Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision

Status
Not open for further replies.
You would think instead of wasting time fighting they would spend time writing a new bill to license people to CCW. Ya know like the rest of the nation. Do they not see how much extra money this would bring to the state? $200 per license x tens of thousands of participants = ALOT of bailout money for a broke state. Not to mention the lower crime rates due to fact that it would level the playing field for the bad guys. :confused:
 
This is a predictable course of action by the state. There is definitely a better chance of success going the en banc route instead of appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Plus, the state does not have to worry about creating further bad law (for them) by keeping it in the appellate court. If they had appealed directly to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have either rejected the appeal or accepted the appeal and likely issued a pro-gun decision.

The linked article mentions rehearing by all 15 judges, but the en banc petition will only be reviewed and voted on by the 10 active judges in the 7th Circuit. The five senior judges won't participate.

What happens now is that the plaintiffs will get a chance to file an answer to the petition for rehearing. Then the 10 judges will have a vote and a simple majority is needed to grant the petition. If it is denied, the state's only option is to appeal to the Supreme Court. If it is granted, the original opinion will be vacated (treated as if it never happened) and the case will be heard again by all 10 judges and a new opinion issued.

Based on the current composition of the Court, it is difficult for me to predict what might happen but I'm leaning slightly towards the petition being denied.
 
This is not at all unexpected. They were angered by the decision and the anger came out in the text of the bans they just proposed. They referred to the decision a couple times and it was like they were flipping off the court.

Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!
 
Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!
Click to expand...

Best assessment of them I've read in years.
 
I am not surprised by Lisa Madigan. She and her dad are terrible for anything related to IL. I wish I could move from here. Oh but the good news is IL is now going to let Illegal Aliens get a 3yr drivers license. ***!!! This.freakin state wants to grab our guns take away our rights and impose $25 gun tax on all guns sold in IL (goes in affect April 2013), but we are giving illegals drivers licenses? Really??? I even.read that they voted down having them finger printed because it would cost the state to much? Again ***! sorry for my rant....


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
 
In simpler terms, does this mean a long delay of some type of Concealed Carry? I would rather have open carry but I know that is a day-dream.
 
"In simpler terms, does this mean a long delay of some type of Concealed Carry? I would rather have open carry but I know that is a day-dream."

Our 180 day clock is still running. We've ticked off something close to 30 days. If en banc is granted the previous ruling will be null and void. That's my understanding.
 
There were three phone numbers shown to call and try to get this "lame duck" gun ban stopped when the House reconvened on Sunday.
It worked!
Now we have to keep at these low lifes to prevent the new session from trying the same thing.
The numbers are:

Quinn's "Office of Constituent Affairs" is 217-782-0244. When I called on Sunday, the recording said that "the voice mailbox was full"!

Awww - ya THINK??

Madigan's number is 217-782-5350. The man that answered the phone had to put me on hold 3-4 times to answer other phones before I could finish what was on my notes.

I did NOT try Rahm's number in Chicago but here it is: 312-744-3300.

Keep these handy as you ALL know we will be doing this again REAL soon!
 
Lisa Madigan is a criminal. Seriously.

She recently sued Pfizer with a number of other attorneys on behalf of Illinois.

Was awarded 43 million dollars in a settlement.

Illinois received 2.1 million of that settlement.

Her and her fellow attorneys received the other 40.9 million dollars.

She's in it for the money.
 
She recently sued Pfizer with a number of other attorneys on behalf of Illinois.

Was awarded 43 million dollars in a settlement.

Illinois received 2.1 million of that settlement.

Her and her fellow attorneys received the other 40.9 million dollars.

She's in it for the money.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to try to defend Lisa Madigan, but this information about the Pfizer settlement is not accurate. The $43 million settlement was between Pfizer and 32 states plus the District of Columbia. Thus, the settlement was split up 33 ways, with Illinois receiving $2.1 million as its share of the settlement. Each of the states was represented by their respective Attorney Generals. None of the Attorney Generals personally received any of the settlement proceeds.
 
What happens now is that the plaintiffs will get a chance to file an answer to the petition for rehearing.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken

Counsel must file a petition for rehearing electronically using the ECF system. Within 3 days of electronic filing, counsel must also file 15 paper copies of a petition for rehearing, except that 30 copies must be filed if the petitioner suggests a rehearing en banc. Cir. R. 40(b). The petition may be no longer than 15 pages. Fed. R. App. P. 40(b). The cover to the petition should be white. Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)(A). No answer may be filed to a petition for rehearing unless the court calls for one, in which event the clerk will so notify counsel. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a). A 10 day time limit for the answer is usually set. In the absence of such a request, a petition for rehearing will “ordinarily not be granted.” Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(3).
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

The above is found at pp. 137-38 here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/handbook.pdf
 
Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!
Click to expand...

Painfully true^^^
 
There is evidently more interest in this than at first blush. Earlier today, the CA7 requested a response from the winning counsel.

Responses due on the 23rd.
 

Attachments

  • Moore-Request For Answer.pdf
    111.1 KB · Views: 16
Rehearing en banc will be granted only if a majority
of the voting active judges vote to grant such a rehearing. 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), Fed. R.
App. P. 35(a), 7th Cir. Oper. P. 5(d)(1).
Click to expand...

Majority of voting active judges needed for rehearing en banc.

Note: the request for an answer, and a rehearing if granted, will delay the issue of the mandate from the original panel decision, giving Illinois more time to comply with panel decision.

And, if rehearing is granted, the en banc court could overturn the panel decision and reinstate the law. Then it would be off to the Supreme Court.

If it was not so serious it would be very entertaining.
 
Illinois is just going to get its wrist slapped again. They were told it was unconstitutional. If they continue to fight it, will just go to the 9th Court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"If they continue to fight it, will just go to the 9th Court."

Sorry, I do not understand, could you please explain?

Thank you

NukemJim
 
This chart explains it well. Works for other states if you just replace "Illinois." When a legal decision isn't decided strongly within state court systems as Illinois has controlled in the past it goes to Federal Circuit courts. The article states the 7th Circuit court. The Supreme Court is the final say and they look more at the lower court decisions (state and federal) and pick who was right in their decision of law interpretation. Or they smash down the hammer and do their own.

http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/reference/Reference images/federal court diagram.jpg
 
It's already in the federal courts

When a legal decision isn't decided strongly within state court systems as Illinois has controlled in the past it goes to Federal Circuit courts. The article states the 7th Circuit court.
Click to expand...

It's a 7th Circuit Court decision they are appealing. The next step is for it to be heard by the full court, then if that isn't satisfactory it's on to the USSC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Illinois Governor and Attorney General disagree on appealing 7th Circuit Decision
Replies
12
Views
1K
KTXdm9
K
JRH6856
  • Locked
Illinois AG delaying Concealed Carry Legislation with appeal
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
JRH6856
JRH6856
B
  • Locked
What concealed carry cases are waiting for certiorari
Replies
0
Views
394
bushmaster1313
B
U
  • Locked
Madigan seeks 2nd extention in Illinois
Replies
13
Views
962
usmarine0352_2005
U
U
  • Locked
SCOTUS grants Illinois AG Madigan her extention on appeal of gun case
Replies
22
Views
2K
usmarine0352_2005
U
Back
Top