MOORE V MADIGAN DECISION (IL, 7th Circuit, Dec 2012)

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

There is no way that calendar exists. If no cert, then the 7th's decision will be put in place. Don't forget that.

Yes, but there are actually two certs in play here, the one for Kachalsky and the one for Moore. If SCOTUS does not grant cert for Kachalsky then Moore may go up (Gray's statement -- the one you were responding to with respect to Posner -- was with respect to a stay on the 180 day period so that Madigan can petition for cert in Moore), and that calendar does exist and is likely to be of the timeline I describe.

If SCOTUS grants cert for Kachalsky then Moore either stands or gets stayed pending Kachalsky. In that case, I agree, the timeline I speak of won't happen.


With respect to Gray's statement, were you speaking only in the context of the effect on the command to pass a compliant law, or were you speaking of both that and Madigan's ability to petition for cert? Gray appeared to be speaking of both.

[Kharn]

Madigan would be taking a large risk under a stay if Kachalsky receives cert, for they would only be amicus and not able to directly argue their points, risking NY throwing IL's no-issue under the bus while attempting to save may-issue. Madigan's best bet would be to apply for cert and hope for combined argument.

[Chicago]

The orders issued by Posner and Flaum were not directed to the Illinois Attorney General but, rather, to Federal District Court Judges Myerscough (Central, Moore) and Stiehl (Southern, Shepard): "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". Ultimately, the onus is neither judicial nor executive: "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". Regardless of their individual leanings on carry, Illinois' legislators are not waiting for an en banc vote or a petition for certiorari. Moreover; a majority -- not the super-majority required to overturn a once-promised (2010) gubernatorial veto but a majority nonetheless -- of this state's legislators are pro carry. Governor Quinn (against whom, incidentally, AG Madigan is expected to launch a campaign next year) is about to find himself between the proverbial rock and hard place.

[Baja Daze]

Originally Posted by Kharn

Madigan would be taking a large risk under a stay if Kachalsky receives cert, for they would only be amicus and not able to directly argue their points, risking NY throwing IL's no-issue under the bus while attempting to save may-issue. Madigan's best bet would be to apply for cert and hope for combined argument.

We will know tomorrow if en banc was granted, I highly doubt it.....and I think it's then a given that Madigan will file for cert.

[Baja Daze]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

According to the internal 7th Circuit practitioners handbook, if en banc had gained a majority in vote (6 of 10), then the en banc would just be granted and there would be no dissents written at all. The vote would happen by Friday.

I'm giving the 7th Circuit the extra day because they may have came to a decision after the clerks gone home for the day, and Monday is President's Day (which is a federal holiday). Basically, if you don't see something by end of business Tuesday, en banc was not granted. Then it's a matter of waiting for the written dissents from denial of banc, which could take a few weeks or months. The 7th Circuit's decision on the matter would stand.

The only thing after Tuesday that further delay gives the state is that the 90 day period for application of certiorari to the Supreme Court has not started yet. If she filed for cert, say, a month after receiving the denial of en banc (she has to wait for that, regardless). The official denial comes in during April. The 180 days is still counting down from December 11th.

The timing is all messed up for the state at that point. She may attempt to motion the 7th Circuit panel to ask them to delay the 180 days so that should she could cert petition. That would be Judge Posner's decision as Presiding Judge of the panel, and I don't see him allowing that, considering she chose en banc route rather than cert route and caused her own damage.

I don't know whether this was a political calculation on Lisa Madigan's part. She could have filed cert and gotten it over with before the 180 day time period expired. She did not.

Well it's 1600 in Illinois and hopefully Lisa Madigan is preparing to hit Happy Hour really hard to numb her pain!

I am not finding anything yet to indicate that en banc has been granted in this case, just looking for any updates.....paging Gray!

[Big Ben]

Past 5 pm in the 7th, and I can't find any notification on the Interwebz granting en banc review.

So ... next up, SCOTUS?

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Past 5 pm in the 7th, and I can't find any notification on the Interwebz granting en banc review.

So ... next up, SCOTUS?

Yes but she has to wait until the actual denial order.

[Peaceful John]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

Yes but she has to wait until the actual denial order.

Gray, when will the denial order be published?

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Peaceful John

Gray, when will the denial order be published?

Up to the court.

[Baja Daze]

So is it now safe to say en banc was not granted.....if not, what is the estimated time frame for the denial order?

[Apocalypsenerd]

What's the latest they could issue the denial? Could they just stall by not issuing?

[hoffmang]

It is likely that en-banc is not granted but I still would give it a like 5% chance of happening. However, the much more likely order of denial of en banc timing is very dependent on whatever dissents from a denial of en banc will take timewise to write and then file.

-Gene

[Baja Daze]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

It is likely that en-banc is not granted but I still would give it a like 5% chance of happening. However, the much more likely order of denial of en banc timing is very dependent on whatever dissents from a denial of en banc will take timewise to write and then file.

-Gene

Thanks Gene!

So if en banc was denied, than Madigan is now forced into a holding pattern as she can't file for cert from SCOTUS until the 7th issues the denial order.....meanwhile the 180 day clock continues and I sure hope the IL Legislature passes a "common sense" shall-issue law soon!

[wildhawker]

Judges and their clerks know how to use a calendar to count days, too. Not an ascription or explanation, just a casual observation...

-Brandon

[Apocalypsenerd]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Judges and their clerks know how to use a calendar to count days, too. Not an ascription or explanation, just a casual observation...

-Brandon

Alright then, why is it that the SCOTUS always waits until the last day to issue a ruling on the 2A? Don't they know we all have our knickers in a twist wondering what the result will be?

[Ryan_D]

I anticipate the State's AG's office to lean hard on the prosecutor's office (if necessary) to WAY overcharge her. Throw everything they can think of at her, and then come in later with a plea-bargain agreement in order to get a conviction and avoid the sticky mess that's been created by the court declaring the ban unconstitutional.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd

Alright then, why is it that the SCOTUS always waits until the last day to issue a ruling on the 2A? Don't they know we all have our knickers in a twist wondering what the result will be?

They always issue their landmark cases on the last day. I'd have to believe unless we get a bunch of other national profile cases next term(does anyone know BTW) that a 2A -public carry case will be decided on the last day. If we win that case the laws of 7 or 8 states get struck down as opposed to McDonald and Heller which only affected single localities.

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd

Alright then, why is it that the SCOTUS always waits until the last day to issue a ruling on the 2A? Don't they know we all have our knickers in a twist wondering what the result will be?

Yes, they know. They also know that the impact of their opinion will last far into the future. They'd rather maximize the "correctness" of their opinion than minimize the time to issue.

[nicki]

Let's see where we are at.

We got a "good ruling", but the "ruling" gave the state 180 days to get a carry system together that would pass "constitutional challenges".

The state went for "en-banc" which looks like it isn't going to be granted at this time.

The state can't appeal to the SCOTUS until they get their "en banc" denial first and in the meantime that 180 day clock is ticking down, so I guess around early June, things should get interesting.

Is it possible that the 7th circuit ruled our way because they had to, but they don't want the "Moore case" in front of the SCOTUS because since it is a total ban on carry and that the 7th doesn't want to risk that unlicensed and somewhat unregulated carry becomes a "constitutionally recognized" and "enforceable right"?

If en-banc was granted and we lost, the 7th knows we would appeal to the SCOTUS.

Is it possible that the 7th could just hold up on the "denial letter" till say the end of the year so some other carry case can get in front of the SCOTUS first.

If June comes by and the state has failed to pass a CCW law, then Chicago becomes the "Wild West" where the streets will run red with the blood of thugs.

Of course the Chicago machine has always managed to get dead voters to the polls, so I guess we won't see much change.

Are my observations on point or am I off, what do you guys think?

Nicki

[Kharn]

Chicago does not control a majority of either house in the legislature, just the governor's seat. The down-state (extremely red) reps have all the power, because without their participation, IL goes Constitutional Carry.

[Baja Daze]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

The effect of right to carry in Chicago is going to be one of the most interesting social/policy/criminology actual experiments in our lifetime.

-Gene

If I can carry in Chicago....I will visit again for the first time in over ten years.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by nicki

Let's see where we are at.

We got a "good ruling", but the "ruling" gave the state 180 days to get a carry system together that would pass "constitutional challenges".

The state went for "en-banc" which looks like it isn't going to be granted at this time.

The state can't appeal to the SCOTUS until they get their "en banc" denial first and in the meantime that 180 day clock is ticking down, so I guess around early June, things should get interesting.

Is it possible that the 7th circuit ruled our way because they had to, but they don't want the "Moore case" in front of the SCOTUS because since it is a total ban on carry and that the 7th doesn't want to risk that unlicensed and somewhat unregulated carry becomes a "constitutionally recognized" and "enforceable right"?

If en-banc was granted and we lost, the 7th knows we would appeal to the SCOTUS.

Is it possible that the 7th could just hold up on the "denial letter" till say the end of the year so some other carry case can get in front of the SCOTUS first.

If June comes by and the state has failed to pass a CCW law, then Chicago becomes the "Wild West" where the streets will run red with the blood of thugs.

Of course the Chicago machine has always managed to get dead voters to the polls, so I guess we won't see much change.

Are my observations on point or am I off, what do you guys think?

Nicki

CAN they delay that long? I thought there was a time limit for a denial.


The Raisuli

[ddestruel]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

CAN they delay that long? I thought there was a time limit for a denial.


The Raisuli

the 9th has.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

CAN they delay that long? I thought there was a time limit for a denial.

There is and it appears we're past that but there isn't a hard and fast limit on getting the dissents from denial published. However, a majority of the court isn't with the dissent so you should expect the dissents to be published shortly (where shortly could be about 90 days max.)

Originally Posted by ddestruel

the 9th has.

That was when an en-banc was granted. It looks like there will not be an en-banc grant here.

-Gene

[Baja Daze]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

It is likely that en-banc is not granted but I still would give it a like 5% chance of happening. However, the much more likely order of denial of en banc timing is very dependent on whatever dissents from a denial of en banc will take timewise to write and then file.

-Gene

So are we now 100% sure en banc was not granted? I can't find anything....

[Kharn]

Nothing is 100% until the Court informs the parties.
But the longer it drags out, the more likely a dissent to denial is being written.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

There is and it appears we're past that but there isn't a hard and fast limit on getting the dissents from denial published. However, a majority of the court isn't with the dissent so you should expect the dissents to be published shortly (where shortly could be about 90 days max.)

That was when an en-banc was granted. It looks like there will not be an en-banc grant here.

-Gene

Well, that's something.


The Raisuli

[CitaDeL]

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...2-1269_003.pdf

En Banc denied....

[Gray Peterson]

I was right.

Thanks, Citadel.

[Hogstir]

So how long do they have to request cert?

[Kharn]

I laughed on a few points in the dissent from en banc:
1. Heller/McDonald only covered the home
2. NYPD lit up Wall Street and shot 9 bystanders while trying to stop one active shooter, think of the chaos of civilians "assisting."
3. Its not our job, leave it to the SC
4. Sensitive places can be expanded to include:

extending that reasoning to areas
around schools, courthouses, other government buildings,
public universities, public libraries, hospitals, medical
offices, public parks and forests, churches and other
places of worship, banks, shopping centers, public transportation
facilities and vehicles, and venues for sporting
events, concerts, and other entertainment, among many
possible examples.

5. IL should get to present statistics in court.



ETA: File attached

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...2-1269_003.pdf

En Banc denied....

Link is not working for me and I cannot get access on the districts website.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Link is not working for me and I cannot get access on the districts website.

Looky loos crashed it I think. Was up just minutes ago.

[AyatollahGondola]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Looky loos crashed it I think. Was up just minutes ago.

It was up for me. Now I just have to figure out how it affects me

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Hogstir

So how long do they have to request cert?

90 days from today.

[Drivedabizness]

Read as much of the dissent as I could stomach.

Question: Is the ability to stuff your own cranium up your own rectum a requirement for the Federal bench?

I tire of the "Heller only dealt with the home" and "all of the historical analysis is only dicta" BS.

[M. D. Van Norman]

Good news to end a rough week!

[mag360]

The dissent basically listed every single area a person might go as a reasonable restriction. Lmao.

[2Aon2wheels]

Dupe... Sorry. Great News though!!!

[non sequitur]

“…consider how much worse the situation on the crowded streets of New York might have been if…”

Uh, sorry Your Honor, but revisionist history is an illegitimate distortion and a genre best left to fiction writers, not Federal judges.