Phatty, on 10 July 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:
Hatchet, on 10 July 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:
Is it out of place with the CA7 ruling. I thought Posner only listed 6 months to create a new law. I didn't read anywhere that the law had to be implemented and carrying in 6 months.
The 7th Circuit gave Illinois an unprecendented stay of 180 days. The reason given for the stay was to allow the state time to get a new law in place. But, that doesn't mean that there is now an implied additional 180 days granted by the 7th Circuit to implement a new law. The stay is over and the mandate has issued. Law abiding citizens in Illinois should have an ability to carry firearms in public while complying with all reasonable regulations. But Illinois citizens currently do not have any ability to carry.
If you take an extreme example, the argument becomes clearer. Say for example, that the new law said that all citizens can carry handguns anywhere in public as long as they submit an application provided by the ISP. But, the law says that the ISP cannot provide any such applications until 100 years after the effective date of the law. Clearly, that law would not compy with the 7th Circuit's opinion. On the other hand, if applications were made available 14 days after the effective date, there would probably be no issue. The 180 day time period is in that period of time where its not de minimus but it's also not egregiously long, so it's a harder case to make.
Surely you are aware that the 'Right to Carry' hasn't been ruled as an unrestricted, or unregulated right? As such, the court gave them 180+30 days to craft a law with 'reasonable' restrictions. Whether the restrictions comply with the spirit of the ruling is another question, but there was no ruling on how long they had to implement the processing after passage of the law. However, if they gave 210 days to simply pass a law, which is crazy fast for our retarded politicians, surely they will agree that it is reasonable to allow the state time to develop the infrastrure and screening process to allow permitting.
While again, I question that the restrictions go overboard, the overly burdensome cost is discriminatory, and the passed law very well should be pursued, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the court intended for them to begin issuing permits without some lag to develop the necessary process. Imho, that arguement isn't going anywhere.
Edited by scough, 10 July 2013 - 10:47 AM.