* The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals was not all that kind to the lawyers for Mary Shepherd yesterday. The attorneys are seeking an injunction against state unlawful use of a weapon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statutes so that FOID-card holders can begin carrying concealed, loaded firearms immediately while the state implements its regulations of the new state concealed carry law.
Listen to the whole thing. It’s a thorough smack-down by Judge Richard Posner…
* Some Posner quotes, whose main point was that the plaintiffs ought to file a separate lawsuit if they want to compel anything…
* There is nothing in our opinion about how long the state can take to implement whatever new law it adopts.
* The only thing that we did was set a deadline for a new law. We didn’t say anything about a period of implementation.
* There’s no basis for seeking an injunction because they haven’t disobeyed our decision. The basis of your seeking an injunction has to be that they’re not carrying out our decision. But they’re not violating anything in our opinion.
* You want to let people without training to start carrying guns in public. That’s extremely dangerous and there are loads of gun accidents, and the Constitution doesn’t require untrained people being allowed to carry guns in public.
* When the plaintiff’s attorney claimed “We agree that safety is important,” Posner responded…
“No you don’t, because you don’t understand anything about the importance of training for people allowed to carry guns.”
Keep in mind that this is the same Judge Posner who wrote the decision declaring unconstitutional Illinois’ complete ban on concealed carry.
* From a poster on the Illinois Carry bulletin board who was at the hearing…
Posner basically kept asking for a compelling reason of what immediate injunction should be made and why any current complaints should not be handled in a separate lawsuit. Brown v. Board of Education was brought up repeatedly by Posner, wherein a law was found unconstitutional, but implementation of the new law happened at a slower pace. The judges did not seem convinced that the State be required to “immediately come in compliance” with the constitution, and that future complaints should be handled as separate lawsuits, which is apparently similar to what happened in Brown v. Board of Ed.
His logic seems pretty reasonable IMHO, based on my very limited knowledge of how the law should work. They are asking us how they can implement injunctions without creating some pretty sweeping precedents.