Quinn still insisting on an immediate appeal
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Here we go again…
Gov. Pat Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan both suggested Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to turn down an appeal of New York’s tough gun law could boost Illinois lawmakers’ attempts to set strict limits on who gets to carry concealed weapons.
But the Democratic governor also used Monday’s Supreme Court move to escalate his call for Madigan to appeal to the high court a federal ruling that gives Illinois a deadline of early June to put in place a concealed weapons law.
“It would be helpful to … the people and the public safety of Illinois if that case (would) be reversed,” Quinn said.
* More…
The governor’s focus on guns while speaking with reporters afterwards ramped up pressure on the attorney general to appeal December’s federal appeals court ruling mandating concealed carry in Illinois to the U.S. Supreme Court. To date, Madigan hasn’t made her intentions known.
“I think the case was wrongly decided by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I would like to see that reversed, and the only way to do that is with an appeal,” Quinn said. “I hope the attorney general reconsiders that.”
Earlier, Madigan said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday not to overturn New York’s highly restrictive concealed-carry law would “obviously influence our continuing review of the situation here in Illinois.” But she wouldn’t divulge whether she intends to appeal the federal appeals ruling mandating state lawmakers to craft a concealed-carry law in Illinois by early June.
* We’ve been over this before. The governor is clearly just trying to score some political points here. Madigan explains…
Madigan noted that even if she had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court the same day her request was denied [by the appellate court for en banc] in February, the case wouldn’t have been heard until later this year.
“(Whether I appeal or not) doesn’t have an impact … on the 180-day clock,” she said.
Because of this, she said she’s waiting to see a final bill before making a decision.
In other words, deciding to appeal now won’t speed up US Supreme Court review by a minute. And appealing before the General Assembly has a chance to work out a deal on concealed carry means her work could be mooted if a bill passes. Quinn knows this. But, hey, he’s mostly getting the media spin, so whatever. And I’ll bet it polls well.
* Raw audio of Gov. Quinn’s remarks to the media yesterday…
* Raw audio of Attorney General Madigan’s remarks to the media yesterday…
* Related…
* Lisa Madigan stays tight-lipped about a possible 2014 challenge to Quinn
* Quinn, Madigan talk housing, not politics
* Quinn and Madigan differ on guns, housing
* Madigan campaign funds are triple Quinn’s
* The money race for governor is already on
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:25 am:
Yup, and they are also not ignorant when it comes to the history of rulings lately…
permitting systems and training requirements like NY’s have not been brought before the court and struck down. Out right bans (like DC’s and Chicago’s) have.
Just because the permitting/licensing process in NY was NOT taken by SCOTUS, doesn’t mean much to Illinois. First the state would have to have its case taken by SCOTUS. And their argument being that a complete BAN is constitutional. By SCOTUS NOT taking the NY case they didnt rule on it. It isnt like NY has a BAN on carry like Illinois.
Two different cases, two different sets of circumstances. I for one am fine if they appeal. I would welcome it as it is the exact type of case gun guys would like to argue instead of a NY type case.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:40 am:
Political points or not, he is the duly elected Governor and she appears to be ignoring his request.
The only reasoning I have seen thus far is her claim that there is not enough time to file an appeal, but she has not lifted a finger attempting to carry out the Governor’s wishes or extend that time - simple things like requesting a stay, etc. on the 180 day deadline while she appeals.
The court may or may not grant the request, but they both seem to be looking for an advantage here.
Meanwhile, who cares what’s best for the state, or things like honor and fidelity of duty? These two individuals have a campaign for Governor to run.
Don’t you muckety-mucks understand? There are more important things than running the state with the best interests of her people at heart.
Things like running for Governor.
/s
- Todd - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:47 am:
On the 23rd she has to makema decision, appeal, not appeal, or ask for an extension. If she appealed she could also ask for a stay while the court cnsiders taking the case, that would get us past session, but she needs to make a decision, prior to the adjournment date as the legislature could make their decision to not to act after her dedline is passed.
- Biz Guy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:52 am:
We are going to get some form of CC either way. either the GA will assume we must and do so, or they will fail to do so and then we will have it. So I’m confident. I want it but don’t care so much about Cook County exempting.
If Madigan believes the decision is wrong, should she appeal it anyway? Would her appeal affect the political process? Would her failure to appeal affect the political process?
- downstater - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:56 am:
It sounds like a losing proposition to appeal. We are the only state w/o some form of CC. The SCOTUS doesn’t seem to take well to outright bans and if the 180 day clock doesn’t stop ticking we will have constitutional carry. I would imagine that is the last thing the Chicago lawmakers want to see happen.
As to the public safety aspect of the governor’s arguement for appeal, where else in the country is CC a hazard to public safety?
- Greg - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:02 pm:
AG Madigan won’t make the decision until she has to. Her downside is an embarrassing loss before SCOTUS versus Gov nipping at her heels. The latter is less damaging. Todd’s point about a stay and stalling is a good one.
- Cheswick - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:15 pm:
@Formerly Known As… Lisa Madigan wasn’t elected to carry out the governor’s wishes. She represents the people. (You probably already know this, but I couldn’t tell where your snark began.)
- Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:39 pm:
The real cost to her in my humble opinion is outside money. While SCOTUS refused the challenge to NY state law a decision confirming Possner would be very detrimental if you were Nanny Bloomberg. It would immediately affect cities like NY who have bans. I think the Outside groups have whispered in her ear.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 6:31 pm:
The New York law would seem to be a constitutionally allowable template. I doubt four justices thought it unconstitutional but let it slide waiting for a different case that may not come.
- Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 7:41 pm:
Smart politically by Gov. Quinn (who needs all the help he can get as Lisa has over 2 MILlion more in her coffers than he has, assuming she tries to stick it to him and try to take his job away)…others, LM included can spin it as they/she may, but it clearly makes Lisa look weak and indecisive overall–not an attractive trait in one who claims to be a leader in her field and thinks she’d do better in a tougher Job with significantly bigger decisions than this (?) in that she absolutely could have already appealed before, didn’t, and now appears somewhat lame in playing this highly questionable waiting game…
- RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 8:49 pm:
word,
SCOTUS does pick and choose cases based on the political realities of the court, so they might have passed on this even if they had questions. It’s a lot easier to assemble a concensus on the outright bans than it is on the “reasonable retrictions”.
Kind of like Todd waiting for the “right” Illinois concealed carry case …