Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Justice Harrison
Next Post: Bill would remove limit on abuse suits
Posted in:
* Attorney General Lisa Madigan has asked the US Supreme Court to grant an extension in the concealed carry case. Read the filing by clicking here.
Madigan has to file her petition for certiorary by May 23rd, while the spring session is still in session and several days before the June 9th appellate court deadline is imposed on the state. She’s asking for a 30-day delay.
Gov. Pat Quinn is listed on the request as a petitioner. Quinn has publicly urged Madigan to file an appeal.
From the AG’s office…
The June 9 deadline still stands for the legislature to act. This filing doesn’t impact that.
What this filing does is allow us more time to prepare a petition, and to the extent the legislature takes action before June 9, it allows us to take that action into consideration as we draft a petition for review as the Attorney General continues to assess the appropriate next steps.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:45 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Justice Harrison
Next Post: Bill would remove limit on abuse suits
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Just pass HB997 and be done with it. No need to waste more money in court. Chicago isn’t going to have more or less crime (crime is a different issue). Phelps has earned this one, time to move on…
Comment by Allen Skillicorn Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:04 pm
all of this is the fault of the voters. We continue to vote and send the same people to Springfield. Its time the voters of Illinois make some changes at the poles
Comment by Joseph Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:04 pm
49 out of 50 states… they are wrong and we are right, of course.
When 49 other states have a policy, and not a single one has seen an attempt at repeal get even close (I’ve never even heard of one), then maybe it’s time we join them…
Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:05 pm
===make some changes at the poles===
Both North and South?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:06 pm
===Just pass HB997 and be done with it. ===
It doesn’t have the votes to pass.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:07 pm
===make some changes at the poles===
So, Santa is out and the penguins got to go?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:08 pm
Conceal carry for southern artic water fowl!
Comment by Spliff Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:09 pm
==49 out of 50 states… they are wrong and we are right, of course.==
That’s an extremely poor argument. There are 100 better ones. Use those.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:14 pm
Come on Capt Fax book learnin’ ain’t no constitutional right
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:15 pm
The statement skips over the point that if the State of Illinois appeals, the State is likely to ask for a stay of the the decision. Now, if Illinois passes some sort of conceal carry bill it becomes moot. However, if it does not, a stay is likely while the state appeals to the Supreme Court.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:16 pm
Quick draw there, Rich.
But doesn’t Madigan have until May 23rd (not the 28th) to file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court? I think that’s what the first page of the application says.
Comment by Get 'Er Dunne Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:18 pm
How will this play in a primary debate? “He was more opposed to concealed carry than I was!”
Comment by Motambe Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:20 pm
===doesn’t Madigan have until May 23rd===
Yep. Typo. Fixing now.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:20 pm
===That’s an extremely poor argument. ===
It’s one that the appellate court emphasized, so it’s not that poor.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:21 pm
Demoralized-
How is it a poor argument?
49 of the 50 states recognized an issue, passed a bill addressing the issue, and have seen the benefits outweigh the consequences so strongly that there has been no attempt to repeal the law.
It is a fairly good argument because it recognizes that in 49 out of 49 test cases, empirical evidence and a track record of success has been established.
If it were such a bad idea, surely some states would have failed to adopt such a policy, or would have seen horrific effects warranting an immediate repeal?
Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:21 pm
Anon-
It’s a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatem (better known as an appeal to tradition, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice).
1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better
Comment by MrMonarch Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:29 pm
Mr. Monarch,
Of the two assumptions that characterize argumentum ad antiquitatem, one is that the past justification for the “tradition” still exist, when in reality things may have changed.
The simple fact that I am stressing that if circumstances HAD indeed changed, surely a single state of the 49 would have repealed their policy.
Using your mindset would ignore best practices from other states on a wide range of issues, and would throw out empirical evidence. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that every state that has passed conceal carry has been satisfied with it, therefore, we will almost certainly be fine.
Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:36 pm
180 days ain’t enough time???
Good grief, Charlie Brown!
Comment by Damfunny Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:41 pm
@Anon:
It’s a poor argument from the perspective of being a reason to do something. It’s the equivalent of saying “everybody else is doing it so we should too.” There are better arguments to be made than that. That’s all I was saying.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:43 pm
If they thought it was a slamdunk they would have filed by now.
Again, even though they note that there is a “conflict” between the different circuits, what they never like to point out is that none of the other cases were blanket carry bans… anywhere.
NY, or Cali, are all questions of needing a “reason” to carry outside of the home and the state determining if your reason is good enough.
Now I believe that is a SCOTUS question to answer, can the state require a reason to bear arms? or is the 2nd A enough reason if you are not a “disqualified” person?
But that is not the question in this case. Here you could be a man marked for death by every gang in the state, have crazy ex boyfriend that is trying to kill you or a job that requires you drive into crappy neighborhoods daily and no reason is good enough in this state as there is a blanket ban.
Illinois and the other states with strict gun laws (yes we have strict ones… sorry chicago) dont want this to be the case in front of scotus.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:59 pm
Did not see this coming. (Snark off)
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:04 pm
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Bring it!
Comment by Ned Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:24 pm
” I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that every state that has passed conceal carry has been satisfied with it, therefore, we will almost certainly be fine.” - Anon
Agreed. However basing an adoption of a certain policy solely on the fact that others have adopted it, is an appeal to common practice, and thus a logical fallacy.
I agree it will more than likely be fine, but basing an argument on a logical fallacy will undermine said argument before it ever begins.
Comment by MrMonarch Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:25 pm
Rich—Both North and South?
Yes. Dont forget we have Forby. Even tho he supports CC.
Anon—I believe what they are trying to tell you is using that argument wont stand up to the old “If all your friends jump off a bridge then I guess you would jump off one too?” argumnet. There are ones out there that will.
Comment by SO IL M Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:17 pm
Politically astute move by Lisa.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:18 pm
Since when does zip code determine what rights are allowed to the citizens of a state? If it’s good enough for the people of one area, I can see major court cases proving it’s equally good for another.
Comment by frmrdav Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:26 pm
…and an even more politically astute move by Pat Quinn who had been urging this action for weeks while Lisa lingered on…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:58 pm
@Just the way it is…
Uh… Lisa didnt do what the Gov wanted. She asked for more time to maybe do that.
IF she wanted to appeal she has had 5 months since the ruling a 2 months since the enbanc denial.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 8:21 pm
A prisoner is given 180 for a speedy trail if in custody!! Is 180 days not enough for for the hundreds of employees to prepare an appeal,by the Illinois attorney general. Is someone asleep at the wheel.
Comment by Jim Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:33 pm
Jim, last week we discussed a prohibition on posting after consuming three (3) or more adult beverages. Did you see that discussion?
Comment by Mongo Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 7:05 am
Question. Is there a specific judge assigned to answer these petitions? Or did LM pick Elena Kagan out of the 9 judges to send this too? Just curious and trying to understand this better.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 8:38 am