Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Judge tosses gun lawsuit

Posted in:

Illinois

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.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 11:24 am

Comments

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.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 11:27 am
Just give them the guns now and nobody gets hurt.

Comment by Elo Kiddies Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 11:53 am
Shouldn`t have to wait!

Comment by highspeed Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 11:53 am
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.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:10 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?

Comment by Anon Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:19 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.

Comment by Motambe Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:35 pm
@Motambe
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.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 12:39 pm
Thanks for the Wisconsin info.
corrections to original post:
“if” this lawsuit…
“deaths caused to folks…”

Comment by Motambe Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:10 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?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:21 pm
@Rich

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.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:35 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.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:36 pm
@Word…

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.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:40 pm
==The big argument is that there hasnâ€™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.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:42 pm
==Here you have a constitutional right being infringed==

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

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:44 pm
@Demo,

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?

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:47 pm
@Ron:

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.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:51 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.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:54 pm
@Demo,

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.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:55 pm
@Ron:

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.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 1:59 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.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:03 pm
@Demo
—
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.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:04 pm
@Ron:

My name is Ron. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:06 pm
Really, my name is Ron. That wasn’t a smarta– comment.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:06 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).

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:10 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!

Comment by Kevin Highland Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:41 pm
@Demo

“, 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.

Comment by Kevin Highland Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:48 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.

John

Comment by John Boch Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 2:56 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 plaintiffsâ€™ complaint has been rendered moot by the passage of Act. Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendantsâ€™ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Docs. 73 and 78).
The Court DISMISSES plaintiffsâ€™ motion for Declaration of Unconstitutionality (Doc. 75). In
light of the Courtâ€™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 mandateâ€™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 plaintiffsâ€™ 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.

Comment by Bigtwich Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 3:05 pm
=== I think itâ€™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.

Comment by Just Observing Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 3:52 pm
@Kevin:

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.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 4:33 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.

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Monday, Jul 29, 13 @ 7:12 pm
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.

Comment by Gribble Tuesday, Jul 30, 13 @ 7:12 am
I barely ever put remarks, however I looked through the vast majority of comments here at Capitol
Fax.com - 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?

Comment by home based busines Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:10 pm