Phatty Posted July 10, 2013 at 01:58 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 01:58 PM The State filed motions yesterday in the Shepard and Moore cases asking the federal district court judges to dismiss those cases as moot based on the challenged laws having been amended and the deficiencies in the old laws having been corrected by the new CCW law. The State argues that to the extent the plaintiffs have any problems with the new CCW law, they will have to file a new complaint. I would expect the plaintiffs in these cases to respond that the new CCW law does not cure the deficiencies pointed out by the 7th Circuit (at least for the next 180 days) because the current state of the law still prohibits all citizens from carrying loaded firearms in public because there is no current ability to obtain a permit. Attached is a copy of the motion filed in the Shepard case.Shepard - State Motion to Dismiss as Moot.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:08 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:08 PM Looks like this may open the door to a review of the law to insure compliance with ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacticalVideo Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:23 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:23 PM The "new" law does not comply with the CA7 ruling IMHO. 1) for the next 3/4 of a year, nothing changes with UUW. This is a direct violation to the courts ruling2) non-residents are allowed additional freedoms that Illinois residents are not allowed - The right to carry loaded firearms in their vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:26 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:26 PM The "new" law does not comply with the CA7 ruling IMHO. 1) for the next 3/4 of a year, nothing changes with UUW. This is a direct violation to the courts ruling2) non-residents are allowed additional freedoms that Illinois residents are not allowed - The right to carry loaded firearms in their vehicles. IANAL but this is pretty much how I read it also. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:30 PM Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 02:30 PM Madigan clearly had this motion ready to go the instant HB183 became law. I'm a little surprised that the plaintiffs did not also have something prepared in advance to file the minute that HB183 became law. But, I would still guess that something will be coming shortly from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:30 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:30 PM Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:36 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:36 PM been on this for the last 48 hours. lawyers are working on it. stay tuned. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:38 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:38 PM I would hope the plaintiff's would file a response pointing out that the issue has not been resolved and pointing to a future date 180 day, 270 days or 365-1/4 days is no relief today or tomorrow as such relief should have been in effect 6 months ago let alone June 9th or July 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:45 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:45 PM been on this for the last 48 hours. lawyers are working on it. stay tuned. . .No rest for the wicked eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:46 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:46 PM I don't see why CA7 would do anything. Their ruling struck down the old law, it spoke nothing about the new law. They graciously gave the state 180-210 days to get a new law, but if there wasn't one their ruling would still have come down. So, the ruling should still stand, the old UUW is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:51 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:51 PM its up to the district judge for the issue of relief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:54 PM Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 03:54 PM Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.The 7th Circuit gave Illinois an unprecendented stay of 180 days. The reason given for the stay was to allow the state time to get a new law in place. But, that doesn't mean that there is now an implied additional 180 days granted by the 7th Circuit to implement a new law. The stay is over and the mandate has issued. Law abiding citizens in Illinois should have an ability to carry firearms in public while complying with all reasonable regulations. But Illinois citizens currently do not have any ability to carry. If you take an extreme example, the argument becomes clearer. Say for example, that the new law said that all citizens can carry handguns anywhere in public as long as they submit an application provided by the ISP. But, the law says that the ISP cannot provide any such applications until 100 years after the effective date of the law. Clearly, that law would not compy with the 7th Circuit's opinion. On the other hand, if applications were made available 14 days after the effective date, there would probably be no issue. The 180 day time period is in that period of time where its not de minimus but it's also not egregiously long, so it's a harder case to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:10 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:10 PM Unless and until the law is IMPLEMENTED, relief should be granted, UUW/AGUUW should be struck as unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:26 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:26 PM been on this for the last 48 hours. lawyers are working on it. stay tuned. . . Thank God ! The state was given 210ish days with their extensions !!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:36 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:36 PM Vezpa, you should post more. In fact, all posts should be Vezpa...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:44 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:44 PM i hope the court rules we can carry tell we get the permits, only if you have foid card that will get ISP off there buts and get going on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:46 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:46 PM Vezpa, you should post more. In fact, all posts should be Vezpa...... That wouldn't be any fun. I like interacting with all the other gun IC members.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scough Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:46 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:46 PM Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.The 7th Circuit gave Illinois an unprecendented stay of 180 days. The reason given for the stay was to allow the state time to get a new law in place. But, that doesn't mean that there is now an implied additional 180 days granted by the 7th Circuit to implement a new law. The stay is over and the mandate has issued. Law abiding citizens in Illinois should have an ability to carry firearms in public while complying with all reasonable regulations. But Illinois citizens currently do not have any ability to carry. If you take an extreme example, the argument becomes clearer. Say for example, that the new law said that all citizens can carry handguns anywhere in public as long as they submit an application provided by the ISP. But, the law says that the ISP cannot provide any such applications until 100 years after the effective date of the law. Clearly, that law would not compy with the 7th Circuit's opinion. On the other hand, if applications were made available 14 days after the effective date, there would probably be no issue. The 180 day time period is in that period of time where its not de minimus but it's also not egregiously long, so it's a harder case to make. Surely you are aware that the 'Right to Carry' hasn't been ruled as an unrestricted, or unregulated right? As such, the court gave them 180+30 days to craft a law with 'reasonable' restrictions. Whether the restrictions comply with the spirit of the ruling is another question, but there was no ruling on how long they had to implement the processing after passage of the law. However, if they gave 210 days to simply pass a law, which is crazy fast for our retarded politicians, surely they will agree that it is reasonable to allow the state time to develop the infrastrure and screening process to allow permitting. While again, I question that the restrictions go overboard, the overly burdensome cost is discriminatory, and the passed law very well should be pursued, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the court intended for them to begin issuing permits without some lag to develop the necessary process. Imho, that arguement isn't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:49 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:49 PM Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.The 7th Circuit gave Illinois an unprecendented stay of 180 days. The reason given for the stay was to allow the state time to get a new law in place. But, that doesn't mean that there is now an implied additional 180 days granted by the 7th Circuit to implement a new law. The stay is over and the mandate has issued. Law abiding citizens in Illinois should have an ability to carry firearms in public while complying with all reasonable regulations. But Illinois citizens currently do not have any ability to carry. If you take an extreme example, the argument becomes clearer. Say for example, that the new law said that all citizens can carry handguns anywhere in public as long as they submit an application provided by the ISP. But, the law says that the ISP cannot provide any such applications until 100 years after the effective date of the law. Clearly, that law would not compy with the 7th Circuit's opinion. On the other hand, if applications were made available 14 days after the effective date, there would probably be no issue. The 180 day time period is in that period of time where its not de minimus but it's also not egregiously long, so it's a harder case to make. Surely you are aware that the 'Right to Carry' hasn't been ruled as an unrestricted, or unregulated right? As such, the court gave them 180+30 days to craft a law with 'reasonable' restrictions. Whether the restrictions comply with the spirit of the ruling is another question, but there was no ruling on how long they had to implement the processing after passage of the law. However, if they gave 210 days to simply pass a law, which is crazy fast for our retarded politicians, surely they will agree that it is reasonable to allow the state time to develop the infrastrure and screening process to allow permitting. While again, I question that the restrictions go overboard, the overly burdensome cost is discriminatory, and the passed law very well should be pursued, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the court intended for them to begin issuing permits without some lag to develop the necessary process. Imho, that arguement isn't going anywhere. 9 more months is a lot more than a little lag.3-6 months....maybe, as this is after the 210 days already given to create a law when it was declared unconstitutional. What if someone was denied the right to free speech for over a year?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:53 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:53 PM filing. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chidiver Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:55 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:55 PM filing. . . .Ooh! Ooh! Can we see? Pretty please? Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scough Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:56 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:56 PM Surely you are aware that the 'Right to Carry' hasn't been ruled as an unrestricted, or unregulated right? As such, the court gave them 180+30 days to craft a law with 'reasonable' restrictions. Whether the restrictions comply with the spirit of the ruling is another question, but there was no ruling on how long they had to implement the processing after passage of the law. However, if they gave 210 days to simply pass a law, which is crazy fast for our retarded politicians, surely they will agree that it is reasonable to allow the state time to develop the infrastrure and screening process to allow permitting. While again, I question that the restrictions go overboard, the overly burdensome cost is discriminatory, and the passed law very well should be pursued, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the court intended for them to begin issuing permits without some lag to develop the necessary process. Imho, that arguement isn't going anywhere. 9 more months is a lot more than a little lag.3-6 months....maybe, as this is after the 210 days given to create a law... Oh I agree 9 months is way longer than I was hoping for. I kind of liked the old plan where current CCW holders got to carry immediately while the process was being developed. Obviously, this is just one of countless points we lost along the process that I'm not happy about either. That said, again, if they gave 210 days just to pass a law, surely they are not going to think the implementation schedule is unreasonable. Frankly, I thought the 180 days was nuts, and the extention a slap in the face, so that's what I'm basing my thoughts on. Obviously the court recognizes that a new regulated law needs time to develop the implementation process and the 9 months is inline with their past timeline rulings. I'm just trying to be pragmatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:58 PM Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 04:58 PM scough,Nobody is arguing that the right to carry can't be regulated or restricted. But as of today, carrying is still totally and completed banned in the State of Illinois. The 7th Circuit said that total and complete bans are not permitted. Without a doubt, Illinois can set up certain hoops and hurdles for its citizens to jump through to get a license, but a citizen ready and willing to jump through such hoops and hurdles can't do it right now because the State has all the hoops and hurdles locked away in the gym closet. You and others are also giving too much weight to the 7th Circuit's stated reason for granting a stay. The Court did say that the reason for the stay was to give the State time to pass a new law (and not also to implement the law) but the reason for the stay does not change the fact that there is no more stay. Ironically, this is similar to the text of the 2A, where the stated reason for the amendment (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . .) does not constrain the right actually being granted (the right to keep and bear arms). Illinois could have filed a motion with the 7th Circuit asking for an additional extension of the stay to give them time to actually implement the new law, but it didn't. So the stay is over, and the law of the land is that citizens in Illinois cannot be completely barred from carrying weapons in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:00 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:00 PM ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:04 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:04 PM ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO. . Exactly. The FOID app already requests all the information that everywhere else uses for CCW permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:04 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:04 PM ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO. .thats Quinn for you, he's doing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:05 PM Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:05 PM ISP could have probably avoided this by at least allowing applications to be accepted today IMHO. .True. And to be honest, ISP would have had no problem having a standard form application ready to go by today. I could easily put together a good-looking application in about an hour. The timing problem for the ISP is putting everything together to process the applications and also approving training courses. So, if they put out applications today, #1 most people would not be able to submit a completed application because there'd be no approved courses, and #2 the ISP would almost surely not meet the 90 day deadline for processing the applications that were submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:08 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:08 PM heres triebels motion to dismiss.. will post the response when available.motiontodismiss.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:12 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:12 PM Todd clearly stated that he had already been working with the ISP on training requirements for some time. This is all just wasting more time.They were probably ready to go but are still working on the broken FOID backlog. IMHO they need some type of fire lit under their ***** or a real shortdeadline to get anything done properly in this state.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:13 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 05:13 PM Response to motion and motion for permanent injunctionresponse.pdfmotionforinjunction.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.