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This topic has been archived.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

#31 j2dawson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:09 PM

Did anyone realistically expect anything different?

#32 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:10 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).
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#33 w00dc4ip

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:12 PM

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...

Edited by w00dc4ip, 26 July 2013 - 01:13 PM.

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

#34 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,113 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:13 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?

Edited by bmyers, 26 July 2013 - 01:14 PM.

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#35 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,080 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:14 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.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#36 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:15 PM

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...


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...

Edited by RockerXX, 26 July 2013 - 01:17 PM.

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#37 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,855 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:17 PM

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...


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."

#38 RDP

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:19 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 ?

#39 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:20 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.

Edited by Glock23, 26 July 2013 - 01:21 PM.

** 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

#40 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,080 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:20 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."

Edited by skinnyb82, 26 July 2013 - 01:21 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#41 bear226

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:20 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.

USMC Vet, ISRA


#42 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:22 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?
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#43 zzhawk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:22 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?

#44 TyGuy

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:24 PM

The FCCA has the new UUW at the end of it, that's why it's over 100 pages long.

Right?

Edited by TyGuy, 26 July 2013 - 01:25 PM.

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

#45 supprmann

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:25 PM

If E. St. Louis is gonna be a disappointment.........it might as well be one on all levels and on all fronts.

#46 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:26 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!
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#47 BrowningHP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:26 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, and
B- 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."


Edited by BrowningHP, 26 July 2013 - 01:28 PM.


#48 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,113 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:28 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?


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#49 TyGuy

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:28 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?
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

#50 WarCry

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 93 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:30 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.

#51 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:31 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...

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#52 BrowningHP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:31 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?

#53 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,080 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:33 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.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#54 zzhawk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 13

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:34 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.


I see it now, thank you.

#55 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:35 PM

I'm really not sure which Rule they'd file under.


The one that can most easily be summed up as "You're an Idiot!"

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#56 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:36 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.


Thanks. I was just curious on a possible time frame before we'd see this ruled on by the 7th. I know they CAN take their time but I'm fairly sure they won't. In your opinion, are we looking at weeks, or months, before the final showdown. LOL
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#57 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,080 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:37 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.

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.

Edited by skinnyb82, 26 July 2013 - 01:38 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#58 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:39 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. ;)

Edited by cshipley92, 26 July 2013 - 01:40 PM.

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

#59 boomersand

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:40 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.

#60 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:42 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.
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."