BillR Posted July 10, 2013 at 06:52 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 06:52 PM I think this gets into a "Grey" area.... when does the court start to "Legislate" instead of enforce or determine Constitutionality of a law ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Peterson Posted July 10, 2013 at 06:54 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 06:54 PM Has there been any SAF filings in the Moore v. Madigan case in the Central District of Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted July 10, 2013 at 06:57 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 06:57 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.. I second this idea from Ty. I find your avatar... distracting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted July 10, 2013 at 07:01 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 07:01 PM Has there been any SAF filings in the Moore v. Madigan case in the Central District of Illinois. Gray,The ISRA motions are in response to AG Madigan's motion to moot the Shepard case. However, it would be great to see the SAF file the same type of motions for relief in the Moore case too. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 10, 2013 at 07:10 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 07:10 PM You guys screwed up on this. You should have made a motion for 30 days to consider.why give em 30 vs 6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted July 10, 2013 at 07:26 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 07:26 PM You guys screwed up on this. You should have made a motion for 30 days to consider.why give em 30 vs 6? Should have done it in purple. The courts in the habit of granting any request from the other side requesting 30 more days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1MEANGT Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:17 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:17 PM This could get very interesting as the new law kills all local handgun ordinances. FOID carry until permit carry would really twist the knife in the machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:19 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:19 PM EXCELLENT response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:21 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:21 PM let us not forget that the carrying of a handgun is an exclusive function of the state. they can't pass anything else at the local level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:26 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:26 PM Response to motion and motion for permanent injunction So instead of FOID-carry that we thought the "cliff" would bring, we have "ISRA membership card"-carry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:28 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:28 PM let us not forget that the carrying of a handgun is an exclusive function of the state. they can't pass anything else at the local level. Point well taken. After decades of "local control", it's hard to wrap my head around that. And I'm in an area with no/very few local ordinances. I'm sure the Chicago guys are suffering from exploding brains trying to get around this simple fact. Chicago/Oak Park/Rockford/Carbondale et.al. can no longer make up cute little laws that citizens there have to abide by. It'll take a while to make the shift. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:36 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:36 PM let us not forget that the carrying of a handgun is an exclusive function of the state. they can't pass anything else at the local level. Get busy on the laser sight ban in Chicago Todd, Chop, Chop........ LOL ...... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w9trb Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:37 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:37 PM I read all those pdf's and must say that it makes my day! It will take a very obtuse Judge to create a reasonable sounding arguement to deny the request. Not that it would be impossible to find a cantankerous Judge, just that whatever is written in a denial would face scutiny at a higher Court and that scrutiny should let our rights be acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supprmann Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:38 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:38 PM Awwww SNAP!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningHP Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:42 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:42 PM I would love to see how much faster than 270 days it would go. They'd be issuing permits within weeks i bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:46 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:46 PM I would love to see how much faster than 270 days it would go. They'd be issuing permits within weeks i bet. Yup... wanna bet their system is setup WAY fast... Remember Wisconsin had apps and were ready to process in like 60 days from the law being signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:47 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:47 PM I'd think the FOID wait time has just shot up to over 12 months LOL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpapageorgio Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:50 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:50 PM I would love to see how much faster than 270 days it would go. They'd be issuing permits within weeks i bet. I say end of the month they'd be ready if this gets approved by the end of the week. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester121 Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:52 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:52 PM This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:55 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:55 PM This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something? What does SCOTUS have to do with this? SCOTUS can issue a stay IF the SA is appealing to SCOTUS, but there has been no appeal. Instead she is asking dismiss the case here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:56 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:56 PM This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something? My understanding the SCUS is no longer in play now that a new law is in place. I don't think Kagen can make a stay for anything except after filing for cert. IMHO, Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:57 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:57 PM Response to motion and motion for permanent injunction So instead of FOID-carry that we thought the "cliff" would bring, we have "ISRA membership card"-carry...leaves me out since im not an isra memeber haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:57 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:57 PM This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something? What does SCOTUS have to do with this? SCOTUS can issue a stay IF the SA is appealing to SCOTUS, but there has been no appeal. Instead she is asking dismiss the case here... If this is the case could we be using this to force Madigan's hand to take this to SCOTUS anyway to get a stay to prevent a possible FOID carry situation?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:57 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:57 PM This all seems pretty silly, based on my (limited) understanding of things -- Lisa just petitions SCOTUS (Kagan) to jump in and hold up the show with an emergency stay, which she will grant. Much ado about nothing, or am I missing something?she cant file to scotus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningHP Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:58 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 08:58 PM http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/11/foghorn/wisconsin-issues-first-ccw-license-80000-applications-downloaded-in-9-hours/ Wisconsin issued permits on day 1. No wonder it's such a wild wild west up there now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester121 Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:00 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:00 PM I think she can. If the 7th says "FOID carry for all!!" the day after tomorrow, Madigan can appeal that decision to SCOTUS, and I think she can get Kagan to enter an emergency stay.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:01 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:01 PM leaves me out since im not an isra memeber haha. Next news flash, ISRA membership jumps 1000% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:05 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:05 PM I think she can. If the 7th says "FOID carry for all!!" the day after tomorrow, Madigan can appeal that decision to SCOTUS, and I think she can get Kagan to enter an emergency stay....posners rulings already been sent down for 1 2 theres a new law on the books which MOOTS her appeal. and 3 its not the 7th circuit dealing with the issues right now its the southern district court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:10 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:10 PM I think she can. If the 7th says "FOID carry for all!!" the day after tomorrow, Madigan can appeal that decision to SCOTUS, and I think she can get Kagan to enter an emergency stay.... I dont believe she can. All she can do is file to take it to SCOTUS and ask for a stay during that time... But then she has to take it to scotus and of course they will ask "Why should we take this case, you already passed a law?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:14 PM Share Posted July 10, 2013 at 09:14 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.Please explain point #2 to me. As a nonresident I thought I had to abide by the same laws reseidents do when it comes to transporting firearms. The only real difference is that I don't need a FOID as per The People v Holmes, Illinois Supreme Court, April 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.