Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Another day, another prison lockdown over unsubstantiated drug fears
Posted in:
* Background…
A federal judge in Rockford ruled it unconstitutional for Illinoisans with concealed carry permits to be prohibited from carrying guns on public transportation, a decision with uncertain implications for a decade-old state law.
The decision was a result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by four people who alleged the section of Illinois’ concealed carry law that bars holders of concealed carry licenses, or CCLs, from carrying the guns on public buses or trains violated their Second Amendment right to self-defense under the U.S. Constitution.
More background is here.
* Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Cook Count State’s Attorney Kim Foxx eventually filed a motion to stay judgement pending appeal. Excerpt…
Finally, the public interest overwhelmingly favors a stay. The Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have both made clear that stays pending appeal are appropriate where lower courts have questioned the constitutionality of firearm regulations. … This is particularly true here, where there is already significant confusion regarding the Court’s order. For example. while the Court entered purely declaratory relief limited to four individuals and two public transit systems, at least one news publication is now reporting that the Court’s ruling allows all concealed carry license holders to carry concealed firearms in any train or bus in Illinois. Moreover, the potential safety implications of the Court’s order are highlighted by a recent mass shooting on the CTAs Blue Line, in which four people were murdered with firearms three days after the Court’s order was entered.
* That highlighted sentence infuriated Judge Iain Johnston, a Trump appointee who openly fretted about that connection when he handed down the original ruling. Judge Johnston issued an order today…
A telephonic hearing is set for 10/2/2024 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel will receive an email prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. The call-in number is 888- 557-8511 and the access code is 2660444. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions.
Defendants’ motion contains the following sentence: “Moreover, the potential safety implications of the Court’s order are highlighted by a recent mass shooting on the CTAs Blue Line, in which four people were murdered with firearms three days after the Court’s order was entered.”
The two signatories of the motion must telephonically attend the hearing. Additionally, if the person who wrote this sentence is not one of the signatories to the motion, then that person must also telephonically attend the hearing. Counsel should be prepared to explain what reasonable inquiry was done as to the legal contentions and the evidentiary support for the factual contentions contained in this sentence. For example— and by no way of limitation—counsel should be prepared to articulate the reasonable inquiry that was made to determine if the suspect in the CTAs Blue Line shooting possessed a concealed carry permit, and if so, whether he brought the gun onto CTA property to protect himself. Moreover, counsel should explain the reasonable inquiry as to how the suspect was protecting himself from the sleeping homeless people when he allegedly shot them. If, after hearing the explanations as to any reasonable inquiry, counsel should be prepared to show cause why the factual and legal assertions in this sentence do not violate Rule 11(b).
* If you’re unfamiliar with Rule 11(b), it’s about possible sanctions…
Rule 11— Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions […]
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, —
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:03 pm
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Another day, another prison lockdown over unsubstantiated drug fears
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Some let their alligator mouth over-ride their hummingbird @$$ and got the judge mad. Not good
But incase u missed it the 9th circuit court of appeals last week upheld an injunction barring enforcement of Cali’s ban of carry on mass transit not a good sign for Illinois chances
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:18 pm
Judge Johnston believes people living on the Blue Line are eligible for and able to access a FOID and CCL? Fascinating. /s
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:20 pm
What is the significance of mentioning the judge was appointed by Trump.
I do not see such emphasizes when the judge is appointed by Biden, Obama, etc.
Comment by Moon Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:25 pm
Sounds like this judge needs to grow thicker skin. That’s the least objectional of what could be said about his ridiculous ruling.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:26 pm
“Additionally, if the person who wrote this sentence is not one of the signatories to the motion, then that person must also telephonically attend the hearing.”
It is truly an insane premise that being a federal judge means you have personal jurisdiction over people you haven’t even identified.
The only thing you can properly do with a request like that is laugh at it. What’s the threat if you don’t comply? Republican judges with lifetime appointments are going to invent even crazier gun laws than they already have? It’s not possible at this point.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:27 pm
Please ignore the pile of dead bodies and let me make philosophical rulings that will increase the deaths.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:29 pm
===What is the significance of mentioning the judge was appointed by Trump. ===
It’s explained in the post. Try reading.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:32 pm
- Todd - Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:18 pm:
Might want to learn about a thing called a “circuit split” before spouting off
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:35 pm
The judge has a great point:
“if the suspect in the CTAs Blue Line shooting possessed a concealed carry permit, and if so, whether he brought the gun onto CTA property to protect himself”
The whole point of the case is related to CCL holders in IL as a class; they are licensed and instructed by a certified firearms trainer before the CCL is issued.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:38 pm
What improper purpose or claim was made by a general statement highlighting a gun crime on mass transit? They did not allege that this crime was caused by the order. If you cannot see the potential implications of extra guns floating about in confined spaces (even if you disagree with the inferred conclusion), perhaps you need a coloring book to work on your imagination skills.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:40 pm
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:40 pm:
What improper purpose or claim was made by a general statement highlighting a gun crime on mass transit? They did not allege that this crime was caused by the order. If you cannot see the potential implications of extra guns floating about in confined spaces (even if you disagree with the inferred conclusion), perhaps you need a coloring book to work on your imagination skills.
So there are no guns on mass transit now?
Comment by champaign lite Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:46 pm
Umm, yea, because if you possess a CCL, you also have license to shoot unarmed sleeping homeless people because they were scary looking as they slept?
Comment by New Day Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:51 pm
since they never alleged that the shooter was a CCL holder or that he was defending himself, I don’t see how any failure to inquire into whether those things were true would be sanctionable
Comment by pc Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:53 pm
===So there are no guns on mass transit now?===
I said extra guns. And you are right, we should do better at eliminating the ones that are already there.
But, again, the highlighted statement was not an improper purpose or claim. It may not be compelling, but it was not sanction-worthy.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:55 pm
= if you possess a CCL, you also have license to shoot unarmed sleeping homeless people=
No the point is that until AG Raoul, SA Foxx can prove up, that the suspect in the shooting was a FOID/CCL holder then their objection is meritless.
Comment by Donnie ELgin Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 3:56 pm
Um it’s not an objection. It’s a reason for granting a stay.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 4:24 pm
Simple, you cant enforce the ccl law,on restrictions to a person who is not legally allowed to carry a gun..its,silly but….tgese,laws like most gun laws,apply to persons who can legally possess..they didn’t show that here
Comment by Red headed step child Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 4:26 pm
Unless they were concealed carry holders seems like a dumb thing to say on a court filing. At best it’s irrelevant. At worst lies annd political BS to imply that the ruling would have prevented the shooting. If anything makes the case why people need to arm themselves.
Comment by 44 Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 4:26 pm
Ridiculous. The legal standard for granting the stay requires the court to examine “whether the public interest favors one side or the other.” Yeah, it is arguably in the public interest to not let FOID/CCL holders bring more guns on the CTA.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 4:29 pm
Checkers — maybe you missed the part of Bruen where interest balancing is out the window. Or the concept of irreparable harm by the denial of a right or that the public interest is that people are not denied their right to carry because they use or take public transit which feeds into their irreparable harm
States gonna loose just like they will in the gun ban case
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 4:51 pm
===States gonna loose just like they will in the gun ban case===
Maybe, maybe not.
R. 11(b) is about frivolous and non-frivolous arguments, and the motion for a stay requires the court to consider the public interest as a factor in granting or denying the stay. Bruen is not the standard. The State made a non-frivolous argument about the public interest factor. The court can disagree, but sanctioning the State for making this argument is repressive.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 5:01 pm
Why do I get the feeling that this judge would be the absolute first person come out against a proposed bill to allow concealed carry in courthouses? Pretty easy for them to make this decision when they probably haven’t been on any mode of public transit in ages.
Comment by TJ Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 5:02 pm
What a diva move by the judge.
If you don’t find the argument to have merit, OK, put that in your ruling. But to call a hearing over a sentence in a brief you take personally because it presents facts that are inconvenient for your pro-2A ideology shows a judge who is inexperienced or intemperate or both.
Sounds like the judge is auditioning for an appointment to a higher bench by a future Republican admin.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 5:09 pm
He seems like all bark and no bite but if he does foolishly sanction the Seventh Circuit will find it to be an abuse of his discretion.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 5:44 pm
Definitely an overreaction by the judge here. First, I don’t see how anything that was said was untrue. Secondly, Lawyers routinely include unsubstantiated statements in court pleadings. Just look at all the 2020 election suits.
Also, iirc the Judge made a point of mentioning Fox by name a dozen times in his prior opinion. He appears to be taking this way too personally. Not really the temperament you want in a judge.
But he isn’t laying on the floor on top of kiddie porn, so I guess he’s not all bad.
Comment by Henry Francis Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 7:02 pm
Todd - Do you ever proofread the stuff you write before you hit “Say It”?
Comment by West Side the Best Side Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 9:09 pm
I see the Grammar Police have arrived. Thank goodness!
Comment by Just a Random Guy Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 9:22 pm
Judge Johnston didn’t have a great reputation as a magistrate judge before he was promoted to the district court.
Big Dipper is correct that if he tries to sanction any defense counsel for making a serious (even if losing) argument about the public interest, the 7th Circuit will slap him down.
Comment by Keyrock Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 9:25 pm
Apparently the judge is tired of hearing the anti-2nd Amendment arguments containing no substance or proof in support of the claims made by the Defendants. Merely citing that recent shooting (illegal in itself, and not the same as CCL holders defending themselves on public transit from crime) is no support for the Motion before the trial court.
Comment by thisjustinagain Wednesday, Sep 25, 24 @ 11:04 pm
Aileen Cannon school of quality judicial appointments
Comment by old guy Thursday, Sep 26, 24 @ 9:09 am
==no support for the Motion before the trial court.==
The broad purpose of the law is to reduce gun crime on public transportation, so discussing a mass shooting on public transportation is relevant.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Sep 26, 24 @ 10:36 am