Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: STOP THE SATELLITE TV TAX!
Posted in:
* 12:22 pm - From a press release…
Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced she has filed a petition for rehearing before the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in lawsuits challenging the Illinois laws that prevent the carrying of ready-to-use firearms in public.
The Attorney General’s petition for a rehearing “en banc” is a request for all of the judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case after a December decision by a three-judge panel of the court held that the state laws barring carrying ready-to-use firearms in public are unconstitutional.
Madigan’s petition was filed in lawsuits brought against the State of Illinois by Michael Moore, Mary E. Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, which allege that Illinois’ restrictions on the carrying of ready-to-use weapons in public violates their Second Amendment rights. The laws had previously been upheld by two separate federal district courts in Illinois.
In its December decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set a 180-day deadline for the Illinois legislature to draft and enact new laws relating to carrying ready-to-use firearms in public. Today’s petition for rehearing by the Attorney General does not affect that deadline.
Madigan issued the following statement regarding her decision to seek a rehearing:
“In ruling that Illinois must allow individuals to carry ready-to-use firearms in public, the 7th Circuit Court’s decision goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held and conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts. Based on those decisions, it is appropriate to ask the full 7th Circuit to review this case and consider adopting an approach that is consistent with the other appellate courts that have addressed these issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.”
Discuss, but stay calm in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:23 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: STOP THE SATELLITE TV TAX!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Stop wasting taxpayer money in foolish attempts to keep Illinois in the 20th Century on this.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:33 pm
Politically speaking, this is a very pragmatic and smart move on her part.
Comment by siriusly Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:33 pm
This is just an attempt to delay. Send it to the Supreme Court and get it over with.
Comment by Nieva Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:38 pm
“=Stop wasting taxpayer money in foolish attempts to keep Illinois in the 20th Century on this.=”
The problem is that the court’s ruling takes us back to the 18 century.
Comment by Crime Fighter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:38 pm
Keep up the fight against the foolish attempts to turn Illinois into the Wild West.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:38 pm
“Heller” and “McDonald” were not the last words on the 2nd Amendment, but the beginning of a Constitutional debate in the courts on a subject that had largely been considered settled for most of the country’s history.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:42 pm
If I was pro-gun, I wouldn’t worry too much as General Lisa Madigan’s history in court generally results in failure.
Comment by redrum Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:42 pm
Question for legal eagles. Has the 7th en banc ever over-turned a majority panel decision written by Posner?
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:42 pm
If this goes to the Supremes, I think a lot of the other “May Issue” states will have a surprise in store for them. I read there was a drop in violent crime in Wisconsin when they decided to acknowledge the Second Amendment. With Chicago’s violent crime rate, they would be smart to embrace the courts ruling.
Comment by evil t Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:43 pm
Not much to comment on-No surprise here, and based on what she sees in the other courts (as well as what her personal beliefs apparently are) she really doesn’t have much choice except to appeal. I hope her appeal is a waste of money, but I can actually see this going all the way up to the Supremes.
Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:44 pm
siriusly said:
“Politically speaking, this is a very pragmatic and smart move on her part. ”
I dont think so. Lisa may want to be governor. A more pragmatic move may be to show those south of I80 and west of 47 that she knows when stop.
Instead I think she has shown she is just another Chicago politician and a follower of her father’s lead.
Comment by USMCJanitor Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:48 pm
she had no choice to do this after recent events…I for one do not think that concealed carry will make me feel any safer in or out of my home…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Another bite at the ole apple Lisa?
Comment by I'm Strapped Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:51 pm
USMCJanitor - I estimate that a majority of Democratic primary voters would probably be unhappy if she did nothing. A full appeal to the US SC is probably too risky at this point, and is opposed even by some gun control advocates. I view this as a half measure. That’s why I described this as politically pragmatic.
Comment by siriusly Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:58 pm
@ evil t “I read there was a drop in violent crime in Wisconsin when they decided to acknowledge the Second Amendment.”
Link?
Funny, I read there was a drop in gun-related murders and other violent crime in Australia — where they have the same violent video games and movies — after they decided to severely restrict guns to the point of a national buy-back program.
And I have links showing evidence of such:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
http://guninformation.org/
So, rather than hear-say, please provide some links. Thanks.
Comment by G. Willickers Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 12:59 pm
USMCJanitor:
Your insinuation that this move has something to do with Speaker is way off base. As Speaker he has never been a strong supporter of gun control, he dislikes it as an issue because he thinks it cost him the gavel in 1994. Your comment in that regard is really ignorant and slightly sexist.
Comment by siriusly Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Politics aside, it’s the right thing for her to do. If denied, she should ask for supreme court review. this decision must be addressed by the supremes to bring necessary clarity to the law.
Comment by Jim Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:02 pm
Interesting timing on the press release. Was there hopes that this announcement would be overshadowed by the circus that is the lame duck session of the legislature?
Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:03 pm
I think that Lisa Madigan is playing to her base of likely supporters and donors. On the merits, I do not see her winning the case in terms of a complete reversal.
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:05 pm
I am going to assume that Lisa took this step because of genuine personal principles, and as such believes thst despite the cost to taxpayers it is the right and proper thing for the AG of this state to do.
I do not think it will benefit her should she have higher statewide political aspirations for herslf. In fact I believe this act will hinder her greatly should she decide she’d like to run for governor and surely she recognizes this.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:05 pm
Wow, they just don’t give up trying to take away our need (note I said need, not right (already a given) to defend ourselves…
I guess the Supreme Court will need to spell it out once and for all.
Comment by Ah HA Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:19 pm
This is a safe move by the AG. She has nothing to lose. The worst outcome is that the opinion is upheld, so the status quo reigns. There’s a chance, however, it can be overturned, if the majority agrees the Posner overreached.
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Folks, she’s our lawyer: we elected her. She’s doing what she is supposed to do. No more to the story than that.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:24 pm
Siriusly - There are a LOT of downstate Dems in rural counties who favor concealed carry.
I do agree that this is very well measured response. Most parties don’t want it going to the Supreme Court as a precedent may be set that could loosen gun laws in NYC, DC, Etc. This is a way for her to do SOMETHING, without going as far as the supreme court.
I really dislike people who push the idea that legalizing concealed carry will return us to the “Wild West”. This concept has not been borne out in the 100% of states besides Illinois that have SOME form of concealed carry allowed. In fairness there are varying degrees of legal concealed carry (shall issue vs may issue, consitutional carry, etc), but overall the statistics simply do not support such a notion.
Comment by Notacop Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:24 pm
Couldn’t they agree with Posner but drop the 180 days that the state got? Not THAT would make things interesting…….
Comment by PM31 Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:26 pm
Steve Schnorf is right. The AG is doing her job - defending Illinois laws in court.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:28 pm
–I really dislike people who push the idea that legalizing concealed carry will return us to the “Wild West”.–
Who did that?
Besides, in the “Wild West,” bans against conceal-carry and open-carry were quite common. You had to check your firearms with the sheriff or justice of the peace.
Nobody watches Westerns anymore.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:28 pm
She wins either way. They deny she tried. She wins, she wins. But then we are in controll again and get to scotus and bloomberg will be very unhappy
Only downside is we win the supreme court and get national carry
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:29 pm
and we can only hope for new supremes before this reaches them. Why for 200 years the second amendment was a state’s right for a militia and somewhere some liberal legislative judges had the idea that it meant allowing every citizen to walk around with a 13 round clip of hollow points.
GO Lisa Go!
Comment by frustrated GOP Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:29 pm
–Only downside is we win the supreme court and get national carry–
Interesting point. Why not just go to Congress?
I believe I’ve asked that before, but am not sure I remember your answer correctly. Don’t want to misstate it.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:33 pm
Wordslinger -
Demoralized directly invoked the wild west image and I assume that the comment from CrimeFighter about returning Illinois to the 18th century was doing the same.
In those westerns how did the “check your guns with The Law” policy work out? Stop all gun violence? It’s all fiction but if one side is going to use it, why can’t the other? (As there is not yet a font that indicates light-hearted sarcasm, please read the preceding paragraph as such).
Comment by Notacop Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:35 pm
I’d love to see the issue clarified. I doubt my interpretation of the 2nd is the same as someone who feels he *needs* to carry a gun around.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:36 pm
Cheryl44
You can also read the Federalist papers and this history of the adoption of all of the bill of rights. See how the founders felt about it for yourself. There were arguments amongst even them.
Then you can read some of the post civil war jurisprudence history on the 2A and where most disarmament laws started and why. Once I learned this while in the Corps I really began to read and understand more about all of the rights protected by our bill of rights.
Comment by USMCJanitor Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:41 pm
–I really dislike people who push the idea that legalizing concealed carry will return us to the “Wild West”.–
- Who did that? -
Demoralized did at 12:38.
I share the same sentiment as Notacop. It is one thing to disagree with CC, but please lose the hyperbole and the plattitudes. No one takes an argument like that seriously.
Comment by Slick Willy Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:41 pm
As someone in favor of concealed carry, I don’t feel that I need to carry at all times, but there have been times that I definitely would have carried if it was legal.
For example when I took my kids to a very secluded park/picnic area that was completely deserted. It was nice for my kids to have the whole place to themselves, but while there was a very creepy guy that drove by slowly several times, staring out the window of his stereotypical white van. I would feel a lot more safe taking my kids there if I knew that I had every tool possible to defend myself if the need arose. Likewise, I would feel safer hiking some of the trails in state parks if I could carry in those areas. Basically, I would like to carry in places where you are a sitting duck for someone with ill-intentions.
Comment by Notacop Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:44 pm
My apologies. Didn’t see that one.
But you’re all missing some good Westerns….
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:45 pm
–As someone in favor of concealed carry, I don’t feel that I need to carry at all times, but there have been times that I definitely would have carried if it was legal.–
I’d support a regional/home rule solution, but that’s not on the table, as far as I can see.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:47 pm
*** …some liberal legislative judges had the idea that it meant allowing every citizen to walk around with a 13 round clip of hollow points. ***
Not sure that I would characterize Posner as a “liberal legislative judge”. Granted, he is a bit left of most Republicans, he is still pretty conservative.
Comment by Slick Willy Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:48 pm
-I’d support a regional/home rule solution, but that’s not on the table, as far as I can see. -
I liked USMCJanitor’s comment on the “say something nice” post:
-We disagree on lots and I wish we could pass what we DO AGREE ON with out attaching a bunch of stuff we don’t agree just console the extremes on either side. -
I think that pretty much sums up the problem with politics in general.
Comment by Notacop Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:49 pm
Word we have. The bill passed the House, and fell a couple votes short in the Senate.
I’m sure it will be reintroduced in congress this new session.
But the First amendment right to petition government is not limited to the legislature.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 1:52 pm
@ Notacop- “We disagree on lots and I wish we could pass what we DO AGREE ON with out attaching a bunch of stuff we don’t agree just console the extremes on either side.”
Boy wouldn’t that be something, legislation without unrelated measures attached as part of the deal…Maybe someday…
Comment by Charlatan Heston Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 2:07 pm
Todd, thanks. Do you recall the working title of the national legislation? I’d like to give it a google some time.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Other than wasting taxpayer funds in a state with fiscal problems and the additional people remain defenseless in the interim, I support her request. I’d like for this case to get in front of SCOTUS as quickly as possible before any more liberal justices might get appointed.
- G. Willickers: There are studies which indicate Chapman’s study’s anti-gun conclusions were incorrect or unsupported in Australia. You can find out more at the following link and the links off it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-45
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 2:22 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/16/house-to-vote-on-concealed-firearm-permit-bill/
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 2:24 pm
Word: I’m not Todd; but I wonder if it is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00822:@@@L&summ2=m&
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 2:27 pm
Our AG is just doing right and trying to correct a 200 year misinterpretation of a constitutional amendment.
If it weren’t for that pesky old Second Amendment out there to confuse this issue with language like “the right of the people”, this state, and especially Cook County, would be so safe and Chicago would be a law abiding utopia.
The AG is merely appealing to those highly educated judges can write a long opinion and make all of those less sophisticated folk nod like zombies as they try to understand an opinion written to make them think the second amendment is as effective as the tenth amendment.
We can’t and don’t want to repeal the Second Amendment. That would never fly and look bad, like we’re against someone’s rights. We’ll do it the respectable way through judicial reinterpretation.
Comment by GC Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 2:43 pm
If you wonder why Lisa does not want the Supreme Court to hear the case. Here is the Reason, in 1938 the Supreme Court ruled on a weapons case. The Court did rule that the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, were the focus of the Second Amendment, and that its protections must be understood within the context of militia service. But at the same time, the Court hinted for the first time at an individual right in acknowledging that when the amendment was drafted, militias usually included all free men, and required that these men provide their own weapons!
http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-bear-arms/united-states-v-miller.html
Comment by UNITED STATES vs MILLER 1938 Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 2:47 pm
To the U.S. v. Miller commenter — please note that it is rare for courts to decide cases on precedent 80 years old. If the issue was settled, the court would never take it. Anybody who thinks there are easy answers does not understand the issues.
I reluctantly agree with Todd that Lisa’s doing the right thing. I don’t think she’s got a snowball’s chance in heck of winning, but she probably should do it to keep her hands clean. She needs to exhaust all appeals. It would take an AG with more leadership than she’s shown to stand up and say she lost and will not waste throw good money after bad.
Anybody know if her office is handling this appeal, or whether they farm it out? I would hate to see our tax dollars wasted on what is essentially covering her behind.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:16 pm
–We can’t and don’t want to repeal the Second Amendment. That would never fly and look bad, like we’re against someone’s rights. We’ll do it the respectable way through judicial reinterpretation.–
GC, man, you’re really missing the boat.
“Heller” and “McDonald” did change the historical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in favor of the NRAs positions. That’s why they are landmark decisions.
To what extent, and whether they hold up as the court’s composition changes, the future will tell.
If you think the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear, salud. It’s gobbledygook, as is much of the Constitution if you care to give it a read.
That’s how you end up with differing interpretations and split decisions (although ideology certainly plays a major role, and always has).
But for most of the country’s history the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to mean that there was no federal Constitutional issue in how states and localities regulated firearms or their use.
That’s changed, and those were big NRA wins.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:20 pm
Skeeter — her office handled the first appeal, i bet they will do this one as well.
I think your right that a lot of people would have said nice play had she simply said the court ruled, and the legislature will have to deal with it. I think she may do that if they deny the en banc.
Looking at the court, I have a hard time coming up with the 6 votes she needs to get a rehearing, but I have been wrong before.
either way it fired up our guys even more after this the events of the past week.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:28 pm
@ G Willickers - and how did the gun confiscation in Australia work out for them?
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).
In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html
Comment by titan Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:31 pm
I’m not sure how many people outside the legal profession understand how much respect appellate lawyers have for Posner.
That goes across the political spectrum.
As Todd noted, I don’t see the votes.
This is “CYA” and is probably necessary but I doubt it will be successful. Right now, looking at the Supreme Court, I don’t see the five votes to reverse Posner.
Once a decision to appeal has been made, it is reasonable to take it all the way. In contrast, it takes leadership to stop and cut the losses. I just haven’t seen that sort of leadership from Lisa.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:33 pm
Titan,
You are relying on unsupported allegations from a religious web site?
Come on.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:37 pm
–Right now, looking at the Supreme Court, I don’t see the five votes to reverse Posner.–
I’m not sure that’s the issue.
Here’s where it gets interesting:
Posner, writing in the press, ridiculed Scalia’s opinion. Then, as appellate judge, he affirms, but adds a lot of his own opinion to it.
I doubt very much, given the back-and-forth over the years between those two, that Scalia would want Posner to have the last word.
I’d imagine that if Scalia is still there, and could get cert, he’d like to grab it back.
Then, it remains to be seen who gets five votes, and who gets to write the opinion.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:44 pm
she wins either way. her base loves it, say what you will about “downstate” but do the math and the numbers favor the north and the position she is defending. would be good to have further clarification. oh, and, yes, while the U.S. Supremes ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, Scalia left regulation as an open issue.
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:48 pm
Word,
That is one scenario. It is possible. I’m not ruling it out.
Justice Scalia is the most overrated intellect literally in the history of the Court. He tries to play the role of the scholar, but he consistently finds grounds to do whatever he wants to do for political reasons. Beyond that, frankly he’s something of a jerk.
However, although overrated as a scholar and although he’s a jerk, he does have good political instincts. I just don’t see him taking the case unless he’s got five to do what what he wants.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 3:50 pm
–However, although overrated as a scholar and although he’s a jerk, he does have good political instincts. I just don’t see him taking the case unless he’s got five to do what what he wants.–
He’s kind of snapped his cap in recent years. His instincts told him he had Roberts with Obamacare, lol.
Then there were the weird rants from the bench about what he had seen on Fox News during the Arizona immigration case.
The Scalia/Posner grudge has been interesting to watch over the years. Those U of C law professors are gut punchers.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:16 pm
In a properly ordered society, Posner would be on the Supreme Court and Scalia would be a back bencher in the House. That’s more their style.
Posner is a guy who will rule against his (perceived) political interest when he thinks precedent goes the opposite way. He’s an intimidating guy to argue before, since even on the most mundane case he’s completely prepared. He knows your case better than you do.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:23 pm
titan
Here’s a couple of more facts:
In Australia, 11% of homicides are committed with firearms.
In the USA, its about 68%.
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:23 pm
Notacop -
For each Downstate Democrat who supports CC there is at least ONE and possibly TWO Suburban Soccermoms who don’t. Just the demographics of Illinois. If the Greater Chicagoland supports something on a bi-partisan basis, such as, say, McPier, Downstate is out of the equation. CC wouldn’t be much different.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:24 pm
You are right about the Suburban Soccermom demographic, but you have to consider that Downstate Dems actually align with Republicans on this issue.
Downstate Dems + Republicans are what has been keeping gun control in check.
I guess the question is this: Can Downstate Dems + Republicans overcome Chicago Republicans + soccer moms?
Comment by Notacop Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:29 pm
@ reformer - OK, so what?
When generally law abiding citizens are deprived of guns, such people use other things to commit homocides when they snap. And criminals use them in higher numbers to do their killing.
In the US, places with lots of law abiding citizens having guns (and the right to carry them) also have lower crime rates.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:33 pm
Titan, do you understand that on this forum you need to back claims with verifiable facts? Know your audience. This ain’t the Trib.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:36 pm
Titan, do you understand that on this forum you need to back claims with verifiable facts? Know your audience. This ain’t the Trib.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:36 pm
–In the US, places with lots of law abiding citizens having guns (and the right to carry them) also have lower crime rates.–
Not so you’d notice. The highest violent crime rates are in states such as Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and South Carolina.
Not exactly tough gun laws down there.
Google “highest violent crime rates by state.”
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 4:40 pm
Skeeter/word
Remember at Kennedy back scalia in the keep or carry in case of confrontation that was in heller. He also went along with for lawful purposes SUCH AS self defense in the home.
I will bet that posnwr wrote this to dump it in scalia’s lap saying this is the end result of your writing in Heller. I think this case is much like the DC and chicago gun bans its a ban.
Again if you add up the gun cases in the 7th, i dont see 6 votes to overrule posner. I dont think easterbrook will go their, and they need one more.
I would love to see this go to SCOTUS, I think it is the type of case they would take.
But I sense we will pass a carry law this session. The couet ruling broke the back of the resistance on this issue
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 5:32 pm
Notacop
Todd Vandermyde has been quoted in these pages as saying Tom Cross gets “nervous” when Todd publicly announces he’s campaigning for Tom’s Suburban GOP members.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 5:55 pm
Anyone — where was that?
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 11:04 pm
I’m not sure how anybody thinks it’s legally tenable for Illinois to continue to deny it’s citizens the right to defend themselves with a firearm outside their homes, while all 49 other States, Puerto Rico and Guam allow it.
In fact I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case the anti’s want to bring to the SCOTUS since it’s an outright prohibition.
It’s much more likely that the 4th Circuit case against Maryland’s “may issue” statute is the one they want to bring before SCOTUS, but Illinois’ outright ban, no way.
Comment by hi there Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 11:34 pm
Todd, we live in interesting times and you are smack dab in the middle of it. I hope you’re getting more than Bonus Green Stamps for it.
Believe me, I have no idea how the Supremes will bounce on anything, but that’s what makes it so interesting.
One day, you should put down on paper for history the tough-and-go that went into filing “Heller” and “McDonald.”
From what I understand, your crew wasn’t united on the high-risk, high-reward nature of the suits.
5-4 decisions can do that to you, I imagine.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 9, 13 @ 12:27 am
–But I sense we will pass a carry law this session. The couet ruling broke the back of the resistance on this issue –
Momentum was certainly on your side in the GA and the courts.
With the gov, you tell me, lol.
I wonder how you guys are working it now: conceal/carry on one hand (an old issue), and semi-automatics and large magazines on the other (after the latest massacre in Newtown; more massacres to come, don’t worry).
Same issues, or separate?
I also have to wonder: The NRA is going full bore here in Illinois on all fronts.
Other than unorganized bloggers, like myself and a few others on the Capitol Fax, is there any opposition in Illinois to the NRA? I don’t see it.
Is the great Rahm spending any political capital? Did he ever have any?
There’s no crying when the other guy beats your head in and you don’t fight back.
And the other guy ain’t that tough. The NRA has four million members nationwide and put $18 million into the last election cycle. I’m supposed to say “boo?” Are you kidding me?
No crying when the other guy beats you. In a few months, I’m likely to say “you win,” and I, and everyone else, will have to live with it.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 9, 13 @ 1:46 am
Why does everyone keep ignoring the facts that in states where concealed carry is legal, the homicide rate has gone down and the incidents of “hot burglaries” has decreased. A large number of the gun homicides in the US are urban gang violence, that is going to happen with or without CC - take those numbers out of the national statistics.
Comment by in Paris Wednesday, Jan 9, 13 @ 8:33 am
in Paris,
It may be for the same reason that we ignore the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
We are not big on mythical creatures.
If you have facts to support that claim, please post them. Otherwise, the rest of us will ignore them.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Jan 9, 13 @ 9:02 am
Todd -
Still looking for it, and, to be fair, it could have been made in jest rather than seriously (text leaves out tone of voice, after all). But I do remember reading it.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Wednesday, Jan 9, 13 @ 9:34 am
How long before we can expect to see something from the Seventh on the request for an en banc rehearing?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Jan 9, 13 @ 12:07 pm