* The Trib says that the concealed carry bill has been sent to the governor. Actually, it hasn’t yet been transmitted. It’s still in the House. The chamber can hold onto it for up to 30 days. I’m told that this is probably just a paperwork thing.
Whatever the case, the June 9th deadline is rapidly approaching and now the attorney general wants a delay to help the governor. Games are definitely afoot…
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a request with a federal appeals court asking for an additional 30 days to put in place a law that would allow citizens to carry guns in public.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave the state until June 9 to come up with concealed carry rules when it struck down Illinois’ longtime ban in December. Last week, lawmakers passed a measure setting out who could carry guns and where, but Madigan argues that Gov. Pat Quinn should have more time to review the legislation before deciding whether to sign it into law.
The state constitution gives the governor 60 calendar days from the time a bill is sent to his desk to act before it would automatically become law.
“The request for an additional 30 days would allow the governor a reasonable amount of time to fulfill his state constitutional duties,” Madigan said in a statement.
* More…
“We think the request for a 30-day stay is appropriate,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said. “The bill has not yet arrived. Ordinarily, under the Illinois Constitution, the governor has 60 days to review a bill upon its arrival.”
Last week, the governor’s office would only say Quinn intends to “review” the legislation but would not offer any sense of the governor’s leanings on the legislation.
The plan that was fast-tracked through the House and Senate last week was a compromise deal that preserves existing local gun laws, including Chicago and Cook County’s bans on assault weapons, and keeps gun owners from carrying their loaded weapons on public trains and buses.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** From the gun guys’ response to Madigan’s motion…
1. Defendants’ motion is unauthorized by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, plainly presented for dilatory reasons, fails to fully disclose the relevant factual circumstances, and otherwise lacks merit. Considering that the state’s remedial legislation passed with overwhelming veto-proof majorities in both houses, as well as the Governor’s deep and protracted involvement in this issue, the time for delay is over. This Court has spoken. The People of Illinois, through their representatives, have spoken. There must be some finality to this process. The motion should be denied.
The motion is here. AG Madigan’s motion is here.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 10:59 am:
The request makes sense to let the process play out. It doesn’t change anything in the long run. The bill that passed will be law.
- TCB - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:05 am:
The court gave the state plenty of time, everyone is to blame for the negotiations going right up until the final days of session. June 9th is the day they gave us, June 9th it should stay.
If Quinn was so worried about having enough time to review the legislation maybe he should’ve taken an active role in negotiating it.
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:09 am:
They don’t show anything about the response to this. Basically calling them on the legal points of why stays are issued and how 180 days was double the typical 90 day stay.
The gov knows what was in the bill. Us on the “pro-ccw” side were able to break the bill down in under 24 hours… he can do the same. more BS stalling tactics to allow homerule towns to rush AWBs in.
- Anon - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:13 am:
Unreal. The state had what, 180 days to pass the law?
This is reminiscent of a college kid who has had an assignment all semester and waits until the night before to do it. Then asks for a damn extension.
Hope this is denied. So sick of this stuff. Just get it done, abide by the ruling.
- RetiredStateEmployee - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:15 am:
I’m confused. What does the Governor do during legislative sessions? Shouldn’t he be following the big issues and know what’s in the bills? I know how to look them up, shouldn’t he (or at least his staff)?
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:19 am:
The State has know all along the time allowed for the Gov’s actions. The deadline has been clear. If I was on the court, I’d vote to slap the State’s request down so fast Lisa’s and Pat’s heads would spin.
- Lil Squeezy - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:26 am:
Given that a 6 month deadline is tight for any legislature I think this seems reasonable. Our founders on the national and state levels did not design government structures to be quick and efficient. 6 months or 7 months for a state as diverse as Illinois is tough. We passed the bill, it now has to be implemented. And understood- not just on a public level but also a private level. I bet there are some businesses that would like 30 days to better understand the law.
- HenryVK - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:35 am:
It will be interesting to see what the court does.
Everybody knew about the deadline. If the Gov. needed time to review, they should have passed it a month ago.
If the motion is denied, is there really any long term harm? Until the gov. signs, there is no CC law in Illinois. Do we really expect the wild west for a few weeks?
If I’m on the Court, I deny.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:37 am:
–..as well as the Governor’s deep and protracted involvement in this issue,..–
Say what?
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:39 am:
@Lil
they had 180 days. Now the new law gives them another 180 days even to setup a system then what? 60 to 90 even to issue permits after that.
The state is being very generous to itself with time and asking for even more from the court. When states like Wisconsin setup a CCW system and was excepting apps within like 60 days.
Enough is enough.
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:41 am:
accepting apps… my mind works faster that my typing and can.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:42 am:
RonOglesby has it right.
>>>> BS stalling tactics to allow homerule towns to rush AWBs in.
Yup, Deerfield and Higland Park are trying to rush stuff through right now.
- Anon - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 11:43 am:
Squeezy- Businesses, and state government as a whole will have plenty of time to learn about the law- it will take another 180 days to implement.
In some ways this is a complicated issue. In other ways, it’s not. Every other state in the union has conceal carry laws on the books. There’s literally 49 examples of how to implement the law. And the delays have already been extremely generous- 180 days to pass anything, 180 days to implement.
A year to pass and implement is more than enough. Sorry the legislature took awhile, but that’s not our fault.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:01 pm:
Ron and JJ, I’m shocked.
You hang your whole c-c argument on the federal Constitution, yet you would have the state abandon its own Constitutionally proscribed timelines for making laws because you’re in a hurry.
Continuances are requested and granted in the courts all the time. No conspiracy going on here.
- Rod - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:02 pm:
180 days to write the law. Need 30 more days to look at law. 180 more days for the state police to start implementation. 90 days to approve the first permit. A year a four months. Do you think somebody is trying to stall. I bet the Medical Marijuana bill is signed quick. I know the state was forced into passing the law, but grow up and be adults! Somethings we have to do in life we don’t want to.
- HenryVK - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
“yet you would have the state abandon its own Constitutionally proscribed timelines for making laws because you’re in a hurry.”
Initially Word, the U.S. Constitution come first.
Second, are you really telling me that it was impossible to get something from an introduced bill to the Gov’s signature in 180 days?
Everybody knew the deadlines. They chose to wait to the last minute.
You don’t mess around with deadlines set by federal judges.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:31 pm:
I believe this is all about Lisa Madigan trying to insulate herself during the primary.
Right now, I believe Quinn is likely to veto the bill and criticize her for not appealing the case like he asked. If she had, Illinois might not have had to “settle” for losing on this gun issue.
This filing frames her as an ally, not a rival. It makes it look like she’s trying to help out the Governor on this divisive issue by buying him some time.
Unfortunately, however, there’s this:
=== 180 days was double the typical 90 day stay ===
The parties involved basically had 1/2 a year to figure this issue out.
That is plenty of time, and this filing is about primary politics rather than gun control or buying the governor more time.
- titan - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:34 pm:
If I were te court, I would respond with:
“June 9 is 5 days away. Certainly, the Governor can find, and operate, a pen in that much time. Motion denied.”
- Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:49 pm:
titan, I think you meant to say:
“June 9 is 5 days away. Certainly, the Governor can find, and operate, his favorite crayon in that much time. Motion denied.”
- Happy Returns - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:52 pm:
What’s the rush, fellas? 30 days on top of 180 and 90 is nothing.
- John Boch - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:58 pm:
And Rich, you thought you were going to get a respite in gun-rights related posting & commentary… LOL.
It’s Illinois’ politics.
Little is easy and common sense is terribly uncommon.
I suppose the response to Lisa’s request for an extension will tell the tale on the Seventh Circuit COA opinion on the legislature’s dilatory handling of the entire issue.
John
John
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:05 pm:
@Happy
As the AG put in her own motion:
“State defendants recognize that even the temporary denial of a constitutional right imposes a burden on the plaintiffs…”
The state knew the timelines going in. They have granted themselves LOTS of time in the bill. Yet here they admit they are denying a constitutional right so Quinn can “review” the bill.
I say, let him review the bill all he wants. This doesnt stop that. hell he can still veto it! but an unconstitutional law should be struck down.
- Hedley Lamarr - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:07 pm:
From the AG brief:
” Expiration of the stay on June 9 will … eliminate that constitutionally-provided period entirely”
What underpaid AAG wrote this load? The entire brief is full of this type of weak reasoning.
Deny.
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
@Hedley
exactly. Their stay changes nothing. It simply invalidates sections of the UUW/AUUW law. They are trying to tie the two things together and they are not really.
- siriusly - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:13 pm:
They are implying that Quinn is okay with the bill. Is that true? Was his staff involved in this bill? That would be newsworthy.
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:23 pm:
@siriusly
who is implying Quinn is ok with it? Actually I think quinn hates it. But for him to act like he doesnt know whats in it when pretty much everyone else does is simply silly.
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:37 pm:
A mountain out of a molehill. Another gleeful crisis for the true believers.
I bet the judges allow the 30-day extension.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:40 pm:
I hear it is going back to Posner. Wonder what kind of mood he is in?
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:45 pm:
Isn’t the real question Why wasn’t the Governor involved in the drafting of the law in the first place??? I understand that most legislation requires review but if Quinn couldn’t be bothered to pay attention to this matter or at least have a staffer paying attention doesn’t that speak more to Quinns failure? After all in his own words this is a monumentous change.
- Livewire - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:46 pm:
Only in illinois is 180 days not enough time to find a legal way to correct an unconstitutional law! This is absolutely nothing more than a delay tactic for the anti gun crowd in illinois politics. I hope the courts have enough common sense to tell these bafoons that 180 days was enough, and they need to work to get it completed ON TIME!
The one thing this does is further delay our RIGHTS by another 30 days. Thats will push us over 1 year from the day it was determined unconstitutional. 180 days to create the law, another 30 days of extensions (so far requested), 180 days create the system, then 90 days to approve. That is 1 year and 115 days! or 480 DAYS living with an unconstitutional law!!!
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:21 pm:
Ahhh and now a second response from the Shepard lawyer…
good stuff in that one:
—
4. Furthermore, Defendants’ request is based on a fundamentally flawed premise: that “the permanent injunctions ordered by this Court will no longer be necessary” once the Firearm Concealed Carry Act is “signed into law.” Defs.’ Mot. ¶ 3. Again, this Court found Illinois’s “flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home” unconstitutional and ordered that these consolidated cases be remanded “to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 940, 942.
5. The mere signing of the Act into law does nothing to upset this Court’s order.
—
How true. this response also points out that the specific plantiffs that won in this case will still not be able to carry come June 10th and will have to wait 6-9 months after the law is signed. Very interesting tactic. Federal judge ruled and the specific plantiffs still wont have the ability to carry even if this law is signed today.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:25 pm:
@Livewire:
Nobody is denying your RIGHTS. Get a grip. Assuming the Governor signs it you get your law. Nothing is EVER good enough for some of you.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:35 pm:
“A right delayed is a right denied.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.
:)
- TCB - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:41 pm:
Maybe the Governor is exhausted from “working day & night” on so many things that he can’t find time to review the legislation?
- Todd - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 4:01 pm:
stay granted for 30 days.
” No further extensions to stay the court’s mandate will be granted”
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 4:07 pm:
—
” No further extensions to stay the court’s mandate will be granted”
—
so they get their 30 days, but have had enough hmmming and hahing it seems.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 4:10 pm:
thanks for the update Todd. Guess we can expect that Quinn rewrite in 30 days.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 4:12 pm:
It’s bizarre that people are calling this “unreal.” Do we really want federal courts causing a state constitutional crisis? ==Initially Word, the U.S. Constitution come first.== Yes, but the US Constitution does not mandate minutiae such as the timelines for states passing bills. Also, for those complaining about double the normal stay, sure the court have done a shorter stay but they smartly recognized that the legislative process needs to time play out. Otherwise, the anti-gun folks could have easily passed a bill basically allowing home rulers to do whatever they want.
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 4:57 pm:
@precinct
—
Do we really want federal courts causing a state constitutional crisis?
—
Pleeeeeeze. there would have been no state constitutional crisis. The 7th’s ruling would have struck sections of a specific law. Not forced the governor to do something.
If he felt he had to do something because he felt that law was so important that is different.
- Mongo - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 6:39 pm:
The legislative process frequently includes detours like this. The 30 day stay was predictable. It causes no harm. The bill, if vetoed, will become law when it is overridden. In fact in the override more “yes” votes will pile on to spite PQ.
Or PQ will amendatorily veto it, maybe re the review board. That might be interesting to see if his AV is adopted or if an override occurs.
Whichever happens, it’ll all be over by July 6.
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 7:47 pm:
Told ya.
Where’s the next molehill for the troops to rally around?
Don’t Worry, Be Happy — at least for a few days.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 8:00 pm:
–The one thing this does is further delay our RIGHTS by another 30 days.–
No court has ever declared conceal-carry a Constitutional right.
The 7th Circuit found Illinois’ blanket prohibition on all carriage unconstitutional.
In April, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to New York’s “may issue” c-c law requiring applicants to show “proper cause.”
Illinois will have a c-c law because it was passed by the General Assembly, not because it has been found to be a Constitutional right.
As such, the law will be subject to changes in the future, one way or the other.