Jump to content

Madigan's office files motion to dismiss Shepard/Moore cases as moot


Phatty

Recommended Posts

If anything hopefully we get another court mandated date to have the permitting process done. The legislature can screw with their new law all they want in the fall session and there is nothing set in stone to keep them on track and from pushing any and all implementation dates back. Who cares about breaking your own made laws anyway? (Look at the FOID) A court set date will IMHO keep things on track. Get em Todd !

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm not sure we are disagreeing, BUT as you say in your first paragraph, if the court has stated that the right to carry can be restricted, and they gave 6+ months to merely pass a law, surely they are going to agree that a similar amount of time to develop the implementation process after the law passed is reasonable. Obviously, until the law passed, there was no iron-clad understanding of the various requirements, so that all starts now, and I thinik the state can prove they have already started on the work.

 

Like it or not, and I hate it, the fact is, anyone arguing that the court is going to demand immediate FOID carry is nuts.While it's great to see we are fighting Lisa's play here, the reality is, the implementation period is in my opinion probably not going to be a strong suit for us, as I believe they will agree 6-9 is reasonable. Again, I wanted immediate carry for current CCW holders, and I'm just as disappointed as everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Like it or not, and I hate it, the fact is, anyone arguing that the court is going to demand immediate FOID carry is nuts.While it's great to see we are fighting Lisa's play here, the reality is, the implementation period is in my opinion probably not going to be a strong suit for us, as I believe they will agree 6-9 is reasonable. Again, I wanted immediate carry for current CCW holders, and I'm just as disappointed as everyone else.

 

 

If the court wants to calls us nuts, so be it, but I would rather have the question asked than assume they will not grant relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note pointing out Less than 30 minutes after legislature passed act defendants filed to the courts attention. recall all the pleas in the past for more time to decide if they would file? Thats a shot at the state Atty's office.

Yet they needed an extension for SCOTUS?

 

Several.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Like it or not, and I hate it, the fact is, anyone arguing that the court is going to demand immediate FOID carry is nuts.While it's great to see we are fighting Lisa's play here, the reality is, the implementation period is in my opinion probably not going to be a strong suit for us, as I believe they will agree 6-9 is reasonable. Again, I wanted immediate carry for current CCW holders, and I'm just as disappointed as everyone else.

 

 

If the court wants to calls us nuts, so be it, but I would rather have the question asked than assume they will not grant relief.

 

I'm tickled pink, and perhaps have been conditioned to expect the worse. While we have a great argument, and I've got every finger and tow crossed hoping we get some relief. I would love to see current CCW permit holder to get carry during the period.

 

I do however hope we have some additional filings going after some of the restrictions and requirements of the new law as being to oppressive. This thing is far from over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically this is a motion asking the court to force FOID carry until permits start being issued?

Kind of. In essence, everyone with a FOID card will be deemed a license holder until actual licenses are being issued. FOID holders will still have to comply with the new CCW law regarding prohibited places, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt it problematic to the state that the law now allows, as of yesterday, non residents w/CCW permits to vehicle carry immediately while there remains an effective ban to IL residents on all forms of carry or do I have my facts wrong?

 

So now non residents can come to our state, pierce our borders, and enjoy a measure of self defense we are enjoined from exercising as residents? I would be satisfied with car carry as a measure of relief until permits are granted. At least there is some equality with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I see Stiehl issuing in interlocutory order sending it up to the Seventh. This is above is pay grade heh.

I'm guessing the lower court is going to deny us, like they always do.

It'll have to be appealed up to the 7th again.

 

still pretty awesome they are asking for FOID carry. with any luck at least the 180 day implementation date will have some teeth at least if the court says that's the most time they'll get. Maybe the court will give us FOID carry if the ISP misses it's 180 day deadline.

 

We were speculating here at work that Quinn will now do everything in his power to delay and slow implementation as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there a time frame for the ruling?

 

In the motion they request a ruling by 7/16/13.

 

Rich

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

 

But a reply within 24 hours though right?

 

In the motion to expedite the plaintiffs (Shepard) are requesting that the defendants (Madigan) be ordered to respond within 1 day.

 

Rich

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically this is a motion asking the court to force FOID carry until permits start being issued?

Kind of. In essence, everyone with a FOID card will be deemed a license holder until actual licenses are being issued. FOID holders will still have to comply with the new CCW law regarding prohibited places, etc.

 

I could live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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