going the same way as medical marijuana did in the late seventies. For those unfamiliar with the story, the Illinois legislature passed, and the governor approved, a medical marijuana pilot project in 1978. It was very controversial, and not favored by law enforcement. In order to appease the State Police, the legislature put the State Police in charge of promulgating the rules under which the program ran. However, the State Police, because they opposed the law, simply never got around to promulgating the rules. Although the law was in effect since 1978, the actual permits required under the law were never issued, because the State Police refused to promulgate the rules needed under the law to do so. I just can't shake the feeling we've all been snookered. The legislature passes a meaningless law, to comply with the requirements of the 7th Circuit's ruling, but gives itself time to "implement" the process. The courts find the short delay to get the system running reasonable (as they did today). I can just see, four months from now, the rumblings starting about more time being needed to put the system in place. Heck, Tom Dart is already whining about the "burden" of objecting in 30 days, and seeking to expand the time frame, and we don't even have the system close to being implemented. Politicians line up to approve more time to tinker with the system, for "public safety". I think permits by the end of 2014 may be optimistic.