Jump to content

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


Phatty

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ruling

2) 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

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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