PDA

View Full Version : Woollard / Gura Denied Enbac Petition


Southwest Chuck
04-16-2013, 10:12 AM
Thanks to Esquapellate at MDS for posting

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=116215

On to SCOTUS, or will Gura wait for MOORE before asking for Cert.?

monk
04-16-2013, 10:15 AM
Jeez, can't catch a break huh?


EDIT: Woops, thought this case was already at SCOTUS level.

PhalSe
04-16-2013, 10:17 AM
I'm pretty sure this is a good thing. en banc review could only delay this case making it to SCOTUS. The big question right now revolves around Moore.

IVC
04-16-2013, 10:21 AM
Everything hinges on Moore. We have about 6 weeks until we know what Madigan will do. No need to rush when the other side has to show their hand first.

ddestruel
04-16-2013, 10:22 AM
in kachansky pet for cert gura mentioned that the wollard would be soon to come.

Rail
04-16-2013, 10:40 AM
Good, that means the timetable's moved forward instead of being stuck a few months. SCOTUS may very well want this case, Moore, or a combination of them instead.

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 10:42 AM
This is good news. Personally, I think they want Moore and if/when Madigan asks for cert, they will either combine it with Woollard or just deny cert to Woollard.

Fatgunman
04-16-2013, 10:43 AM
sorry for asking but are these cases having to do with CCW?

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 10:47 AM
sorry for asking but are these cases having to do with CCW?

Definitely. If one (or both) these are taken, the issue to be decided will be do we have a constitutional right to "bear" arms on our person outside the home.

Southwest Chuck
04-16-2013, 10:58 AM
I think Gura will wait to see if Madigan will file for Cert. in Moore. It obviously will affect how he writes his petition and what points he makes in it.

Kukuforguns
04-16-2013, 10:58 AM
Wow, thanks for the update. That was faster than I was expecting. This means that SCOTUS can still have a case issued by June 2014 if IL AG doesn't seek cert. in Moore.

sorry for asking but are these cases having to do with CCW?

Yes and no. The main issue is whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home. Gura isn't taking a position that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a concealed weapon, but rather the states must provide some way for people to carry a handgun outside the home (openly, concealed, both). The secondary issue (secondary in the sense of following, not in importance) in Kachalsky and Woollard, is whether the state violates the Second Amendment if it allows only a subset of the non-prohibited population to carry in public (i.e., limiting carry licenses to people with "proper cause").

Southwest Chuck
04-16-2013, 11:02 AM
This is good news. Personally, I think they want Moore and if/when Madigan asks for cert, they will either combine it with Woollard or just deny cert to Woollard.

Or take Moore, hold Woollard, then GVR it, making the 4th do the dirty work (and rubbing their faces in Moore's holding :D )

Luieburger
04-16-2013, 11:04 AM
So which case is better for us? Woollard, or Moore? Palmer?

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 11:18 AM
Or take Moore, hold Woollard, then GVR it, making the 4th do the dirty work (and rubbing their faces in Moore's holding :D )

Ouch!!! You may very well be right. Illinois' overreach gave us McDonald, and their continued hostility to the ruling has to annoy SCOTUS.

If Madigan files for cert in Moore, as I think she will, this is the perfect opportunity for the H5 to revisit this, with the perfect case.

IVC
04-16-2013, 11:18 AM
So which case is better for us? Woollard, or Moore? Palmer?

Moore is most likely the best since it addresses a *total ban* on carry, much like Heller and McDonald did with possession. However, since it was a loss for the state, it's not up to our side to file the cert.

The others are close seconds.

penguin0123
04-16-2013, 11:25 AM
Ouch!!! You may very well be right. Illinois' overreach gave us McDonald, and their continued hostility to the ruling has to annoy SCOTUS.

If Madigan files for cert in Moore, as I think she will, this is the perfect opportunity for the H5 to revisit this, with the perfect case.

Madigan has to be a colossal idiot to file for cert. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Southwest Chuck
04-16-2013, 11:31 AM
Madigan has to be a colossal idiot to file for cert. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

If she does, it will be a political move, not a legal one ....

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 11:48 AM
If she does, it will be a political move, not a legal one ....

Actually, I think it will be a bit of both. The Illinois legislature is decidely pro-gun and is holding firm in their refusal to send a "may-issue" bill to Quinn, which is what both the governor and AG desperately want. They will either send a clear "shall-issue" bill that the governor will have to veto, or send up nothing.

At that point, the AG has to either file cert, ask for an extension (which the 7th is very unlikely to grant) or ignore the ruling. If she ignores the 7th, she get's all the blame when they get smacked down, and they will.

If she files for cert as Quinn is screaching for her to do, she can at least claim that it was his idea and that he and the legislature failed to pass a law for her.

Make no mistake, all their choices are horrible (for them), but they created this mess. Time to suck it up and take their chances.

Personally, I think SCOTUS wants Moore for a variety of reasons. It's the last state with an outright ban, allowing them to simply affirm the right to bear is an individual right, then leave it to the states to determine manner (open or concealed). They also get to smack Illinois around again, which, because they are human, they have to be yearning for after 5 years of them thumbing their noses at McDonald.

It also teams up Gura and the NRA, which I think they want. They weren't entirely enthusiastic to some of Gura's arguments in McDonald.

If Moore goes up and SCOTUS denies cert that would make me very worried, but I doubt that will happen.

AragornElessar86
04-16-2013, 11:51 AM
If she does, it will be a political move, not a legal one ....

This. I'm reading that Quinn wants her to file.

VAReact
04-16-2013, 12:09 PM
Well, at least things will hopefully move along now after the denial of Kachalsky yesterday.

M. D. Van Norman
04-16-2013, 12:56 PM
This is good news. Woollard could have been held up for quite a while, so this mitigates some of the timetable damage we suffered yesterday.

sholling
04-16-2013, 1:19 PM
Personally, I think SCOTUS wants Moore for a variety of reasons. It's the last state with an outright ban, allowing them to simply affirm the right to bear is an individual right, then leave it to the states to determine manner (open or concealed).
The problem for us with Moore is that unless the court leaves no "may-issue" wiggle room lower courts will simply interpret a simple non fleshed out "right to bear" ruling as a reaffirmation of Kachalsky where the right to apply and be turned down satisfies the right and then bless off New York and California style official may-issue that remains de facto no-issue for any kind of carry. If that happens then we're back at square one appealing back up the judicial food chain to the US Supreme Court and 3-5 more years of delays and disappointments. We need unlicensed or unequivocal shall issue and we need strict scrutiny or we're no better off than we are today.

safewaysecurity
04-16-2013, 1:29 PM
Perfect, now he can file for cert with SCOTUS. Let's hope this is done ASAP.

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 1:42 PM
The problem for us with Moore is that unless the court leaves no "may-issue" wiggle room lower courts will simply interpret a simple non fleshed out "right to bear" ruling as a reaffirmation of Kachalsky where the right to apply and be turned down satisfies the right and then bless off New York and California style official may-issue that remains de facto no-issue for any kind of carry. If that happens then we're back at square one appealing back up the judicial food chain to the US Supreme Court and 3-5 more years of delays and disappointments. We need unlicensed or unequivocal shall issue and we need strict scrutiny or we're no better off than we are today.

I'm aware of that, and hope that they make it clear the licensing or issuing scheme must be inherently shall issue. The problem I keep having is my gut tells me that's just a bridge too far for them.

I certainly wish they would, but I fear they will be satisfied with establishing bear as a fundamental right, then leave the details to the states and lower courts. Basically, the same thing they did in H and McD.

The furthest I think they will reach would be to instruct that restrictions on the right must pass intermediate or strict scrutiny. Even if they give us iron clad "shall issue", legislatures will then use the time/manner/place approach to infringe on the right. I foresee lots of laws being passed declaring many, many places as sensitive and off limits to carry. That's another trip through the courts for multiple cases. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This is going to be a long fight. I just don't see a silver bullet coming down SCOTUS' barrel that breaks the back of the anti movement. Rather, it will be a slow, step by step progression where we solidfy more and more of our rights.

IVC
04-16-2013, 1:51 PM
The problem for us with Moore is that unless the court leaves no "may-issue" wiggle room lower courts will simply interpret a simple non fleshed out "right to bear" ruling as a reaffirmation of Kachalsky where the right to apply and be turned down satisfies the right and then bless off New York and California style official may-issue that remains de facto no-issue for any kind of carry.

Yes and no.

We got Heller in 2008, yet we still have "CA handgun roster" and "AWB," both of which are inconsistent with the intent of Heller (all legal purposes/in common use language). Implying that Heller is not useful because it didn't address all the issues at once would be overly pessimistic.

Narrow rulings are in one way annoying, but looked another way they establish a lasting and unambiguous interpretation of what the 2A means. The details need to be worked out over time either way and they must include lower courts, with SCOTUS resolving any new conflicts.

Southwest Chuck
04-16-2013, 2:00 PM
Perfect, now he can file for cert with SCOTUS. Let's hope this is done ASAP.

He will wait until Madigan files for Cert or time expires for the request. You can Bank on that. ;)

nicki
04-16-2013, 3:01 PM
Moore is the "ideal case", which is why pressure needs to get so hot that Madigan will file.

If she can get the SCOTUS to extend the carry ban past Jun 11th, then she can claim a victory even if she loses at the SCOTUS.

Should she not file for cert, then I think the SCOTUS just might take "Woollard" grudgingly because they know they will have to deal with bearing arms eventually.

Our opponents are prematurely celebrating and the funny thing is if the SCOTUS grants "Moore" cert, they will be "celebrating" even more.;)

Let's look at history, the Mexican Army celebrated their victory at the Alamo, but lost the war shortly thereafter.:eek:

Arrogance and Ignorance go hand in hand and our opponents are "Arrogant".

Nicki

glbtrottr
04-16-2013, 3:59 PM
Madigan will *not* file.

Anyone want to bet me?

Kukuforguns
04-16-2013, 4:11 PM
Madigan will *not* file.

Anyone want to bet me?

Are you offering 20:1 odds?

kcbrown
04-16-2013, 5:02 PM
Wow, that was fast.

I expect Gura will not petition for cert in Woollard until Moore's cert petition status is known. I fully expect Madigan will not petition for cert. No way, because the Obama administration will tell her not to, and she and they harken from the same place, so you know they're "best buddies".


Here's the problem with Moore: the lower courts have been limiting Heller to its facts, even to the point of denying the right in secondary homes (see Osterweil v Bartlett). We can expect them to do the same thing with Moore.

If the Supreme Court says that the right to bear in public exists and is fundamental, but says nothing further, then that is of no use at all. All it does is prevent outright bans on all carry, which do not exist anywhere else in the country. You'd think it would mean more than that, but as I said, the lower courts have been limiting Heller to its facts, and they will do the same thing with Moore.


So regardless of Moore, an enormous amount depends on what SCOTUS does with Woollard.


Fortunately, we've also got Richards coming up. The 9th Circuit will rule against us on that, even with a decision in Moore in our favor, at which point we can petition for cert. If SCOTUS is serious about protecting the right in public, they will grant cert and deal with the issues then. Given what SCOTUS has done with Kachalsky, I'm deeply skeptical that they will protect the right in public in any meaningful way, but only time will really tell.



We really need to get an open carry case in front of SCOTUS as well, as a hedge against the concealed carry nature of the cases we currently have in the pipeline.

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 5:38 PM
KCBrown, you keep saying Madigan won't file for cert on Moore. I disagree as she really has no other choice unless the R's in the legislature cave and send Quinn a may issue bill as he wants. If they hold strong as is expected, how can Madigan avoid a cert request?

I simply don't see how she can.

IL. must respond during the 180 stay period granted by the 7th.

safewaysecurity
04-16-2013, 5:52 PM
He will wait until Madigan files for Cert or time expires for the request. You can Bank on that. ;)

Agreed. I think Madigan is politically screwed either way. She wants to run against the Gov in a Dem primary and the Gov could definitely use the act that she made Illinois a shall issue state against her. However if she files for Cert late and it gets granted and she loses at least she could blame the governor and say that she gave him and the legislature as MUCH time as she possibly could in order to form some sort of MAY issue regime that would have at least bought them more time etc, etc. So I think if she was smart she would file for Cert but if it's going to happen it's going to happen before May for sure.

kf6tac
04-16-2013, 6:38 PM
The problem for us with Moore is that unless the court leaves no "may-issue" wiggle room lower courts will simply interpret a simple non fleshed out "right to bear" ruling as a reaffirmation of Kachalsky where the right to apply and be turned down satisfies the right and then bless off New York and California style official may-issue that remains de facto no-issue for any kind of carry. If that happens then we're back at square one appealing back up the judicial food chain to the US Supreme Court and 3-5 more years of delays and disappointments. We need unlicensed or unequivocal shall issue and we need strict scrutiny or we're no better off than we are today.

This is my concern with Moore as well. I can easily see a 5-4 majority opinion, narrowly written to keep Kennedy on board (or even written by Kennedy), saying "We hold that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a handgun outside the home, but since the ban at issue in this case is a total ban, we need not decide whether state regulation short of a total ban (e.g., "may-issue" licensing schemes) is constitutional or not. Since the total ban fails under any standard of scrutiny, we also need not decide the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to other restrictions on the right to carry."

Southwest Chuck
04-16-2013, 6:59 PM
Wow, that was fast.

We really need to get an open carry case in front of SCOTUS as well, as a hedge against the concealed carry nature of the cases we currently have in the pipeline.

I know it's not as "pure", but we will have in a way (assuming Cert. is granted), since the MD Statute in Woollard makes no distinction between open and/or concealed carry and applies to both*** so SCOTUS has the opening to address both if they avail themselves of it.

*** (although it is generally "understood" that if you OC, you will be charged with disturbing the peace and have your permit revoked)

sholling
04-16-2013, 7:44 PM
I'm aware of that, and hope that they make it clear the licensing or issuing scheme must be inherently shall issue. The problem I keep having is my gut tells me that's just a bridge too far for them.[
If they don't rule that shall-issue licensing (either concealed or open carry) or unlicensed open carry is the law of the land then we've accomplished absolutely nothing for California in all of our "bear" litigation. Not one thing will change. Only shall-issue or unlicensed open carry will give you the right to bear arms in any form in California.

Yes and no.

We got Heller in 2008, yet we still have "CA handgun roster" and "AWB," both of which are inconsistent with the intent of Heller (all legal purposes/in common use language). Implying that Heller is not useful because it didn't address all the issues at once would be overly pessimistic.

Narrow rulings are in one way annoying, but looked another way they establish a lasting and unambiguous interpretation of what the 2A means. The details need to be worked out over time either way and they must include lower courts, with SCOTUS resolving any new conflicts.
Narrow rulings take too long to flesh out a right. The reality of the situation is that if they keep dribbling out recognition of our rights a teaspoon at a time one or two of the Heller 5 will retire or god forbid die before recognition of our rights is fully fleshed out and incomplete case law makes it easy for their replacements to roll back our rights to nothing at all. It also leaves the public wondering just how serious the court is about protecting civil rights vs just jerking our chains to keep us begging year in and year out for decades for scraps of our civil rights.

In the real world outside of the cloistered world of high court justices people are beaten and robbed, gays are bashed, and women are raped while the justices play silly games with our right to the means to defend ourselves, and as a result they own partial responsibility for every one of those rapes. They allowed those women to be rendered helpless victims when their job is to protect her right to defend herself.

If the Supreme Court says that the right to bear in public exists and is fundamental, but says nothing further, then that is of no use at all. All it does is prevent outright bans on all carry, which do not exist anywhere else in the country. You'd think it would mean more than that, but as I said, the lower courts have been limiting Heller to its facts, and they will do the same thing with Moore.
Exactly. With out expressly ruling that either shall-issue or unlicensed open carry are required to fulfil the right to bear arms then we've accomplished nothing. California, NY, and MD will remain defacto no-issue/no carry for all but the well connected and we'll be exactly where we are today.

So regardless of Moore, an enormous amount depends on what SCOTUS does with Woollard.
I have to agree with you. Moore is too nebulous in that all SCOTUS would be affirming is that some form of carry must be available to someone, not that every law abiding sane citizen has the right to carry. Again that leaves us with may-issue in all of the may-issue/no-issue states and we're still left exactly where we are today. All that will be accomplished is a reaffirmation of the two-tier, elites vs commoners, two track may issue system that we currently have that allows elites access to the means of self defense and commoners are told to go pound sand. I'm sure the plan will be to mount years of litigation in multiple jurisdictions and spend 3 years working our way back up to SCOTUS to flesh out that Moore means carry for everyone, and then another 2-3 years up the ladder to flesh out that sensitive places isn't 80% of the city.

We really need to get an open carry case in front of SCOTUS as well, as a hedge against the concealed carry nature of the cases we currently have in the pipeline.
Yes we do and right now before one of the current cases poisons that well for us. Unfortunately I'm about convinced that the "right people" (and they are the right people) are suffering from concealed carry tunnel vision and I don't think it's anywhere near to appearing on their radar.

kcbrown
04-16-2013, 8:46 PM
KCBrown, you keep saying Madigan won't file for cert on Moore. I disagree as she really has no other choice unless the R's in the legislature cave and send Quinn a may issue bill as he wants. If they hold strong as is expected, how can Madigan avoid a cert request?

I simply don't see how she can.

IL. must respond during the 180 stay period granted by the 7th.

I don't think you're looking at the overall situation.

The question is: how can Madigan possibly win?

If she petitions for cert, she almost certainly loses any support from the Obama administration. Conversely, if she does not do so, then she'll gain support from the Obama administration. I guarantee that direct support from the federal executive branch will do good things for her campaign efforts.

But what does she really gain by petitioning for cert? Only the chance of overturning Moore. But the legislature is still on the hook for passing something anyway, and if what they pass is not conformant to Moore then the 7th Circuit can issue injunctions even if cert has been petitioned for, because their decision remains standing until cert is granted. Meanwhile, Madigan loses in a major way if SCOTUS either denies cert or if they grant and uphold.


So no, the overall balance of things is such that Madigan wins the most by not petitioning for cert. Actual support from the Obama administration is worth far more than the mere chance that she'll win Moore.

IVC
04-16-2013, 9:06 PM
The question is: how can Madigan possibly win?

The question is the definition of "win" for her.

As an AG, she is not (supposed to be) an anti-gun ideologue following party line politics. In that role, her job is to appeal and the "win" is getting the case to SCOTUS to get a ruling on the law she is defending. Technically, even a loss at SCOTUS is a "win" for her due to her primary role as an AG - she doesn't make laws, she does all she can to defend them.

In reality, we'll see what happens...

kcbrown
04-16-2013, 9:08 PM
The question is the definition of "win" for her.

As an AG, she is not (supposed to be) an anti-gun ideologue following party line politics.


You have got to be joking. This is Illinois we're talking about here. Madigan is, as far as I can tell, from Chicago.

Do you seriously believe that an Illinois politician from Chicago is going to do anything but follow party line politics, most especially when their gubernatorial campaign is on the line?

Please. :rolleyes:

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 9:20 PM
KC, I understand your point but I think you're missing the fact that the pro-gun legislature is fully
prepared to give Quinn nothing.

For spite, they may send him a very permissive shall issue bill. He will veto that. Or, they send him nothing at all.

Clock runs out and Illinois is constitutional carry, open or concealed, no paper required.

The D machine simply can't tolerate that. Nor will they.

They are left with either a cert request or open rebellion against the 7th.

Those are the choices.

The legislature isn't on the hook to do anything. The state is.

If the legislature and governor fail to pass a bill, Madigan, representing the state before the court, is left with filing for cert, or open rebellion against the federal courts.

Simple as that.

kcbrown
04-16-2013, 9:28 PM
KC, I understand your point but I think you're missing the fact that the pro-gun legislature is fully
prepared to give Quinn nothing.

For spite, they may send him a very permissive shall issue bill. He will veto that. Or, they send him nothing at all.

Clock runs out and Illinois is constitutional carry, open or concealed, no paper required.

The D machine simply can't tolerate that. Nor will they.

They are left with either a cert request or open rebellion against the 7th.

Those are the choices.

The legislature isn't on the hook to do anything. The state is.

If the legislature and governor fail to pass a bill, Madigan, representing the state before the court, is left with filing for cert, or open rebellion against the federal courts.

Simple as that.

Yeah.

And what in the world makes you think they aren't prepared to rebel openly against the federal courts? Chicago is, and successfully, too, I might add.

Why you think these guys have any regard for the courts, for rule of law, or anything else that doesn't align with their own self-interest is quite beyond me.


EDIT: to expound on this a bit, keep in mind that if no conforming bill is passed, then what will happen is that most of the state of IL will comply with the 7th Circuit's wishes because that's what they want to do anyway. The areas that will be problems are Cook County and, especially, Chicago. But those are the areas that are already in rebellion against the federal judiciary. End result: if Madigan fails to petition for cert, she loses nothing. The anti-gun strongholds in the state will essentially do as they please, just as they already are. I think we are about to see with our own eyes just how limited the power of the federal judiciary really is when it is not backed by the federal executive.

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 10:02 PM
Yeah.

And what in the world makes you think they aren't prepared to rebel openly against the federal courts? Chicago is, and successfully, too, I might add.

Why you think these guys have any regard for the courts, for rule of law, or anything else that doesn't align with their own self-interest is quite beyond me.

Because of the consequences. It's been tried before. Remember the Little Rock 7? How did that turn out?

The 7th was gracious to give them 180 days to think and consider their options. En banc is off the table. If the Legislature holds firm, so is a "may issue" law, or any law. Extension? No way I see the 7th granting one.

A cert request is all that's left. If they fail to request cert, they have then failed to respond to an order from their Federal District Court, and the ruling stands. IL. residents are free to carry, openly or concealed.

Do you honestly believe they will begin arresting and prosecuting their citizens in direct violation of a Federal court? God, I wish they would!!!! That would go over real well!!!!

If they go nuclear and start passing local laws, how long do you think the 7th and SCOTUS will allow that to go on before they put a stop to it? Do you honestly believe they will sit quietly by?

If so, I think you grossly underestimate the esteem in which Federal courts (rightly) hold themselves!!!!

kcbrown
04-16-2013, 10:31 PM
Because of the consequences.


You mean like the consequences of Chicago not allowing people in apartments to own handguns because apartments are not "homes"? Or of Chicago waving its you-know-what at the 7th Circuit in Ezell? Consequences like that?

From where Chicago and Cook County stand, there are no consequences for thumbing their noses at the federal judiciary, because the judiciary just says "stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!".



It's been tried before. Remember the Little Rock 7? How did that turn out?


Guess who initiated the federal government's actions with respect to the Little Rock 9?

Hint: it wasn't the courts.



The 7th was gracious to give them 180 days to think and consider their options. En banc is off the table. If the Legislature holds firm, so is a "may issue" law, or any law. Extension? No way I see the 7th granting one.


Extensions aren't the issue here, and my view of this doesn't depend on them.



A cert request is all that's left. If they fail to request cert, they have then failed to respond to an order from their Federal District Court, and the ruling stands. IL. residents are free to carry, openly or concealed.


Yes. Until they're arrested by ... Chicago PD! For violating one of Chicago's newly passed ordinances on the subject, of course.

And what is going to happen then? They'll petition the courts! And what will the courts do? Well, whatever they want, really. After all, that's what judge Kendall is doing in Ezell. And since the lower courts limit the scope of rulings such as Moore and Heller to their facts, well, you can see where this is going to go. For one thing, Chicago and friends will argue that the entirety of the area is a "sensitive place". Bam, now you have a completely new case.



Do you honestly believe they will begin arresting and prosecuting their citizens in direct violation of a Federal court? God, I wish they would!!!! That would go over real well!!!!


I believe Chicago will do precisely that, after passing the appropriate ordinances, of course.



If they go nuclear and start passing local laws, how long do you think the 7th and SCOTUS will allow that to go on before they put a stop to it? Do you honestly believe they will sit quietly by?


They will until the resulting court action gets to them. And then they'll issue another opinion, which will be summarily ignored, just as Ezell effectively has.



If so, I think you grossly underestimate the esteem in which Federal courts (rightly) hold themselves!!!!

I think you underestimate the corruption and determination of the Chicago political machine. Remember: they will be getting support from the Obama administration, not opposition.


This ain't the 1950s when the executive took its duties seriously in spite of personal desires. This is the 21st century, when corruption, not integrity, is the order of the day.

socalblue
04-16-2013, 10:42 PM
Because of the consequences. It's been tried before. Remember the Little Rock 7? How did that turn out?

The 7th was gracious to give them 180 days to think and consider their options. En banc is off the table. If the Legislature holds firm, so is a "may issue" law, or any law. Extension? No way I see the 7th granting one.

A cert request is all that's left. If they fail to request cert, they have then failed to respond to an order from their Federal District Court, and the ruling stands. IL. residents are free to carry, openly or concealed.

Do you honestly believe they will begin arresting and prosecuting their citizens in direct violation of a Federal court? God, I wish they would!!!! That would go over real well!!!!

If they go nuclear and start passing local laws, how long do you think the 7th and SCOTUS will allow that to go on before they put a stop to it? Do you honestly believe they will sit quietly by?

If so, I think you grossly underestimate the esteem in which Federal courts (rightly) hold themselves!!!!

You greatly underestimate the political will in Chicago. Chicago & Cook County will ignore the Federal Courts, knowing that the Obama administration will do nothing.

Unlike the 9th Circuit & prison overcrowding, this is not an activist judges choice of cases. The judges by & large really don't want to handle this hot potato. The District courts will sit on this until Circuit Court does something. The Circuit will sit on this until SCOTUS takes & rules on a carry case (Remember they just denied cert to Kachalsky).

A few arrested folks MAY be lucky enough to have a lawyer who knows how to get a writ of habeus corpus in a Federal District court.

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 10:53 PM
Sigh...

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and IL. doesn't request cert and this gets weird and takes awhile to unravel.

What do you think the mood of SCOTUS will be when Gura files in Woollard this summer?

Is there no light left in your lantern of optimism?????

Calplinker
04-16-2013, 11:10 PM
Headed to bed but I can anticipate the response(s).

I will stew in my world outlook. You stew in yours.

kcbrown
04-16-2013, 11:13 PM
Sigh...

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and IL. doesn't request cert and this gets weird and takes awhile to unravel.

What do you think the mood of SCOTUS will be when Gura files in Woollard this summer?


Frankly, I haven't a clue. We've been assuming that SCOTUS is going to uphold the right in public, and that the current goings on in the judiciary are an annoyance to them.

That's frankly a huge assumption. We got 5 judges on our side by the skin of our teeth for the last two cases, and that's before Sandy Hook. For all we know, Sandy Hook might have turned one of the Heller 5 firmly against the right in public. Or there may be something else going on, e.g. it may be that Roberts has been permanently compromised by the Obama administration.



Is there no light left in your lantern of optimism?????

At this point, I think there's a roughly 10% chance that SCOTUS will take a carry case and side with us. So there's hope, yes, but not much.

Their denial of Kachalsky is, in my opinion, a huge indicator of their current intentions, because unless I'm mistaken, they could have held the case if they wanted to. They didn't. Why wouldn't they grant cert to, and then hold, the case if they eventually intend to rule in favor of the right, but wish to wait to see if a more "pure" case comes before them?


Moore and/or Woollard will confirm or deny my suspicion. But note that even if we get Moore, they will have to rule on Woollard (or Piczsatoski (sp?), Richards, or some other licensed carry case) for a ruling in Moore to carry any weight, because the lower courts will limit the Court's ruling in Moore to its facts.


I'm a realist. I go where the evidence and logic say to go. And the evidence right now is very bleak.

kcbrown
04-16-2013, 11:30 PM
Headed to bed but I can anticipate the response(s).

I will stew in my world outlook. You stew in yours.

For the record, I hope you're right. But I do not base my expectations on hope.

Baja Daze
04-17-2013, 2:45 AM
This is great news, the en banc request for Woollard was not expected to be granted and was basically an attempt to delay this case until we heard on Kachalsky and Moore. Since cert was denied in Kachalsky we now get to watch Moore. The delay was perfect and we will see the cards Madigan plays before we have to show our hand.

My biggest concern was that Kachalsky would get denied cert, Madigan would not request cert for Moore and the 4th Circuit would keep Woollard tied up with a very slow and protracted en banc process delaying the ability to file for cert. So right now I am good, however, if Madigan does not file for cert and the subsequent cert request for Woollard is denied....then I start drinking heavily.

Baja Daze
06-19-2013, 4:42 AM
Since Lisa Madigan just received a SECOND extension from SCOTUS (Kagan) in regards to filing cert for Moore, we should now be looking for and expecting an extension request from Gura in regards to Woollard.

Gura :gura: is going to let Lisa play her cards before he does anything with Woollard.

Kharn
06-19-2013, 5:39 AM
"Another case got an extension, so I want one too" is not a valid reason for SC purposes.

kcbrown
06-19-2013, 5:46 AM
"Another case got an extension, so I want one too" is not a valid reason for SC purposes.

Exactly.

SCOTUS is going to force Gura's hand here, and then deny cert. Count on it.

I will be overjoyed if I'm wrong.

Paladin
06-19-2013, 8:03 AM
When is the current deadline for asking for cert in Wollard?

HowardW56
06-19-2013, 8:51 AM
When is the current deadline for asking for cert in Wollard?

I believe it is 60 days from the denial of En Banc....

M. D. Van Norman
06-19-2013, 9:41 AM
So Madigan has another 30 days, and Gura has 60? The timing doesn’t seem to matter anymore, since no petitions will be decided until the fall. The Supreme Court will have at least one or two cases to choose from.

press1280
06-19-2013, 9:46 AM
He should ask for an extension because there are other cases in CA and NJ which could weigh heavily in a cert grant.

speedrrracer
06-19-2013, 10:43 AM
Narrow rulings take too long to flesh out a right.

Agreed, but it has to be done this way. The Heller 5 is too tenuous a majority with which to risk any other approach.


In the real world outside of the cloistered world of high court justices people are beaten and robbed, gays are bashed, and women are raped while the justices play silly games with our right to the means to defend ourselves, and as a result they own partial responsibility for every one of those rapes. They allowed those women to be rendered helpless victims when their job is to protect her right to defend herself.

That's nonsense. First, you don't know if any of these rape victims would have chosen to own / train with / have access to / have the guts to use / etc a gun even if guns were freely available in boxes of breakfast cereal. Second, the justices didn't write the disarming laws, and third, Justice Breyer was robbed at machete point last year (http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/us/justice-breyer-robbed), so even in the "cloistered world", Bad Things happen.

NoJoke
06-19-2013, 10:50 AM
Thanks to Esquapellate at MDS for posting

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=116215

On to SCOTUS, or will Gura wait for MOORE before asking for Cert.?

Any way non-members can view the .pdf?

Wolverine
06-19-2013, 11:48 AM
Any way non-members can view the .pdf?

After listing the parties in the suit, this is all it says

The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc.

For the Court

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

Appeal: 12-1437 Doc: 124 Filed: 04/16/2013 Pg: 2 of 2

randian
06-19-2013, 12:06 PM
"Another case got an extension, so I want one too" is not a valid reason for SC purposes.
"We're too stupid to get it done in 30 days" is a valid reason?

sholling
06-19-2013, 12:44 PM
That's nonsense. First, you don't know if any of these rape victims would have chosen to own / train with / have access to / have the guts to use / etc a gun even if guns were freely available in boxes of breakfast cereal.
I call nonsense on your call of nonsense ;). The indisputable fact is that they would have had the opportunity to carry and/or use a gun if the law allowed it. What is known is that nationally around 40% of the public arm themselves, and where carry is legally available 3-4% take advantage of the right and legally bear arms. That's up to 40% in-home attacks and 3-4% of outside the home attacks that may have been that may have been thwarted.

Second, the justices didn't write the disarming laws
That's irrelevant. Their job - the job that the people pay them for is to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens. If they refuse to do the job and fail to strike down unconstitutional laws then they own nearly as much of the blame as the statists who wrote and signed those laws. Just as they each own a piece of Slaughter House because they refused to restore POI, and Roberts will always own a piece of the blame for Obamacare because of the legal gymnastics and revisionism he went through to save it.

and third, Justice Breyer was robbed at machete point last year (http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/us/justice-breyer-robbed), so even in the "cloistered world", Bad Things happen.
Yes they do, but far less often than to those unable to move out of bad neighborhoods. Breyer is also so prejudiced against an individual RKBA that he is unlikely to accept that having a loaded gun would have been of any use to him.

Baja Daze
06-20-2013, 3:59 AM
"Another case got an extension, so I want one too" is not a valid reason for SC purposes.

Exactly.

SCOTUS is going to force Gura's hand here, and then deny cert. Count on it.

I will be overjoyed if I'm wrong.

Kevin, no offense, but I sure hope you are wrong!!

And in regards to the two extensions granted to Madigan by SCOTUS (Kagen), Lisa basically stated that she is simply too busy to file, however everyone knows that is not the case and that she is simply playing political games with the courts.

I am sure that Gura can be creative in drafting an extension request to file cert and from what I understand, SCOTUS is fairly liberal (no pun intended) in granting these requests. I still expect Gura to make the request, it simply makes sense, however I never speculated here in regards to SCOTUS granting his request!

Al Norris
06-20-2013, 8:16 AM
The denial of the rehearing en banc, was on April 16th. The petition for cert must be made within a 90 day period. That puts it on or about July 15th. Madigan's latest extension is for, what, July 24th?

Alan Gura will need to file for an extension, at a minimum of around July 5th.

If Mr. Gura is waiting out the Moore mandate, he will not only have to file for an extension, he will have to be prepared to file, if the extension is denied. Such a denial will be based upon which Supreme Court Justice is over the 4th Circuit. Does anyone know who that might be?

Big Ben
06-20-2013, 9:14 AM
The denial of the rehearing en banc, was on April 16th. The petition for cert must be made within a 90 day period. That puts it on or about July 15th. Madigan's latest extension is for, what, July 24th?

Alan Gura will need to file for an extension, at a minimum of around July 5th.

If Mr. Gura is waiting out the Moore mandate, he will not only have to file for an extension, he will have to be prepared to file, if the extension is denied. Such a denial will be based upon which Supreme Court Justice is over the 4th Circuit. Does anyone know who that might be?

As of 2010, it was Chief Justice Roberts. Couldn't find anything more recent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092810zr.pdf (see 3rd page)

UPDATE: After some additional searching, I can't find any more recent allotment orders, so I'm going to assume that it is still Roberts.

Paladin
06-20-2013, 5:19 PM
The denial of the rehearing en banc, was on April 16th. The petition for cert must be made within a 90 day period. That puts it on or about July 15th. Madigan's latest extension is for, what, July 24th?

Alan Gura will need to file for an extension, at a minimum of around July 5th.Actually, SCOTUS gave Madigan until the 22nd.

http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x871007557/U-S-Supreme-Court-grants-Madigan-more-time-on-guns#axzz2WekvpNXV

So, 4th of July Independence Day celebrations. :happybday:

Let's guess 5th of July for Gura to ask for extension in Wollard in order to give him time to file for cert if denied.

9th of July deadline for Gov. Quinn.

~15 July Wollard cert deadline if Gura does not ask for/get extension.

22 July Sheppard-Moore cert deadline for Madigan

mid to late July Zimmerman verdict (there might be a spike in CGNers carrying in their trunks because they're "going to the range" either before or after work :cool:)

Wild cards: Palmer, Peruta-Richards-Baker, and who knows whatever other cases that are long overdue.

IOW, this could be a memorable July! Hopefully, it will be our last one in CA (and IL), w/o Shall Issue.... (insert fingers crossed smilie here)

jnojr
06-20-2013, 6:07 PM
A cert request is all that's left. If they fail to request cert, they have then failed to respond to an order from their Federal District Court, and the ruling stands. IL. residents are free to carry, openly or concealed.

They'll be arrested, possibly killed. They'll have the opportunity to sue from a prison cell, or their families can after the ceremony. Years later, the taxpayers might write some checks. Meanwhile, nobody will lose their jobs or salaries or benefits or pensions.

A law must have a meaningful "...or else" to have any effect. And those penalties must apply to individuals. Otherwise, individuals simply do what they want and allow some other entity to pay the price. It's like telling me that robbing banks is illegal, and if I get caught you go to prison.

Al Norris
06-21-2013, 8:49 AM
Thank you to Big Ben, for showing me where to look to find the SCOTUS oversight on the circuit courts.

Thanks also to Paladin for correcting me on the time limit on the IL stay.

The guess on when/if Gura files for an extension, in Woollard, is just that, a guess. Based upon the two filings by Madigan - 10 days from the date of the deadline(s).

From my observations, the courts are more likely to be deferential to a governmental entity. Hence the extensions. This is mostly because all it does is to keep the existing laws in operation, preserving the status quo.

I suspect (though I do not know) that Alan Gura will have to have a better argument than Madigan's "the dog ate my homework" meme.

Que sera, sera.

press1280
06-21-2013, 4:28 PM
Thank you to Big Ben, for showing me where to look to find the SCOTUS oversight on the circuit courts.

Thanks also to Paladin for correcting me on the time limit on the IL stay.

The guess on when/if Gura files for an extension, in Woollard, is just that, a guess. Based upon the two filings by Madigan - 10 days from the date of the deadline(s).

From my observations, the courts are more likely to be deferential to a governmental entity. Hence the extensions. This is mostly because all it does is to keep the existing laws in operation, preserving the status quo.

I suspect (though I do not know) that Alan Gura will have to have a better argument than Madigan's "the dog ate my homework" meme.

Que sera, sera.

He could ask for the extension to allow more time for the companion cases in CA3 and CA9 to be decided, or the dog ate my homework. I suspect he might get an extension just because the court is on vacation and doesn't otherwise affect anything.

krucam
07-12-2013, 9:31 AM
Petition for Cert was filed 7/9/2013 in Woollard.

:)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-42.htm

Apocalypsenerd
07-12-2013, 9:58 AM
Unfortunately, I think KC is right.

Actions speak pretty loudly, and I am thinking the SCOTUS is done, for now. The 2A right needs to be protected. It doesn't require a perfect case. You can tell by recent rulings on other cases that they are quite adept at issuing opinions from imperfect cases and that are not narrow. They could have picked up any of the recent cases to state strict scrutiny and bear outside the home. They have not.

IVC
07-12-2013, 9:59 AM
Great news. When does it get denied?

/JK

nullman
07-12-2013, 10:31 AM
Anyone have a link to the petition itself?

Thanks,
Nick


"Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013) "


Great news. When does it get denied?

/JK

Paladin
08-12-2013, 3:34 PM
"Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013) "

Any news/links?

HowardW56
08-12-2013, 3:44 PM
Any news/links?

No. 13-42
Title:
Raymond Woollard, et al., Petitioners
v.
Denis Gallagher, et al.
Docketed: July 11, 2013
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-1437)
Decision Date: March 21, 2013
Rehearing Denied: April 16, 2013

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013)
Jul 9 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Aug 6 2013 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 9, 2013.


Wait a little longer......

Paladin
08-12-2013, 3:51 PM
No. 13-42
Title:
Raymond Woollard, et al., Petitioners
v.
Denis Gallagher, et al.

<snip>

Aug 6 2013 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 9, 2013.


Wait a little longer......
Thx

CCWFacts
08-12-2013, 4:12 PM
I think we are about to see with our own eyes just how limited the power of the federal judiciary really is when it is not backed by the federal executive.

That is a beautiful observation and a beautiful way to state it.

HowardW56
08-12-2013, 6:14 PM
Anyone have a link to the petition itself?

Thanks,
Nick


"Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2013) "

Yep

Baja Daze
08-13-2013, 1:01 AM
Petition for Cert was filed 7/9/2013 in Woollard.

:)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-42.htm

The Cato Institute has filed an Amicus brief in support of Woollard! LINK (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/woollard_filed_brief.pdf)

Big Ben
08-13-2013, 9:04 AM
The Cato Institute has filed an Amicus brief in support of Woollard! LINK (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/woollard_filed_brief.pdf)

Thanks for the link. Great read!

speedrrracer
08-13-2013, 11:07 AM
The Cato Institute has filed an Amicus brief in support of Woollard! LINK (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/woollard_filed_brief.pdf)

It's a great way to determine who is optimistic and who is pessimistic on the issue of our 2A rights in this nation.

Read the Cato amicus brief. When you finish, are you happy or not?

I was frustrated as ****. Hopefully I'm not yet kcbrown, but I fear I may be sliding downwards :( ;)

hardlyworking
08-13-2013, 12:20 PM
It's a great way to determine who is optimistic and who is pessimistic on the issue of our 2A rights in this nation.

Read the Cato amicus brief. When you finish, are you happy or not?

I was frustrated as ****. Hopefully I'm not yet kcbrown, but I fear I may be sliding downwards :( ;)

Haha, KCB is just the messenger of our demise, don't shoot the messenger!

Am I happy after reading the CATO brief? Yes! I felt like it lost a little oomph at the end. I wish lawyers (I've read several now) would burry some of the more "procedural" stuff in the middle of their arguments, and save the juicy bits for the intro and exit rather than blow their wad at the beginning and limp across the finish line.

That said, I very much liked the abortion tie-in (Gura has one too somewhere) as a means of getting Liberal justices buy-in to what is, and is not "reasonable regulation".

Also very much like their treatment of the 4th and how it is absurd to think that We The People could somehow be made to petition for the right against unreasonable search and seizure only if we somehow satisfied a hightened right to privacy above what an "ordinary" citizen experiences.

ldsnet
08-13-2013, 2:20 PM
Though I am happy to have the support of the CATO institute, I am somewhat displeased with their brief (in our support). Not going after the scrutiny of constitutionally protected right is precisely what got us into this current mess. YES we need the court to recognize the right SPECIFICALLY outside the home and YES we need the court to say to the legislature "may issue" plans are no good.

We need to go one step further we NEED the SCOTUS to direct their lower courts how to evaluate 2A cases and on what level they are to proceed. Without this direction, the lower courts will continue to deny "We the People" our rights.

I did like the tie in to all the substantial rulings on other amendments and how the current rulings is a reversal of protection of a right.

Peaceful John
08-13-2013, 4:02 PM
Though I am happy to have the support of the CATO institute, I am somewhat displeased with their brief (in our support). Not going after the scrutiny of constitutionally protected right is precisely what got us into this current mess. YES we need the court to recognize the right SPECIFICALLY outside the home and YES we need the court to say to the legislature "may issue" plans are no good.

We need to go one step further we NEED the SCOTUS to direct their lower courts how to evaluate 2A cases and on what level they are to proceed. Without this direction, the lower courts will continue to deny "We the People" our rights.

I did like the tie in to all the substantial rulings on other amendments and how the current rulings is a reversal of protection of a right.

The way I read it, Idsnet, Cato is not addressing guns, really. Their argument seemed to me to be that all fundamental rights, 2A being only one of several, must be scrutinized with the same lens: that arbitrary permission may not be required for a citizen to exercise a fundamental right. Did I miss something? If the Court finds with Cato, wouldn't that make subsequent cases a little easier for us?

randian
08-13-2013, 4:13 PM
If the Court finds with Cato, wouldn't that make subsequent cases a little easier for us?
Yes, but no court has ever accepted a prior restraint argument in a 2A case. Doing so blows up the entire gun control regime. Generally courts seem to ignore the point entirely.

Peaceful John
08-13-2013, 4:58 PM
Yes, but no court has ever accepted a prior restraint argument in a 2A case. Doing so blows up the entire gun control regime. Generally courts seem to ignore the point entirely.

Randian, I've been meaning to ask someone this for a long time. Would not accepting the prior restraint argument result in universal "shall issue"? That's what most states have anyway, so why would that be a problem for the courts?

randian
08-13-2013, 5:28 PM
Randian, I've been meaning to ask someone this for a long time. Would not accepting the prior restraint argument result in universal "shall issue"? That's what most states have anyway, so why would that be a problem for the courts?
The permit scheme itself constitutes prior restraint. Even if the courts don't buy that, and they haven't so far, you'd still end up invalidating the no-carry schemes of CA, MA, NY, DC, MD, etc. They're afraid to do that. They have no trouble striking down abortion restrictions and voter id, but gun bans are AOK.

chris
08-13-2013, 5:53 PM
Definitely. If one (or both) these are taken, the issue to be decided will be do we have a constitutional right to "bear" arms on our person outside the home.

that would be great but this state will still ignore it.

Al Norris
08-20-2013, 9:15 AM
Here is a recap of what is posted at the SCOTUS Docket, along with links to the filings that I have read:

No. 13-42
Title: Raymond Woollard, et al., Petitioners v. Denis Gallagher, et al.
Docketed: July 11, 2013
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case Nos.: (12-1437)
Decision Date: March 21, 2013
Rehearing Denied: April 16, 2013


~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 9 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=256774&d=1376356453) filed. (Response due August 12, 2013)
Jul 9 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Aug 6 2013 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 9, 2013.
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/woollard_filed_brief.pdf) filed.
Aug 12 2013 Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners Foundation (http://www.gunowners.com/Woollard.v.Gallagher.AmicusBrief.pdf), et al. filed.
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The American Civil Rights Union (http://theacru.org/No.13-42_Amicus_Woolard_v_Gallagher_081213.pdf) filed.
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association, Inc. filed.
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Aug 12 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Academics for the Second Amendment filed.

I have some emails out, for links to the other 3 briefs. I would hope that whoever sees/finds/receives them first, will post them here.