Jump to content

Moore/Shepard Ruling Announced


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

From the latest Tribune article:

Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has repeatedly sponsored concealed weapons legislation, hailed the measure as a “mandate."

“The justices more or less said Illinois has a mandate to get something passed within 180 days… to pass a concealed-carry law in the state of Illinois,” said Phelps, a Democrat from Downstate Harrisburg.

“I never thought we’d get a victory of that magnitude,” Phelps said.

Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he “can’t see us” going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can this just be delayed to infinity from countless appeals from the state?

 

I really do not think this will happen. Madigan (Lisa) cannpt take it to SCOTUS for fear that SCOTUS will ruule against her, thus striking down "may issue" all over the country.

2. Todd is in the driver's seat. If they come up with a Bill we don't like, we can delay a vote until the 180 days is over which i have (very aptly) named the "concealed carry cliff".

3. If they can't get a Bill done in 180 days, your FOID allows carry open or concealed. The newscasters are already talking about it.

 

 

 

June 9th is officailly concealed carry cliff!! that made me laugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects

of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish

a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.

...

 

Anyway the Supreme Court made clear

in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear

arms depend on casualty counts.

 

Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!)

 

Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.

Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights.

 

The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

:Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I thought the chances were against us at this level, but glad to see it, even if the 180 days could become an indefinite period of time until SCOTUS gets it shot at it.

 

It is still in the wait and see what happens phase, but it is good to see.

 

I wonder how SCOTUS deals with the circuit split that we now have?

 

I think they are going to have to hear a case in the 2013 session. Probably not enough time to get it in this session.

 

The way the thing is worded makes me think there is a good chance the court does not give the state any additional time and their only hope is to get SCOTUS to give them that time, and I have no idea how that would go down.

 

I think it bodes well for some kind of LTC by the end of 2013 in IL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects

of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish

a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.

...

 

Anyway the Supreme Court made clear

in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear

arms depend on casualty counts.

 

Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!)

 

Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.

Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights.

 

The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions.

 

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.

Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.

Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.

 

I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.

Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.

 

I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point.

 

Where's the split?

Here they ruled on a complete ban. No recourse, no ability to carry at all in any way in any place.

Other rulings have been about places that had a permit system and required "good cause" or some other non-sense.

I dont see the split, but then again I am not a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope the legislature drafts a good Right to Carry bill, not just a concealed carry bill. I would hate to be busted just because someone caught a glimpse of my weapon.

 

As it has been said, "Todd is in the driver's seat."

 

Have faith in what Todd will push forward from here. He won't miss a big gaping hole such as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd says that all the compromises that were made in the previous legislation.....just went out the window. lol

 

http://www.chicagotr...0,7034171.story

"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.

 

The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."

 

This is unbelieable!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects

of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish

a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.

...

 

Anyway the Supreme Court made clear

in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear

arms depend on casualty counts.

 

Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!)

 

Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.

Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights.

 

The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions.

 

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.

Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.

 

Well said Lou - my take as well - SCOTUS has already basically decided this- no need to retrace footsteps..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.

Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.

 

I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point.

 

Where's the split?

Here they ruled on a complete ban. No recourse, no ability to carry at all in any way in any place.

Other rulings have been about places that had a permit system and required "good cause" or some other non-sense.

I dont see the split, but then again I am not a lawyer.

 

a permit that is all but impossible to obtain is not far from a system of no carry at all.

 

I am surprised the state did not claim that one can carry while hunting so there really was no absolutely ban. I do not think it would have made any real difference though.

 

I would not be surprised to see SCOTUS take several cases and roll them into a single opinion. probably not until the fall 2013 session though.

 

No reason to wait though. Hard to say what SCOTUS might do and better to get what we can while can.

Edited by bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thank God that I was wrong in my beliefs on Illinois having Concealed carry. This just instills in me the knowledge that Chicago does not have everything or everyone in their hip pocket. I am glad that the judges in this ruling refered to the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings for their issuance of this ruling. This is based on the Constitution and law not some stupid Chicago whim. Maybe now Chicago will thing twice before attacking the Constitution again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately?

 

My understanding is that it all depends on what the bill that is proposed allows for. If we push through a bill that preempts home rule, then no.

 

I would say even with a preemption of home rule you could still have trouble. Down in Florida the STATE has preemption of ALL firearms laws yet some localities continue to illegally pass and enforce their own firearms laws. In the case of Florida you have a legislature and population hostile to such so you see pushback in the state house.

Do you really see Madigan pushing against an Illegal Chicago or Cook County law? It would take another lawsuit or two which would be won after a few years.

 

The WAR is not over, the battle is simply over. It was a great big battle that took a long time. We can rest up a little bit but the next battle will be coming before you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But carrying while hunting doesn't satisfy the carrying for personal protection that was mentioned numerous times in the decision.

 

It would have been a strategy that probably would have failed, but I am somewhat surprised they did not at least make the attempt to deflect the complete ban argument.

 

The right to self defense is making a comeback that is underlying a lot of this. That is maybe more important long term than the right to keep and bear firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...