zzhawk Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:34 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:34 PM I don't understand the following. In the conclusion of the ruling, it states the following: "the Court FINDS that the Illinois Firearm Conceal Carry Act of 2013, Public Act 098-0063, supersedes 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4),(10) and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6" The legal definition of supersede is the following: To obliterate, replace, make void, or useless.Supersede means to take the place of, as by reason of superior worth or right. A recently enacted statute that repeals an older law is said to supersede the prior legislation. So he is saying that the concealed carry act replaces the UUW law; however, the concealed carry act doesn't have any UUW provisions in it. Where is the UUW currently at in the ILCS? Section 155 amends the previous code. I see it now, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:35 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:35 PM I'm really not sure which Rule they'd file under. The one that can most easily be summed up as "You're an Idiot!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:36 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:36 PM Judge Stiehl must enjoy being overturned by the Seventh Circuit. I would not be surprised at all if Cooper et al planned for this and had drafted a petition for appeal ahead of time and will file it today, asking for it to be expedited as well. If the appeal was filed by "us" today how long does the state get to file a reply or does the 7th get set the time for replies etc? FRAP Rule 3 governs appeals. But I'm not sure how they'd go about this. Possibly file a motion for a stay pending appeal with the District Court. I'm really not sure which Rule they'd file under. Thanks. I was just curious on a possible time frame before we'd see this ruled on by the 7th. I know they CAN take their time but I'm fairly sure they won't. In your opinion, are we looking at weeks, or months, before the final showdown. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:37 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:37 PM @cshipley92, weeks I'd say. This appeal will be expedited but I'm not sure if it's appeal as a right, appeal when taken, or appeal by permission since (and this is messed up) the case is still live. Posner and Flaum are gonna have a field day with this. Eh I dunno, my brain is...dead after this. I'm gonna go tweak the gas system on my .264-LBC-AR and zero my new scope since I finally got the bolt problem fixed and a new adjustable gas block (because they overgas them intentionally....thanks). Put some holes in stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:39 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:39 PM Eh I dunno, my brain is...dead after this. I'm gonna go tweak the gas system on my .264-LBC-AR and zero my new scope since I finally got the bolt problem fixed and a new adjustable gas block (because they overgas them intentionally....thanks). Put some holes in stuff. Have fun Skinny. Putting holes in stuff is a great stress reliever. Any particular faces you'll be imagining in your cross hairs? Uh, never mind, you might want to exercise your Miranda Rights on that last question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomersand Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:40 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:40 PM So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:42 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:42 PM So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering. Which is exactly why my DA said he wasn't issuing such a statement and said he'd deal with cases on an individual basis. He said it would just create confusion depending on what the ILGA and the courts did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:42 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:42 PM Eh I dunno, my brain is...dead after this. I'm gonna go tweak the gas system on my .264-LBC-AR and zero my new scope since I finally got the bolt problem fixed and a new adjustable gas block (because they overgas them intentionally....thanks). Put some holes in stuff. Have fun Skinny. Putting holes in stuff is a great stress reliever. Any particular faces you'll be imagining in your cross hairs? Uh, never mind, you might want to exercise your Miranda Rights on that last question. Heh it's cathartic. Nah I didn't see your question. I'd say CA7 gets this banged out in a few weeks, they have to give Madigan time to file her drivel. Then rule that Stiehl is in the wrong, remand it back down...again. Talk about a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:47 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:47 PM In other words wait until ISP is ready cause this will take time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scough Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:48 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:48 PM The bottom line is, don't expect to carry in Illinois before the spring of 2014... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:48 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:48 PM Eh I dunno, my brain is...dead after this. I'm gonna go tweak the gas system on my .264-LBC-AR and zero my new scope since I finally got the bolt problem fixed and a new adjustable gas block (because they overgas them intentionally....thanks). Put some holes in stuff. Have fun Skinny. Putting holes in stuff is a great stress reliever. Any particular faces you'll be imagining in your cross hairs? Uh, never mind, you might want to exercise your Miranda Rights on that last question. Heh it's cathartic. Nah I didn't see your question. I'd say CA7 gets this banged out in a few weeks, they have to give Madigan time to file her drivel. Then rule that Stiehl is in the wrong, remand it back down...again. Talk about a mess. LOL. I would imagine when they remand it down again they will be quite specific on what he's to do. I'm sure any appeals court doesn't enjoy holding the hand of a lower court judge and guiding them step by step when they've already made it quite clear what they want done. Maybe it's not allowed by rules/laws, but why couldn't a judge like Stiehl simply pick up a phone, call Posner and the other members of the panel, and go.... "Okay, here's what I got, what do you want me to do?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:50 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:50 PM @cshipley92, weeks I'd say. This appeal will be expedited but I'm not sure if it's appeal as a right, appeal when taken, or appeal by permission since (and this is messed up) the case is still live. Posner and Flaum are gonna have a field day with this.skinnyb82, it's an appeal by right. The judge entered a final order dismissing the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w00dc4ip Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:55 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:55 PM LOL. I would imagine when they remand it down again they will be quite specific on what he's to do. I'm sure any appeals court doesn't enjoy holding the hand of a lower court judge and guiding them step by step when they've already made it quite clear what they want done. Maybe it's not allowed by rules/laws, but why couldn't a judge like Stiehl simply pick up a phone, call Posner and the other members of the panel, and go.... "Okay, here's what I got, what do you want me to do?" 7th Circuit Ruling:The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.The instructions were pretty clear the first time. According to the ruling I just read, Stiehl's response to the instructions they gave him the first time were, "Uh, No." This is one symptom of why people no longer trust government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningHP Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:59 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 07:59 PM 7th Circuit Ruling:The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.The instructions were pretty clear the first time. According to the ruling I just read, Stiehl's response to the instructions they gave him the first time were, "Uh, No." This is one symptom of why people no longer trust government. I think this means Stiehl considers 180 more days before the State accepts applications, and another 90 days to issue them, to be a "reasonable limitation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supprmann Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:05 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:05 PM So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering. Which is exactly why my DA said he wasn't issuing such a statement and said he'd deal with cases on an individual basis. He said it would just create confusion depending on what the ILGA and the courts did. You must be in St. Clair..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:14 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:14 PM So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering. Which is exactly why my DA said he wasn't issuing such a statement and said he'd deal with cases on an individual basis. He said it would just create confusion depending on what the ILGA and the courts did. You must be in St. Clair..... Nope, Morgan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:14 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:14 PM skinnyb82, it's an appeal by right. The judge entered a final order dismissing the case. Yeah under FRAP Rule 3 correct? I figured it was an appeal by right since it's a final judgment, not interlocutory although I'd expect the ISRA/Shepard's counsel to file an emergency petition for a stay pending appeal which I doubt he'd grant since after this I dont have any faith in Stiehl. Would have to go to CA7 for the stay too. I imagine Posner, Flaum, and even Williams are very irritated by now since Stiehl just gave them the finger. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supprmann Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:18 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:18 PM skinnyb82, it's an appeal by right. The judge entered a final order dismissing the case. Yeah under FRAP Rule 3 correct? I figured it was an appeal by right since it's a final judgment, not interlocutory although I'd expect the ISRA/Shepard's counsel to file an emergency petition for a stay pending appeal which I doubt he'd grant since after this I dont have any faith in Stiehl. Would have to go to CA7 for the stay too. I imagine Posner, Flaum, and even Williams are very irritated by now since Stiehl just gave them the finger. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Stuff just got real........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:19 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:19 PM LOL. I would imagine when they remand it down again they will be quite specific on what he's to do. I'm sure any appeals court doesn't enjoy holding the hand of a lower court judge and guiding them step by step when they've already made it quite clear what they want done. Maybe it's not allowed by rules/laws, but why couldn't a judge like Stiehl simply pick up a phone, call Posner and the other members of the panel, and go.... "Okay, here's what I got, what do you want me to do?" 7th Circuit Ruling:The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.The instructions were pretty clear the first time. According to the ruling I just read, Stiehl's response to the instructions they gave him the first time were, "Uh, No." This is one symptom of why people no longer trust government.Stiehl is using the same excuse the State is perpetrating, that is that since FCCA provides an means for citizens to obtain a permit, even though the permits aren't even available, that "relief" has been granted. The state, and Stiehl, in using this tactic is probably hoping that since it's a 3 judge panel, that at least one more of the judges will agree with them. Remember, it was a 2-1 decision that got us here to begin with. If even one of the other two judges buys into this BS then we might well have to wait until April of 2014 before we can carry. I'm hoping, and believing, that won't be the case, but that is the reality of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird76Mojo Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:31 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:31 PM Even then, good luck getting your new permit before 2015. My father is still waiting on his FOID renewal. It's been 12+ months since they cashed his check. His record is spotless. The bottom line is, don't expect to carry in Illinois before the spring of 2014... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferyClark Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:41 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:41 PM The original ruling against the UUW statute was due to there being a ban against anyone carrying a concealed weapon. With the FCCA, there is now a permit process which allows people to carry concealed weapons. The issue now is that there is no immediate relief from the former ban on carrying concealed, as the state can take up to another 270 days before they issue a permit. The state can take beyond 270 days since there are no penalties for failure to meet the schedule. And as mentioned by w00dc4ip, there is nothing to prevent the GA from changing the law either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:41 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:41 PM I don't believe for a minute that the 7th will overturn this decision. A new law is in place and the 7th will agree that the time period set out to implement the new law is reasonable. This is the decision I expected, the courts are happy to take time to make a decision and it takes years for cases to move through the courts so why would the same courts see the time table laid out in the new law as excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:43 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:43 PM The original ruling against the UUW statute was due to there being a ban against anyone carrying a concealed weapon. With the FCCA, there is now a permit process which allows people to carry concealed weapons. The issue now is that there is no immediate relief from the former ban on carrying concealed, as the state can take up to another 270 days before they issue a permit. The state can take beyond 270 days since there are no penalties for failure to meet the schedule. And as mentioned by w00dc4ip, there is nothing to prevent the GA from changing the law either. And with the FOID returns being months/years slow, and the ILGA's penchant for playing games with the Judical system.... I just hope the 7th moves quickly on this once it gets to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:43 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:43 PM So are all of the county DA's that said they aren't going to prosecute UUW, now going to have to reverse their decisions? Not that I frequent those areas, but just wondering. Chicago has thumbed their noses at the law for years, hopefully the SAs will decide to continue with doing it down south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryr8828 Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:49 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:49 PM I've had enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:55 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:55 PM Myerscough is gonna have to deal with Sigale's motion for attorneys' fees. Its hard to argue that relief hss been granted when "prayer for relief" contained attorneys' fees. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googe1227 Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:59 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 08:59 PM I'm done. I've finally convinced my wife that we need to move out of this hopeless, corrupt, and broke state. To name but a few of the problems Illinois has. Now all I need to do is find another job and break the news to the kids. 12 months from now is the target. Think I can get my carry license before then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted July 26, 2013 at 09:02 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 09:02 PM Myerscough is gonna have to deal with Sigale's motion for attorneys' fees. Its hard to argue that relief hss been granted when "prayer for relief" contained attorneys' fees. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Skinny, what happens if Myerscough rules for us? Slim chance I know but is she should... We'd have conflicting rulings so what then? Just another reason for appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtremeRevolution Posted July 26, 2013 at 09:33 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 09:33 PM I don't believe for a minute that the 7th will overturn this decision. A new law is in place and the 7th will agree that the time period set out to implement the new law is reasonable. This is the decision I expected, the courts are happy to take time to make a decision and it takes years for cases to move through the courts so why would the same courts see the time table laid out in the new law as excessive. It is excessive because the courts never asked the ILGA to pass a CCW law. They simply ruled the UUW statute regarding concealed carry as unconstitutional and gave IL 180 days plus a 30-day extension. That was to do whatever they wanted to deal with the impending invalidation of said statute. Dragging their feet for the entire legislative session and passing a law at the very last minute while they played roll call games and tried to pass bogus bills is not what I would consider a necessary use of time. They waited till the last minute so they can keep citizens waiting as long as possible before getting their permits. They COULD have passed a law 1 month into the session to allow 150 days for the ISP to get its act together and allow them to deal with the now unconstitutional UUW statute appropriately, but they did not. Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted July 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM Share Posted July 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM These people all hang in the same social circles.The ruling does not surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.