Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #721  
Old 05-01-2013, 7:17 PM
ldsnet ldsnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,058
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So smart folks - IL Legislature is asking for another Month to play their games to file with SCOTUS so they can continue to delay the changes demanded by the 7th Court's deadline? Is that what they are asking for here?

I still don't get how an educated, intelligent lawyer could read Heller and come to the conclusion that a Constitutional Right ONLY applies "in the home."

I guess lawyers and politicians really are the same -they hope if they keep repeating the same lie over and over maybe the people will eventually believe it?
Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 05-01-2013, 7:23 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

[baleted]

inaccurate (thanks calzona), and anyway, the topic got merged.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 05-01-2013 at 7:41 PM.. Reason: misinformation
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 05-01-2013, 7:31 PM
Calzona's Avatar
Calzona Calzona is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 301
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Topic is (IMO) somewhat misleading; Madigan has NOT applied for certiorari (as far as I can tell), just an extension.
Were in the title does it say they filed cert?

No, the appealed to the supreme court to allow for an extension to the deadline for them to have the ability to file for cert.

These requests are almost always denied, however... Which is even better for us.

This is an indication that they are going to file for cert, which is what we want.
__________________
These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along, move along.
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 05-01-2013, 7:47 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzona View Post
.....

This is an indication that they are going to file for cert, which is what we want.
Not so fast.

There's some local political dynamics at work here.
Quinn's trying to put Lisa Madigan in a box with all this controversy.In Illinois, no one seeking the Governor's office stands a mathematical chance in hell of winning unless they win Chicago-and Chicago's voters are true blue hardcore liberal. Most of the state's money is up there too, and those wealthy humanitarians in Libertyville and Lake Forest will only back a politican who'll promise save the children.

If Lisa Madigan files for cert , she puts her whole political future on the line. If she loses, its the end of the road for her and the Democratic Party. The Chicago Machine will NOT look kindly on a Democrat who torpedoed common sense gun regulation.

If she doesn't file for cert , Quinn can hit the airwaves bragging to Chicago voters how Lisa Madigan folded to the NRA and evil gun lobby, while he stood fast and fought the good fight for safe streets in Illinois. Its a no-win scenario for Madigan either way, but in my estimation she'll probably take her chances against Quinn versus the Supreme Court of the United States.

As far as carry goes, its not going to happen.Unless the extension is granted, Illinois will revert to "Ad Hoc Carry" where every town and city will have a different kind of enforceable regulation on carry. Citizen in conservative counties in Illinois w/carry authorization will need to keep a jaundiced eye on the rearview mirror for the State Police, lest they be arrested for violating a carry law in a county they're passing through.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 05-01-2013, 7:57 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 548
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"So smart folks - IL Legislature is asking for another Month to play their games to file with SCOTUS so they can continue to delay the changes demanded by the 7th Court's deadline? Is that what they are asking for here?"

No. The requested extension will not delay the Court's review.
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 05-01-2013, 8:36 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I generally agree with SilverTauron's assessment of the politics.

In my estimation, it means that Madigan probably files for cert.

Think about it. . .

If Madigan doesn't file for cert the only way she remains politically viable is to effectively say that onerous gun regulation is indefensibly unconstitutional. That is not going to play well at all with her necessary constituency.

If she files for cert and doesn't get the cert, she looks wonderful to her fascist constituency. After all, she pursued every avenue - and was even willing to fight all the way to SCOTUS!

If she files for cert and gets the cert, then she'll get a high-priced lawyer to argue the case. She'll make certain her constituency understands that she is pulling out all the stops in her attempt to support fascism.

Then if she wins at SCOTUS she is an absolute worshipful hero to her fellow fascists and she could literally consider the possibility of running for the Democrat Party's nomination in 2016.

If she loses at SCOTUS she will still be the hero who fought for their fascist cause at every level. In her circles/constituency it really doesn't matter if you are competent (remember Jesse Jackson, Jr. winning re-election in the Chicago area while hospitalized for mental illness?). Success is not even required in order to maintain your status - saying that you are fighting for fascist policies and that you care about the little folk gets you support even if you are effectively destroying those you claim to champion.

Remember one other thing. It is a very high probability that she gets 4 votes for her at SCOTUS. That means that even if there is a loss she can claim that at least 4 of the most revered Democrats in the US agreed with her.

Net effect:
1. Loses huge political capital if she doesn't file for cert. Big problem for her.
2. Wins if she files for cert and cert is denied. Clear win.
3. Wins if she files for cert, cert is granted and wins in SCOTUS.
4. Tepid win to neutral if she files for cert, gets cert, loses in SCOTUS>

Her odds are much better if she files cert.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 05-01-2013, 8:44 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I generally agree with SilverTauron's assessment of the politics.

In my estimation, it means that Madigan probably files for cert.

Think about it. . .

If Madigan doesn't file for cert the only way she remains politically viable is to effectively say that onerous gun regulation is indefensibly unconstitutional. That is not going to play well at all with her necessary constituency.
I very much disagree.

She can say that the Supreme Court has telegraphed its intention to not deal with carry challenges, since it denied cert to Kachalsky, and that, therefore, any carry challenges that go up to SCOTUS will simply be denied cert, including those which are won by the state, and therefore the best thing to do is to let "home rule" take hold and let IL become a quagmire of county and city laws which will effectively render carry in IL null and void.

She can successfully argue that all the 7th Circuit said is that an outright ban on carry will not pass muster, and that a carry law which allows the government to decide who carries would pass muster with the 7th Circuit (and she could well be right about that).

She can argue that by not petitioning for cert, she is ensuring that each jurisdiction gets what it wants. What could possibly make her more popular with everyone than by acting in such a way as to give everyone what they want?


Quote:
If she loses at SCOTUS she will still be the hero who fought for their fascist cause at every level.
No. Quite wrong. If she loses at SCOTUS, then she will be seen as the enabler of that loss, and her career is finished, most especially because Obama will ensure precisely that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 05-01-2013, 8:49 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post

If she loses at SCOTUS she will still be the hero who fought for their fascist cause at every level. In her circles/constituency it really doesn't matter if you are competent (remember Jesse Jackson, Jr. winning re-election in the Chicago area while hospitalized for mental illness?). Success is not even required in order to maintain your status - saying that you are fighting for fascist policies and that you care about the little folk gets you support even if you are effectively destroying those you claim to champion.
.

The trouble with losing at the SCOTUS level is her political career will dead end.

A loss at the SCOTUS level means "reasonable gun control" laws all over the nation will be rendered unenforceable, and the Democrats will be tasked with having to dodge yet another adverse case regarding gun control laws.

That sort of slight won't be forgotten; while her constituents in Chicago might see that as a heroic attempt, her political allies in Chicago, New York City, and even California will have a much less charitable viewpoint. Chicago Mayro Rahm Emmanual, his patron Barrack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, and Democrats all over the nation will simmer in anger at the upstart AG who didn't know when to leave well enough alone and played Russian Roulette with the disarmament movement in DC.

Her career advancement depends on making the national Democratic Party movers and shakers happy; if she forces the SCOTUS to rule against gun control, she'll have essentially handed a labeled bag of s---t to every anti-gun mayor, governor, and party staffer in America. Her career will die faster then Marvin in a Quentin Tarantino movie.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 05-01-2013, 10:04 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 548
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Not so fast.

There's some local political dynamics at work here.
Quinn's trying to put Lisa Madigan in a box with all this controversy.In Illinois, no one seeking the Governor's office stands a mathematical chance in hell of winning unless they win Chicago-and Chicago's voters are true blue hardcore liberal. Most of the state's money is up there too, and those wealthy humanitarians in Libertyville and Lake Forest will only back a politican who'll promise save the children.

If Lisa Madigan files for cert , she puts her whole political future on the line. If she loses, its the end of the road for her and the Democratic Party. The Chicago Machine will NOT look kindly on a Democrat who torpedoed common sense gun regulation.

If she doesn't file for cert , Quinn can hit the airwaves bragging to Chicago voters how Lisa Madigan folded to the NRA and evil gun lobby, while he stood fast and fought the good fight for safe streets in Illinois. Its a no-win scenario for Madigan either way, but in my estimation she'll probably take her chances against Quinn versus the Supreme Court of the United States.

As far as carry goes, its not going to happen.Unless the extension is granted, Illinois will revert to "Ad Hoc Carry" where every town and city will have a different kind of enforceable regulation on carry. Citizen in conservative counties in Illinois w/carry authorization will need to keep a jaundiced eye on the rearview mirror for the State Police, lest they be arrested for violating a carry law in a county they're passing through.
You're forgetting one player in the whole drama. Michael Madigan, the Speaker of the House and the AG's father. If he wanted a concealed carry bill to pass (even if it was shall issue), it would pass. It therefore appears to me that he does not want a statewide concealed carry bill. I agree that the AG does not want to petition for cert. because her name will be used forever after just like we use Heller and McDonald. However, if there is no statewide law, then there will be a lot of pressure on her to challenge the 7th Circuit's opinion.

I think there's a conflict of interest between Madigan pere et bab.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 05-01-2013, 10:10 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
However, if there is no statewide law, then there will be a lot of pressure on her to challenge the 7th Circuit's opinion.
Maybe. But probably not. No statewide law means "home rule" which means no carry in those areas that the pressure you speak of would otherwise be coming from. So if there's any pressure, it won't last very long.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:08 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
She can say that the Supreme Court has telegraphed its intention to not deal with carry challenges, since it denied cert to Kachalsky
She 's a lawyer, and she would look like an fool to assert that. She knows very well that NOTHING about the merits of a case is to be inferred from a cert denial. There is settled case law establishing that.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:27 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
She 's a lawyer, and she would look like an fool to assert that. She knows very well that NOTHING about the merits of a case is to be inferred from a cert denial. There is settled case law establishing that.
Appearing to be, or even actually being a fool is not a career limiting factor for politicians of her ilk. But as others have said seriously damaging, possibly even ending the anti 2A crusade is.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:49 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
She 's a lawyer, and she would look like an fool to assert that. She knows very well that NOTHING about the merits of a case is to be inferred from a cert denial. There is settled case law establishing that.
Case law only affects legal inferences. It has no effect on logical inferences.

It may be that one cannot legally cite the denial of cert as evidence that the Court upholds the decision in the case that was denied and expect that citation to carry weight in a court of law, but that is very different from making a convincing argument to the public of same.

This is politics, not law. Madigan can easily argue that the SCOTUS denial of cert in Kachalsky signals their intention to leave carry alone, because that is a plausible claim.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:54 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,054
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

As has been previously stated, you don't ask SCOTUS for an extension to file cert and then not file cert. IL has gone on record that they intend to file cert and have stated why it is so important that SCOTUS grant cert.

To not file cert at this point is tantamount to malfeasance.

The cert petition train is running, preparing to leave the station.
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:57 PM
disintelligentsia's Avatar
disintelligentsia disintelligentsia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Not so fast . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzona View Post
Were in the title does it say they filed cert?

These requests are almost always denied, however... Which is even better for us.
Only problem with the theory that her request for an extension will be denied is that Elena Kagan sits over the 7th Circuit which means if the Dems want an extension, they'll likely get it.

However, the petition for an extension is pretty weak. It basically amounts to a statement of "I had from December until now to write the cert petition, but you know, I'm an important and busy person and I need more time."

The problem with that is that a cert petition is just that - a petition explaining to the court why it should take the case up. It's not a brief on the merits of the case. It basically outlines one of the traditional reasons why the court takes up cases - a circuit split, etc. Therefore, it should be relatively straightforward compared to a brief on the merits. This is why the petition for an extension should be denied, but I don't have faith in Kagan's ability to rise above politics.
__________________
"All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife."
Daniel Boone

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:08 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotgun Man View Post
As has been previously stated, you don't ask SCOTUS for an extension to file cert and then not file cert. IL has gone on record that they intend to file cert and have stated why it is so important that SCOTUS grant cert.

To not file cert at this point is tantamount to malfeasance.

The cert petition train is running, preparing to leave the station.
And what, pray tell, are the consequences for not petitioning for cert after asking for an extension?

My bet is none.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:20 AM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,054
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And what, pray tell, are the consequences for not petitioning for cert after asking for an extension?

My bet is none.
Your professional reputation would suffer. You would be privately castigated by the judiciary. Anything you say in the future would be regarded with a degree of skepticism.
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:23 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
And what, pray tell, are the consequences for not petitioning for cert after asking for an extension?
Whether or not there are consequences, if the legislature passes ANYTHING, the case is mooted and she's off the hook to pursue the appeal. And they are going to have a lot of time to maneuver. If they are somehow not able to pass any measure that moots the case, she will take it up, mark my words. I don't see any political downside for her.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:41 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
I don't see any political downside for her.
You're kidding, right?

If she petitions for cert, and then SCOTUS grants and upholds, she will be held singularly responsible for the legal consequences to the anti-gun side. It will literally be the end of her political career. Obama will make sure of that, so as to make her an example to the rest of what not to do.

There's so much potential political downside for her that it's barely describable.


It would be one thing if the 7th Circuit's ruling ensured that the entire state would be "shall issue" at a minimum, but that is not going to be the case at all for quite some time (many years), most especially given the state court system's decisions on the matter (stating that Moore has no effect on state jurisprudence, which means that the state court system will uphold convictions of laws that would be implicated by Moore). People who are charged with violating the law that Moore overturned will probably have to wait until conviction before they can petition the federal courts for redress, because they otherwise lack standing, and the same goes for violations of any new "home rule" laws that are passed. And it will take many, many years for the federal court system to deal with all the variations of infringing law that will be brought before it -- long enough that the Supreme Court's composition will change enough to overturn Moore via proxy (i.e., as a result of one of the newer challenges going up).

All the antis have to do is hope that the 7th Circuit remains consistent in its stance and refrain from petitioning for cert, because if the 7th Circuit upholds one of the challenged laws while SCOTUS retains its current composition, we'll petition for cert and that would change things since a Supreme Court ruling would be binding on the state courts, thus kicking the legs out from underneath the anti-rights effort.


No, the end result of all this is that Madigan would be a fool of the highest order if she petitions for cert here. Contrary to your assertion, she has everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing so. Her request for an extension to file cert is a political move only.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 05-02-2013 at 1:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 05-02-2013, 2:21 AM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm confused. I thought the court ordered the state to pass legislation that allowed carry.
It did not order them to do nothing. If they don't pass some sort of carry law will they be in violation of the court order?
Reply With Quote
  #741  
Old 05-02-2013, 2:30 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
I'm confused. I thought the court ordered the state to pass legislation that allowed carry.
It did not order them to do nothing. If they don't pass some sort of carry law will they be in violation of the court order?
It did not order the legislature to do anything.

It stayed the effect of the decision for 180 days to give the legislature time to craft and pass legislation that would bring the state into compliance with the decision. Different thing.

There is no penalty to the state for failing to pass such legislation, which is why I believe no such legislation will pass. Unlike most states where the legislature has taken over the entire field, IL has not, so failure to pass a compliant law will simply take the state government out of the equation as regards carry law, thus allowing local governments to occupy the field. Furthermore, if the legislature does pass a law, but that law is not compliant with Moore, it will have to be separately challenged, thus starting the process all over again, which means at least another year before a decision on that. The IL legislature can play that game indefinitely, though more than 50% of it is pro-RKBA, so I don't expect much in the way of games from it (however, getting legislation passed requires either a veto-proof majority, which we do not have, or the governor's approval, which will only happen if the legislation is anti-RKBA in nature).

The bottom line is that the most likely thing to happen is that no legislation will be passed, the 180 day deadline will expire, and IL's "home rule" setup goes into effect, thus empowering Chicago and Cook County to pass draconian legislation that will eliminate the right to carry in those jurisdictions, and they will do so in such a way as to tie up the courts for years to decades -- long enough that the Supreme Court's composition will change to an ant-RKBA majority before the dust settles, at which point the Supreme Court will take the case, rule against us, and that'll be that for carry in IL and the rest of the country.

Given these dynamics, I believe it to be unlikely in the extreme that Madigan will petition for cert in Moore (she would be a complete fool to do so, and Obama will end her career unless SCOTUS overturns Moore, thus making petitioning for cert an extremely high risk play).


The only thing that will save us is if SCOTUS takes another carry case like Woollard and rules in our favor on that. Given what happened with Kachalsky, I believe that to be quite unlikely, but I still do believe it to be a possibility. But if SCOTUS passes over Woollard, then I think it'll be safe to say that we're done for.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 05-02-2013 at 4:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 05-02-2013, 5:19 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Question?

Did those who fought against liberty in the Heller and McDonald cases get pilloried for their actions?

I don't remember hearing of any adverse consequences at all for championing oppression.

The idea that they will destroy Madigan if she petitions for cert just doesn't seem likely to me. The odds that she is politically destroyed if she does not petition for cert seem rather high - wouldn't even fight for their beloved hatred of freedom.

The precise politics are happening behind closed doors, but unless private deals are being made she is better off politically if she files for cert.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 05-02-2013, 6:48 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,583
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
There may be constitutional carry in a few of Illinois 102 counties but I suspect that most will go may-issue simply because Illinois' culture of corruption is state wide and there will be campaign money to be made or votes to buy by doling out permits to friends, family, and political supporters. In many counties they'll probably be pretty easy to get but you'll still have to go hat in hand to the local poobahs. The problem will be 102 different sets of laws and no state-wide permits. In other words a permit may only be valid in one county. Some may go constitutional carry, some may-issue open carry only, and others may-issue concealed carry only, while Chicago and the surrounding areas remain no-issue with no recognition of permits from neighboring counties and the US district court will do everything in their power to assist Chicago's delaying tactics and draw them out for a decade. Chicago has also made clear their willingness to gun down licensed carriers. In other words unless the US Supreme Court rules for strict scrutiny and unlicensed carry there is little to no chance that common citizens will be allowed to legally carry firearms within Chicago for decades to come.

Agree completely. The ONLY way to stop the gamesplaying is to make unlicensed carry the Law of the Land. And the ONLY form of carry that is Constitutionally protected is open carry.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 05-02-2013, 6:54 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,583
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Question?

Did those who fought against liberty in the Heller and McDonald cases get pilloried for their actions?

I don't remember hearing of any adverse consequences at all for championing oppression.

The idea that they will destroy Madigan if she petitions for cert just doesn't seem likely to me. The odds that she is politically destroyed if she does not petition for cert seem rather high - wouldn't even fight for their beloved hatred of freedom.

The precise politics are happening behind closed doors, but unless private deals are being made she is better off politically if she files for cert.

Well, Lanier is still there, but Fenty is gone. Fenty was the one who made the decision to appeal, I believe.

Significance? No man can say.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 05-02-2013, 7:03 AM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,501
iTrader: 48 / 88%
Default

I remember all of the excitement leading up to Nordyke. The machinations, the hope, the thoughts behind the legal wrangling...

....and in the end, evil prevailed.

I am not underestimating the situation one bit; I'm sure in my small tinfoil hatted conspiracy centric mind that some sort of communication has gone on between Madigan and Kagan through intermediaries guiding her on what to do, as Kagan and Madigan are cut from the same cloth.

Isn't the influence of Women in American Politics fascinating?

The Harpy Club....

__________________
Visit http://www.policemisconduct.net to learn more about "isolated incidents"
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 05-02-2013, 7:06 AM
El Toro's Avatar
El Toro El Toro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,490
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
......There is no penalty to the state for failing to pass such legislation, which is why I believe no such legislation will pass. Unlike most states where the legislature has taken over the entire field, IL has not, so failure to pass a compliant law will simply take the state government out of the equation as regards carry law......

The bottom line is that the most likely thing to happen is that no legislation will be passed, the 180 day deadline will expire, and IL's "home rule" setup goes into effect, thus empowering Chicago and Cook County to pass draconian legislation that will eliminate the right to carry in those jurisdictions, and they will do so in such a way as to tie up the courts for years to decades......
Yes but if local and county governments are determined to enact laws in the face of this, they run the risk of costly lawsuits which they will lose and perhaps that is enough for most (excluding Cook County) to at least tread carefully.
__________________
Quote:
Western civilization represents the pinnacle of true human progress, and we should rightly be proud of it, delusional leftists be damned.

Quote:
We know it's the family and the church not government officials who know best how to create strong and loving communities. And above all else we know this, in America, we don't worship government, we worship God.
President Donald J. Trump, Oct. 13, 2017
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 05-02-2013, 7:54 AM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 893
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I found this article (published about an hour ago) very relevant to the discussion.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...1945d0d6d.html

Quote:
In my Boy Scout days, I read that the way to tell if vegetation is safe for consumption is to see whether other mammals are eating it. I imagined myself, lost and hungry, holding a handful of berries and staring intently at a raccoon holding a handful of the same berries and staring intently back.
I hadn’t thought of that silly image for a long time, until I considered a sort of standoff going on in Illinois government over guns.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 05-02-2013, 8:30 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

It’s important to remember that a given politician may not be dedicated to the disarmament cause and will abandon gun control when it is no longer politically expedient. Remember also that the primary Democratic political meme is building dependence on government services, including various licensing and permitting systems.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 05-02-2013, 9:24 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero
I don't see any political downside for her.
Quote:
You're kidding, right?

If she petitions for cert, and then SCOTUS grants and upholds, she will be held singularly responsible for the legal consequences to the anti-gun side. It will literally be the end of her political career. Obama will make sure of that, so as to make her an example to the rest of what not to do.
Do I sound like I'm kidding? Name one anti-gun Democrat who has ever suffered because they fought an anti-gun battle and lost. It merely makes them more sympathetic to their base.

Who was it that lost their career over McDonald? Oh, that's right, nobody.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 05-02-2013, 9:32 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Do I sound like I'm kidding? Name one anti-gun Democrat who has ever suffered because they fought an anti-gun battle and lost. It merely makes them more sympathetic to their base.

Who was it that lost their career over McDonald? Oh, that's right, nobody.
As much as I generally agree with kc, I think you nailed it. When it comes to this kind of stuff, success isn't relevant.

IMO she has nothing to lose and everything to gain, and will petition for cert. Hell, she may even sandbag the petition, so when SCOTUS denies it, her anti-gun allies can claim SCOTUS wants to kill children and endanger us all with assault clip weapons of war.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 05-02-2013, 9:42 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,794
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
....and in the end, evil prevailed.
It didn't. The Nordykes won.

There was merely hope that the case would go to SCOTUS and provide us with "strict scrutiny" for future 2A litigation. Only that part was misguided.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 05-02-2013, 9:44 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
It didn't. The Nordykes won.

There was merely hope that the case would go to SCOTUS and provide us with "strict scrutiny" for future 2A litigation. Only that part was misguided.
Tell that to Don Kilmer.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 05-02-2013, 9:55 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,266
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Question?

Did those who fought against liberty in the Heller and McDonald cases get pilloried for their actions?

I don't remember hearing of any adverse consequences at all for championing oppression.

The idea that they will destroy Madigan if she petitions for cert just doesn't seem likely to me. The odds that she is politically destroyed if she does not petition for cert seem rather high - wouldn't even fight for their beloved hatred of freedom.

The precise politics are happening behind closed doors, but unless private deals are being made she is better off politically if she files for cert.
I have to agree with this assessment. I'm sure that what she'd like to do is push a losing decision off to after the next election but I'm not sure that's possible, so the move with the least damage to her career is to file for cert. With her daddy as powerful as he is Obama and the rest of the antis won't actively move against her so she's safe even if she loses the case. Besides even if she loses in the Supreme Court, Chicago and surrounding areas will continue to effectively block carry in any form through a series of legislation for at least 5-10 years and that's all that matters to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Toro View Post
Yes but if local and county governments are determined to enact laws in the face of this, they run the risk of costly lawsuits which they will lose and perhaps that is enough for most (excluding Cook County) to at least tread carefully.
Chicago knows how to play the courts and has at least one federal judge willing to let them draw out litigation for years and years like they have with the aftermath of McDonald.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 05-02-2013, 11:05 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Toro View Post
Yes but if local and county governments are determined to enact laws in the face of this, they run the risk of costly lawsuits which they will lose and perhaps that is enough for most (excluding Cook County) to at least tread carefully.
That's true, and in the end we may see most of IL allow carry. But Chicago and Cook County, i.e. the areas that affect the bulk of the population in IL, will fight until the bitter end, and will probably win in the end, at that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 05-02-2013, 6:31 PM
Tyrone's Avatar
Tyrone Tyrone is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Bay, SF Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

This is admittedly speculation, but I tend to think that since Judge Posner gave 180 days (until June 10) for the legislature to recraft new laws that "impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public" that is exactly what will happen and Madigan will not appeal the decision. The holding included language that "Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden." This gives the Illinois legislature which is hostile to gun ownership and carry to get another bite at the apple. I expect that they will craft an extremely narrow carry law equivalent to no carry at all and then let the process start all over and collect evidence (manufactured or not) that ostensibly will allow them to pass a higher standard of review. I don't think Madigan is concerned with any backlash by pro gun-control groups and I doubt there would be any. The antis are smart enough to understand that this method gives them more control over the process because as it now stands the laws will be unconstitutional with a permanent injunction against enforcement issued. The evidence presented in Moore was found lacking so they will not stand a much better process on appeal. The injunction would stand if cert is not granted. Also, the antis can see that by not appealing a case in which evidence was found lacking they can potentially avoid an adverse ruling at the S.Ct that would have effect beyond Illinois. My 2 cents....
__________________
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 05-02-2013, 6:45 PM
Tyrone's Avatar
Tyrone Tyrone is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Bay, SF Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

This is admittedly speculation, but I tend to think that since Judge Posner gave 180 days (until June 10) for the legislature to recraft new laws that "impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public" that is exactly what will happen and Madigan will not appeal the decision. The holding included language that "Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden." This gives the Illinois legislature which is hostile to gun ownership and carry to get another bite at the apple. I expect that they will craft an extremely narrow carry law equivalent to no carry at all and then let the process start all over an collect evidence (manufactured or not) that ostensibly will allow them to pass a higher standard of review. I don't think Madigan is concerned with any backlash by pro-gun control groups and I doubt there would be any. The antis are smart enough to understand that this method gives them more control over the process because as it now stands the laws will be unconstitutional with a permanent injunction against enforcement issued. The evidence presented in Moore was found lacking so they will not stand a much better process on appeal. The injunction would stand if cert is not granted. Also, the antis can see that by not appealing a case in which evidence was found lacking they can potentially avoid an adverse ruling at the S.Ct that would have effect beyond Illinois. My 2 cents....
__________________
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 05-02-2013, 8:58 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,615
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Illinois

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone View Post
This gives the Illinois legislature which is hostile to gun ownership and carry to get another bite at the apple. I expect that they will craft an extremely narrow carry law equivalent to no carry at all and then let the process start all over an collect evidence (manufactured or not) that ostensibly will allow them to pass a higher standard of review. ....
Tyrone,

This will not happen. The IL legislature is overwhelmingly pro-2A. In fact, they are only a few votes shy of a supermajority vote for a shall issue law that overrides a veto and home rule. To date, they have fought back numerous attempts to water down their proposed law.

Madigan wants more time in hopes they can craft a may issue bill that passes. If our side continues to hold firm, she will file for cert. She has to respond to the court and has few options if no law is passed.

Other potential is our side may just pass a veto proof shall issue bill into law. This would be great for IL., but remove the case from consideration at SCOTUS this term. They were only two votes shy of this last week.
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 05-02-2013, 9:12 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
Other potential is our side may just pass a veto proof shall issue bill into law. This would be great for IL., but remove the case from consideration at SCOTUS this term. They were only two votes shy of this last week.
Veto-proof majorities that are barely veto-proof have this nasty tendency to not be veto-proof at the point that being veto-proof is actually required (i.e., after the governor vetoes the bill)...
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:08 PM
Tyrone's Avatar
Tyrone Tyrone is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Bay, SF Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The IL legislature is overwhelmingly pro-2A.
Admittedly, I am no expert on the Illinois legislature and understood that they were hostile to the 2nd. This apparently is not so, so I should have kept my 2 cents to myself, sorry. If neither a may issue (31 votes) or shall issue (64 votes) can get the requisite 71 needed, it would still seem to me that Madigan would not appeal the decision as letting home rule go into effect gives them best chances of limiting loss re carry. Anyway, again, Illinois is outside of my expertise.
__________________
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:55 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,794
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Tell that to Don Kilmer.
Winning vs. getting paid...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:41 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.