Silhouette

This is a fascinating mess. There is an article here detailing a similar situation in the 5th circuit (not binding on anything here) suggesting some strategies, but it is clearly going to be complex. https://finaldecisions.org/avoiding-but-not-disarming-the-finality-trap/ Short summary: Joyal's claims were presumably dismissed under Rule 41 meaning the decision can't now be declared final -- even if the district court tries to do so under Rule 58,. Also, the court probably can't go back and use rule 54b (lots of gymnastics with this one) to get around the issue. The recommended approach, which is not guaranteed to work, would be to have Joyal bindingly disclaim the right to reassert the claims.

This seems like quite an unforced error (or suggests some strange shifts in politics). Is there a way to recover from this with an additional filing from Joyal?

This rehearing en banc seems to be related to Maryland Shall Issue v Moore: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66754326/maryland-shall-issue-inc-v-wes-moore/ The two cases hinge on the same question of law and MSI v Moore had an opinion striking down the Md Handgun license law in November. It seems odd to summarily grant an en banc hearing sua sponte in Bianchi because of MSI, especially when the en banc decision wouldn't obviously be binding on the panel in Bianchi. Don't get me wrong. I don't like it. ...but it's not quite as odd in light of MSI v Moore.

Thank you, Euler. I don't know how I missed that. Mea Culpa.

I just read the Range v. US opinion (both the 3rd circuit from November and the en banc 3rd circuit decision from June). The June decision is a particularly good read. Was there a thread on that case on this forum? If so, I missed it. In Range v. US, a state law due to welfare/food stamp fraud made Range a felon and he successfully challenged the federal statute that removed his ability to have a firearm. For those who may have also missed this case, a link to the final decision is here. (I note that the Range case is binding precedent for the case in this thread so I hope my including the link is not off topic.) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/21-2835/21-2835-2023-06-06.html

Here's a link to the motion for a stay pending appeal: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Miller - Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.pdf

Molly provided an updated about three pages back that I believe is still the most up-to-date happening in this matter.

For reference, the unlawful use of a weapon statute in Illinois deems mere possession in a vehicle to be a "use". Similarly, mere purchase of an assault weapon is a "use." I hope CA7 or SCOTUS doesn't entertain this mincing of words that these firearms are not in use.

Scotus declined to intervene. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/court-rejects-request-to-temporarily-block-illinois-assault-weapon-bans/

Thank you very much, Euler, for typing up this synopsis of the hearing!

It sounds like this court responsibly felt that its hands were tied by the higher court. At least they didn't waste inordinate amounts of time getting to this point. Good luck at the next court getting the precedent overturned!!

Facts are determined by a jury and an evidence record, but matters of law get de novo review. Text, history, and tradition are not facts of the case but rather matters of law. They would have the opportunity to argue any such legal analysis by the judge at the next step.

It may also be a bit that the state feels that they have a losing hand in this courtroom or at this time, and if the judge asserts tradition then they have the ability to make different arguments on appeal. If the state's lawyers analyze the historic record, they don't have the freedom to change tactics on appeal when it may be more clear what their best argument may be. That said, as the landscape now appears, they will not be likely to gain ground on appeal.

Here is a link to the docket of the Viramontes v. Cook County case mentioned above: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60319877/viramontes-v-the-county-of-cook/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc There is a separate thread on the Viramontes case, but given that the cases may be combined, posting this here doesn't seem wrong.

I don't pretend to know what the IL Supreme Court intends, but they would be on solid ground trying to create the narrowest possible ruling possible. That's what courts usually try to do. In this instance, ruling the FOID unconstitutional as applied to the home would mean that such a license impinges on a the constitutional right to "keep" arms. However, given the rulings in the seventh circuit (Ezell, etc), there will likely be a problem in that the right to keep arms also implies the right to purchase and practice. I have to think the the IL Supreme Court has a very difficult task to imagine that a narrow ruling will stay narrow. This may suggest that the narrowest possible ruling is really quite broad -- and therefore cases like NYSRPA which stand to remake federal court opinions are extremely relevant even if this case doesn't go to SCOTUS directly. This one is almost enough to make jurists regret the backflips done over decades to ignore the clear and plain meaning of the 2nd... I look forward to reading the ruling in due course.