SCOTUS - will not take Kachalsky v. Cacace

[bsachnoff]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBRE93E0L820130415

[THE KING]

THAT SUCKS

[skinnyb82]

Yeah and who wants to bet that it's got to do with Newtown and the huge liberal push for gun control even though they're two separate issues. "The Supreme Court is hearing a case with the potential to require states to give carry permits to everyone (leave out the "who qualifies" part) blah blah blah"

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[TyGuy]

What other carry cases are requesting cert right now? Could they be waiting for a broader case? Why rule on X when you can rule on X, Y, and Z and settle the issue?

[xd9subcompact]

Yes, but how does this affect the 7th ruling and the 180 day clock we have running?

[TyGuy]

I mean, I can't see letting two different circuit courts of appeals have different intrepretations of what has already been declared a fundamental right. SCOUTS surely most reconcile the decisions at some point, right?

[Talonap]

Yeah and who wants to bet that it's got to do with Newtown and the huge liberal push for gun control even though they're two separate issues. "The Supreme Court is hearing a case with the potential to require states to give carry permits to everyone (leave out the "who qualifies" part) blah blah blah"

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

But SCOTUS is NOT hearing the case...

[TyGuy]

Yes, but how does this affect the 7th ruling and the 180 day clock we have running?

When the ILGA starts debating firearms issues again the Chicago machine will be full of sound and fury signifying nothing.... We're going to Constitutional Carry and more pending legal battles.

[skinnyb82]

Yeah and who wants to bet that it's got to do with Newtown and the huge liberal push for gun control even though they're two separate issues. "The Supreme Court is hearing a case with the potential to require states to give carry permits to everyone (leave out the "who qualifies" part) blah blah blah"

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

But SCOTUS is NOT hearing the case...

 

The quotation is what the liberals would say if SCOTUS had granted writ. They would've demonized the Court. That's how they play ball. Remember when the Court granted Habeas Corpus to Gitmo detainees? You didn't hear Bush whining about how it was political.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Xwing]

That is very bad news. So it seems the SC is saying to the states "You figure it out yourselves". And we know how all the liberal states "figure it out"...

[oneshot]

That is very bad news. So it seems the SC is saying to the states "You figure it out yourselves". And we know how all the liberal states "figure it out"...

 

We still have to pass a law and the anti's don't have the votes to pass what they want here.

[WindyCityGuy]

Wow, that is HUGELY disappointing. That just sealed our fate here in Illinois. No way the Anti's will agree to any non-preemption bill now.

 

We will slide into Constitutional Carry and each city will throw up may-issue rules....

[RINGKINGS]

That is very bad news. So it seems the SC is saying to the states "You figure it out yourselves". And we know how all the liberal states "figure it out"...

Or, in the short term, this could be good news for us in Illinois........... Madigan could look at this and decide it is futile

to appeal the 7th circuit and rationalize that they had better pass a carry bill because they will not have their backup

plan of applying for cert at the SC level.

[WindyCityGuy]

That is very bad news. So it seems the SC is saying to the states "You figure it out yourselves". And we know how all the liberal states "figure it out"...

 

We still have to pass a law and the anti's don't have the votes to pass what they want here.

 

They don't have to pass a law, that's the point people don't get. The Chicago machine values home rule above all else, they could care less if the state goes into Constitutional Carry as long as they can make Chicago a may-issue jurisdiction.

[vess1]

In some ways it's scary how much power that gave the 7th circuit over us and how important that decision was. On the other hand, it looks like there won't be a last minute appeal to SCOTUS either. The state of Illinois is going to have to pass a carry law or get FOID carry. If it goes to the latter, many areas are not going to have any problems. If some individual cities need to be taken to court, who cares? They'll fall too eventually. There's no shortage of wealthy people with big egos and possible pro-gun organization help, that will have no problem making a name for themselves taking these cities down in court.

 

As they fall, the rest might decide it's a losing battle and not worth throwing the money away. It might not matter to Chicago with millions of uninformed people to fleece.

In smaller cities, elected officials may actually be held accountable for stupidity. Worst case scenario, under FOID carry, I think there may be counties to avoid, while you'll be free to roam many large areas without a worry. That's not what everybody wanted. But if Illinois elected competent officials in order to have an actual working government, we would have had carry years ago. We knew going in that this place is dysfunctional and we should have expected nothing less than a dysfunctional result based on inaction.

[Joebie]

Bury 'em in legal fees. Illinois just prints money in the basement anyway.

[vess1]

That is very bad news. So it seems the SC is saying to the states "You figure it out yourselves". And we know how all the liberal states "figure it out"...

 

We still have to pass a law and the anti's don't have the votes to pass what they want here.

 

They don't have to pass a law, that's the point people don't get. The Chicago machine values home rule above all else, they could care less if the state goes into Constitutional Carry as long as they can make Chicago a may-issue jurisdiction.

 

I don't see it going well for Chicago in court if it has to come back to the 7th. Which it likely will. At some point there's going to be an argument specifically written for Chicago and it won't be kind. They were already mentioned by name in the decision. They were given a chance. They're going to lose eventually.

[xd9subcompact]

If the state law barring carry (some form of) of a firearm is deemed unconstitutional, I fail to see how a local government passing such a law would stand up.

[THE KING]

If the state law barring carry (some form of) of a firearm is deemed unconstitutional, I fail to see how a local government passing such a law would stand up.

 

Unfortunately that's not the point whether it will stand up in court or not. These home rule communitites will pass the laws they want. And then they will leave it up to the courts to decide what is constitutional or not. Some of these politicians don't care, it's not their money that they are spending on these court cases, it's ours. And then we have to spend more of our money defending ourselves and our rights.

 

If SCOTUS won't take Kalchasky, would they take cert for Moore/Shepard. I personally don't think so !!

[TyGuy]

Or just keep it concealed.

[DownButNotOut]

Don't they ( SCOTUS ) have to in writing state why they are not taking the case.. Should be interesting reading if so..

[boog]

THAT SUCKS

Big time

Boog

[cls74]

Is constitutional carry seriously even an option? Everyone keeps talking about it and saying how it will go into effect on June 9th if nothing is done. But the 7th said they have 180 days to pass a bill, it may have said write a bill actually? Don't they in essence have to pass a bill regardless of whether they want constitutional carry and home rule in effect? Letting the clock expire is not meeting what the 7th ordered them to do.

 

 

What am I missing here with constitutional carry being a matter of fact, if they don't pass a bill then they are in violation of the court ruling correct? Even if they want constitutional carry

 

So we would have constitutional carry until they pass a bill, but they still have to pass a bill regardless of what they want. That's my understanding anyway. It's more of a matter are the consequences of their actions by not adhering to the deadline worth it? I don't know what type of penalties would be imposed or on who, but I'd hope it is not something that the taxpayers are held to foot the bill for. Sanctions and monetary penalties. Jail time and impeachment would better suit our needs in both the consequence and the motivation to pass a bill before the deadline.

[Talonap]

Yeah and who wants to bet that it's got to do with Newtown and the huge liberal push for gun control even though they're two separate issues. "The Supreme Court is hearing a case with the potential to require states to give carry permits to everyone (leave out the "who qualifies" part) blah blah blah"

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

But SCOTUS is NOT hearing the case...

 

The quotation is what the liberals would say if SCOTUS had granted writ. They would've demonized the Court. That's how they play ball. Remember when the Court granted Habeas Corpus to Gitmo detainees? You didn't hear Bush whining about how it was political.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

10-4 I get confused easily these days ...

[WindyCityGuy]

If the state law barring carry (some form of) of a firearm is deemed unconstitutional, I fail to see how a local government passing such a law would stand up.

 

It wont stand up. But that said they will pass the restriction anyway, and a lawsuit will be filed, and eventually (years and years later) they may have to give in. The Democratic Machine doesn't care how much money it spends on litigation.

[WindyCityGuy]

Is constitutional carry seriously even an option? Everyone keeps talking about it and saying how it will go into effect on June 9th if nothing is done. But the 7th said they have 180 days to pass a bill, it may have said write a bill actually? Don't they in essence have to pass a bill regardless of whether they want constitutional carry and home rule in effect? Letting the clock expire is not meeting what the 7th ordered them to do.

 

 

What am I missing here with constitutional carry being a matter of fact, if they don't pass a bill then they are in violation of the court ruling correct? Even if they want constitutional carry

 

So we would have constitutional carry until they pass a bill, but they still have to pass a bill regardless of what they want. That's my understanding anyway. It's more of a matter are the consequences of their actions by not adhering to the deadline worth it? I don't know what type of penalties would be imposed or on who, but I'd hope it is not something that the taxpayers are held to foot the bill for. Sanctions and monetary penalties. Jail time and impeachment would better suit our needs in both the consequence and the motivation to pass a bill before the deadline.

 

There is no court order requiring the state to pass a concealed carry law. The court simply overturned the current ban as unconstitutional, and gave the state a 180 grace period before the ruling wipes out the current ban.

 

That's it.

[RoadyRunner]

Don't they ( SCOTUS ) have to in writing state why they are not taking the case.. Should be interesting reading if so..

 

No. Thousands of cert requests are denied each session - no explanation needed.

[TyGuy]

BTW - only 4 justices are required to grant cert.

[cm.stites]

Is constitutional carry seriously even an option? Everyone keeps talking about it and saying how it will go into effect on June 9th if nothing is done. But the 7th said they have 180 days to pass a bill, it may have said write a bill actually? Don't they in essence have to pass a bill regardless of whether they want constitutional carry and home rule in effect? Letting the clock expire is not meeting what the 7th ordered them to do.

 

 

What am I missing here with constitutional carry being a matter of fact, if they don't pass a bill then they are in violation of the court ruling correct? Even if they want constitutional carry

 

So we would have constitutional carry until they pass a bill, but they still have to pass a bill regardless of what they want. That's my understanding anyway. It's more of a matter are the consequences of their actions by not adhering to the deadline worth it? I don't know what type of penalties would be imposed or on who, but I'd hope it is not something that the taxpayers are held to foot the bill for. Sanctions and monetary penalties. Jail time and impeachment would better suit our needs in both the consequence and the motivation to pass a bill before the deadline.

 

There is no court order requiring the state to pass a concealed carry law. The court simply overturned the current ban as unconstitutional, and gave the state a 180 grace period before the ruling wipes out the current ban.

 

That's it.

actually they were given 180 days to put a right to carry law in place..

[TyGuy]

I have to think that this is more of a tactical move on SCOTUS's part than a denial of the right to carry outside of the home. I can't imagine 6 of the justices thinking that the right only applies inside one's home, and therefore the 4 anti-2A must have been joined by at least 2 pro-2A to deny cert here. I think the pro-2A are waiting for a case that will result in a broader confirmation of the right, or are merely trying to avoid a contentious issue and kick the can down the road. Of course, in the last few years SCOTUS doesn't seem to care about the contentiousness of particular cases requesting cert, so I am more likely to think it is the first situation that I described above.

 

I only hope that a broader case makes its way up there, is granted cert, heard, and a pro-2A judgement is made before the President can appoint any more justices.

 

Thoughts?

 

What are the details for the case in CA4? Would it be broader than Kalaschky?