16 Comments - RonOglesby - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 11:54 am: Actually there is also a technicality (which the legal system runs on) that is interesting here. The 7th’s panel sent instructions the morning the FCCA passed to enter the injunction against the state. That happened at like 8:30 or 9 in the morning. The FCCA didn’t become law until that afternoon. After which the AG’s people submitted the argument that the case was not moot. Here is the interesting part of the technicality (not arguing here unreasonableness of the timeline here though that is in the brief): The injunction against enforcing the UUW/AUUW law should have been put in place by the lower court judge (he pretty much acknowledges that) but it wasnt. Instead he went ahead with the mootness arguments. Now as it goes before the 7th’s panel again they have to look at why the immediate injunction wasn’t entered at the end of the stay and why the state was not arguing to REMOVE the injunction keeping them from enforcing the UUW/AUUW law. The results in the end may be the same. Who knows. But its different arguing to remove an injunction because you have granted the grieved parties relief, than it is to argue mootness because a new law was passed even if it does have implementation time. BTW, the 7th’s panel that will hear this is the same exact judges that ruled on the case in the first place. - RonOglesby - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 11:55 am: “now moot” that should have said when talking of the state’s filing right after the law being passed. - John Boch - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 12:13 pm: Hmmm. Waiting to see… - Demoralized - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 1:15 pm: ==Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association say the wait is unreasonable and unconstitutional.== That is laughable. - wordslinger - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 2:57 pm: The court’s lack of urgency might give you an idea which way the wind is blowing. Submit those written briefs by Aug. 14 — we’ll read them after we get back from vacation and get back to you, lol. - Logic not emotion - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 3:47 pm: Say what you will; but the situation hasn’t really changed until people are able to carry legally. - wordslinger - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 4:11 pm: Obviously, the situation has changed. Once there was a blanket prohibition of any carry, now there is some conceal-carry allowed for qualified permit holders. A permitted activity, subject to law, not an unqualified right. - Logic not emotion - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 4:41 pm: Word: The key word in your line is “now”. Obviously, that is not the case except for law enforcement carrying - which is not what the lawsuit or legislation was about. As to the general public being able to legally carry “now”, the situation has not changed. - franko - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 4:46 pm: They scheduled a Rule 33 settlement conference, so I’d hardly call that a lack of urgency. - wordslinger - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 4:46 pm: Logically, instituting the permit process under the law will take a little longer than fixing a bowl of Jiffy Pop. I’m sure the backers of the law were aware of that. - Bill K - Monday, Aug 5, 13 @ 5:43 pm: The State is asking for an unreasonable delay. NO other State has needed that much time. These requirements could be hammered out in two weeks and a form available on the website. Just how long does it take to decide on what the training will be? 90 days would be plenty to start processing applications. Illinois is just so used to buying into this red tape shuffle at every Gov agency. - Logic not emotion - Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 8:34 am: Given that the state has a FOID system in place, an interim measure that could be immediately implemented is allowing those with valid FOID cards to carry while the state works out implementation issues for the legislation. Then have a grace period where FOID carry is valid for six months or some other reasonable; but finite time period, after the legislative implementation issues are worked out and permits become routinely available. Strangely enough, I’m pretty convinced that will expedite the issuing of permits under the new law and not doing that will delay the issuing of permits under the new law (in effect extending the unconstitional ban). - wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 8:59 am: –Given that the state has a FOID system in place, an interim measure that could be immediately implemented is allowing those with valid FOID cards to carry while the state works out implementation issues for the legislation.– Under what authority is that possible? When you seek change through the courts and legislatures, rarely is anything “immediate.” - Logic not emotion - Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:05 am: vs. regulations that were ruled unconstitutional many months ago? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:09 am: –vs. regulations that were ruled unconstitutional many months ago?– What are you talking about? There was a new law passed last session. The law that was in question before the courts no longer exists. - Confused - Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 4:38 pm: “Obviously, the situation has changed. Once there was a blanket prohibition of any carry, now there is some conceal-carry allowed for qualified permit holders. A permitted activity, subject to law, not an unqualified right.” A right delayed is a right denied. It doesn’t have to be “unqualified” to be a right worthy of not being delayed or denied. The right (qualified though it might be) to bear arms in Illinois has been denied for a long time. Now it is being delayed (aka denied). Actually, are any rights “unqualified”? And if so, can all of them be denied for decades and now denied for most of an additional year? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.