Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » Judge tosses gun lawsuit
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Judge tosses gun lawsuit

Monday, Jul 29, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* From the Associated Press

A federal judge is rejecting a legal bid by gun-rights advocates who wanted people to be able to immediately carry firearms in Illinois under the state’s new concealed carry law.

East St. Louis U.S. District Judge William Stiehl threw out the lawsuit filed by Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, siding with the state and saying the legal action is moot.

Shepard and the rifle group had argued it was unconstitutional to make people wait for the permit process to be outlined under the new concealed carry law that lawmakers passed July 9.

This is not a surprise. The 7th Circuit set a deadline for the enactment of a new law, not its actual implementation.


  1. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 11:27 am:

    I thought the lawsuit was ridiculous to begin with. They don’t have an argument any longer, as the judge pointed out. Concealed carry has passed and is now the law so they have no Constitutional argument to make any longer. Waiting doesn’t deprive them of anything. For some a “win” is never enough.

  2. - Elo Kiddies - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 11:53 am:

    Just give them the guns now and nobody gets hurt.

  3. - highspeed - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 11:53 am:

    Shouldn`t have to wait!

  4. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:10 pm:

    We’ll see. While I agree the argument is a long shot, there is a valid argument in that “If mary shepard cannot carry today as permits/apps etc are not being made available today, her 2A rights are still being violated”. But courts generally are very lenient with this stuff to allow a process to occur.

    That said, remember both of these cases (Shepard and moore) were originally dismissed by the same judges dismissing these cases as moot now. Meaning? appeal to the original 7 CA panel is probably a reality. And the 7th will have to ask is Mary’s right still being infringed on today?

    My guess is there will be further legalities if the ISP or the ILGA delays anything to do with implementation any farther than they have.

  5. - Anon - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:19 pm:

    I think it’s valid only in this sense: If a law was passed, but the actual start of permitting would begin 15 years from now, would that satisfy the courts ruling?

  6. - Motambe - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:35 pm:

    I wonder, how many days did Wisconsin require to implement concealed carry?
    As an NRA and ISRA member I still had to question of this lawsuit had merit.
    Bottom line, the GA and ISP, with the Governor’s blessing, have built in delays to “preserve public safety.” They will be held accountable and responsible for injuries and deaths caused by folks who could not secure a CCW permit in a timely fashion. Quinn can only hope and pray some sensational killing of an unarmed-by-procedure victim does not happen shortly before the primary, or if he beats Daley, the general.

  7. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:39 pm:

    It was about 90 days from signature to first permit issued in Wisconsin. Now I don’t count the first permit though because it went to the Wisconsin AG. But permits were going out about 2 weeks after that to “normal” people.

  8. - Motambe - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:10 pm:

    Thanks for the Wisconsin info.
    corrections to original post:
    “if” this lawsuit…
    “deaths caused to folks…”

  9. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:21 pm:

    Gee, there was a flood of pro-gunners on here recently who were absolutely sure that the ISRA lawsuit would be upheld. I wonder where they are today?

  10. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:35 pm:


    Most times what people believe they often press onto others and can’t understand when others dont see exactly what they see (we all do this)…

    Here you have a constitutional right being infringed and most can’t believe that the judge would hold a fire to the feet of the state (as a judge may with other rights, illegal searches, freedom of religion, etc)

    Anyway, this same judge was already smacked by the 7CA and the appeal paperwork is already in I would guess.

    The big argument is that there hasn’t been a remedy yet. There is a PLAN for there to be a remedy and that may be enough for the court. But then again, maybe not. For me its hard reading the state’s arguments and the leaps they have to take and the huge “trust us” they put before the court.

  11. - wordslinger - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:36 pm:

    Folks, just keep sending those checks. The lawyers will be happy to cash them.

    You do recall, don’t you, the the 7th put a six-month stay on its injunction? They didn’t seem to have much of a constitutional rights issue with that delay.

  12. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:40 pm:


    do you think the ISRA and NRA are paying all of this? I think you forget all the pictures of checks from Chicago, D.C. etc after the legalities are over. Part of the Mootness arguments the state was trying to jump on was in order to not have to pay for the legal fees of the winners. Same exact tactic Chicago pulled after McDonald.

    Don’t worry. The State paid for all the time and effort fighting this and will now pay the other side for fighting for it.

  13. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:42 pm:

    ==The big argument is that there hasn’t been a remedy yet.==

    That is absolute bull. A law was passed and it is being implemented, though apparently since some of you have to wait to strap a gun on a few months you are still crying and whining. It’s law now. Move on and find something else to gripe about already because I’ve had it with the CC crowd who apparently can’t take a win without crying.

  14. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:44 pm:

    ==Here you have a constitutional right being infringed==

    And there is a law now to remedy that. Enough with this baloney.

  15. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:47 pm:


    Such rational discourse. Thanks for helping out. Have you read the briefings? read the legal arguments? seen all thats involved?

    Sorry you seem to get upset here, but maybe even beyond the basic arguments in the case and having to fight the “mootness” point due to legal fee arguments yet to come, there is also probably a strategy of keeping a fire lit under the state to ensure this is not slow played… The state has several years of history of not abiding by the law with regards to timelines and FOID cards.

    With no provisions in the law as punishments timelines can be ignored (as the FOID card shows)… maybe the only way to ensure the state is on it is in court?

  16. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:51 pm:


    I’ll defer to your brilliance and opinion from now on as far as this subject is concerned since you seem to be the expert.

    As to your point, yes, I’m aware of what’s involved. Maybe you could wait 5 seconds for the law to be implemented instead of running to court. Three or four months from now I might buy this argument. Right now I’m not.

  17. - wordslinger - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:54 pm:

    Ron, so a court that put a six-month stay on tossing a law it ruled unconstitutional will somehow see an immediate need to implement a new law that it’s hasn’t reviewed?

    It’s good for the fundraising letters.

  18. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:55 pm:


    Thanks for the insults and condescension. Speeks volumes. I am no legal expert jsut someone that reads the briefs and educates myself enough on the arguments to understand them.

    If you actually were aware of what was involved you would know that trying to get the entire case dismissed as moot after it was remanded a big part of that is the state attempting to show they remedied the situation and there is no need to pay the legal fees (check out some of the precedent they note). If for nothing else a legal team must respond and challenge them just for that. And like any legal case you dont respond one just one front, but many.

  19. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:59 pm:


    Your arrogance speaks volumes. Oh, and thanks for calling me stupid by insinuating I don’t know the facts. I understand them, I think, pretty well. I just don’t share your opinion which apparently makes the rest of us ignorant on the subject. But again, I’ll just defer to your opinion from now on since you seem to have all the answers on this topic.

  20. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:03 pm:

    ==Shepard and the rifle group had argued it was unconstitutional to make people wait for the permit process to be outlined under the new concealed carry law that lawmakers passed July 9.==

    And this is what my who comment was about. It’s absolutely ridiculous, first of all, to have taken this to court, and, second of all, to claim that their Constitutional rights are being violated when that situation has been remedied.

  21. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:04 pm:


    Your arrogance speaks volumes

    sorry. I’m not name calling here you just avoided some of the specifics here and respond with one sentence quips at people degenerating them and almost insulting them… then act as if anyone pointing out items from the actual case is somehow “arrogant”.

    There is also I reason I use my name on boards… Because I believe it helps force you to talk to people respectfully just like you would face to face. I have tried to do that here. To me it seems you have no such care or dont want to actually comment on the case, just blast those that happen to be on one side.

  22. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:06 pm:


    My name is Ron. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

  23. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:06 pm:

    Really, my name is Ron. That wasn’t a smarta– comment.

  24. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:10 pm:

    @ Ron AKA Demo…

    No biggie. I just dont want to get in a back and forth that’s nasty. I’d rather just talk to the case and what it means (without hollering at each other) kind of like if we were having a beer (at a neutral site of course).

  25. - Kevin Highland - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:41 pm:

    Mary Shepard was severely beaten and her suit is one of the major factors in the saying the ban on carry of weapons was unconstitutional. To say that the building of the permit process can take 6 months + 3 - 4 months more for processing of applications doesn’t provide any near term relief to Mary Shephard.

    The relief asked for “Carry with a FOID using the rest of the rules provided for in the FCCA until the state is issuing permits in a timely manner” seemed like a good way to keep the states feet to the fire and help avoid any more delays introduced in the creation of the process. There are numerous other states this process can be mirrored from it seems like the legislative attempt to delay the process as long as possible.

    A right delayed is a right denied!

  26. - Kevin Highland - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:48 pm:


    “, to claim that their Constitutional rights are being violated when that situation has been remedied.”

    The city of chicago had an ordinance for issuing handgun ownership permits on the books for over 3 decades. They just didn’t issue permits. Are you saying that was a remedy and that peoples rights weren’t being infringed?

    Until the state is issuing permits in the fashion described by the law suit rights are being infringed.

    We won’t get into the disenfranchising of the low income people who may benefit from exercising their right to carry.

  27. - John Boch - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:56 pm:

    Worry not, Rich.

    We still drop in from time to time.

    Pondering our next legal challenge here.

    And while some here might poo-poo that, I think it’s worth noting we won on Heller, McDonald and Shepard to name a few.

    We’ll be back for another, and another until local, state and federal elected officials cease their efforts to legislate Constitutional rights away, one little piece at a time.

    Yeah, we lose some now and then of late. But the wins allow us to take it all in stride.

    Getting those big, six-figure checks from folks like Rahm make it very sweet, to say nothing of getting a carry bill in the last state to desperately hold onto their antiquated prohibition on carry firearms outside the home.


  28. - Bigtwich - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 3:05 pm:

    This is what the Judge said.

    “Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the Illinois Firearm Conceal Carry Act of 2013, Public Act 098-0063, supersedes 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4), (10) and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6, and that the plaintiffs’ complaint has been rendered moot by the passage of Act. Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Docs. 73 and 78).
    The Court DISMISSES plaintiffs’ motion for Declaration of Unconstitutionality (Doc. 75). In
    light of the Court’s prior Order establishing a short period of time in which to file additional briefs (Doc. 81) and this Order, the Court DENIES as moot the motion to expedite briefing (Doc. 76).
    The Court FURTHER FINDS that the mandate’s directive for a declaration of unconstitutionality and issuance of a permanent injunction to prohibit the State of Illinois from enforcing the now superseded statutes has been rendered MOOT.
    The Court THEREFORE DISMISSES the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to administratively close this case.
    The parties shall brief the issue of the award of costs and fees within fourteen (14) days of 11 the date of this Order. Responses shall be due within ten (10) days thereafter.”

    AS I read it further comments need be directed to the Seventh Circuit.

  29. - Just Observing - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 3:52 pm:

    === I think it’s valid only in this sense: If a law was passed, but the actual start of permitting would begin 15 years from now, would that satisfy the courts ruling? ===

    My thought exactly. It’s an interesting argument, no matter which side you fall.

  30. - Demoralized - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 4:33 pm:


    This issue isn’t about Chicago. That’s an entirely separate beast. As for your claim that Constitutional rights are being violated still in the state CC case, I will have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. A law was passed. It is being implemented. I understand it’s not at the speed some of you would like, but it is what it is. To continue to suggest a Constitutional issue is beyond ridiculous.

  31. - Mr. Wonderful - Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 7:12 pm:

    It will be interesting to see how this fares on appeal. It’s a safe bet that, without court action, the ISP will never issue a permit, ever. They’re just keep stalling, claiming they have no money or technical glitches, etc.

  32. - Gribble - Tuesday, Jul 30, 13 @ 7:12 am:

    Page 7 of Stiehl’s ruling:

    “Although the licensing scheme is not yet completed, the law does permit the planitffs to apply for, and assuming that they meet the statutory requirements for issuance of a license, recieve a permit to carry a concealed firearm.”

    Show me an application. Thats right; there aren’t any.

  33. - home based busines - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:10 pm:

    I barely ever put remarks, however I looked through the vast majority of comments here at Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar Judge tosses gun lawsuit but had one or two
    questions for you if you do not mind. Is it just me or do a number of of the responses look as if they’re generated from really brainless individuals? As well, if you happen to be posting on some various blogs, I would like to stay in touch with you. Is it possible to post a short list of all your social media sites such as your linkedin user profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Today's number: 19
* Afternoon roundup
* AG Raoul files SAFE-T Act appeal with Illinois Supreme Court
* How domestic violence is often a precursor to other violent crimes
* Bears unveil subsidy bill
* DeVore loses bizarro election case in Normal
* Not too hard to predict how this judge is gonna rule
* Pritzker leans into College Board fight with DeSantis: "Black history is American History"
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Pritzker endorses candidates in nearly two dozen Chicago aldermanic races
* Isabel’s morning roundup
* Open thread
* Live coverage
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...







Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller