search
top

“The petitionŒ is therefore DENIED.”

Thirdpower reports that the request for a rehearing en banc has been denied this morning in Illinois.

Contrary to the claims by Cook County officials, even the dissent from the decision is pretty damn clear that Illinois cannot continue to violate civil rights.

The panel majority opinion is now the law of the circuit, and Illinois has 180 days to decide how to amend its laws.

12 Responses to ““The petitionŒ is therefore DENIED.””

  1. Andy B. says:

    “We’ll give you 180 days to cut that out?”

    Gee, when a cop stops me, why can’t I get a deal like that?

  2. JD Rush says:

    This does rule out a Supreme Court challenge, right?

    • harp1034 says:

      No, they can still appeal to the Supreme Court. That does not mean the Supremes will hear it. Many cases are appealed to the Supreme Court but only a few are decided by the Supreme Court.

      • HSR47 says:

        The SCOTUS may well choose not to grant Moore v. Madigan cert; That said, they WILL almost certainly hear Kachalsky v. Cacace and/or Woollard v. Sheridan, given that both cases seem to argue the same point, and there is strong possibility that the circuit courts will uphold the district court decisions.

  3. ACSG says:

    I do love it when you have good news to report…lately, I’ve only been able to check up when I’m not afraid of being in a bad mood for a while.

  4. Archer says:

    Illinois (read: Chicago) lawmakers will try to make CCW as crazy-difficult as possible, but they’re in a rough position; if their proposed CCW amendment law doesn’t pass, gun owners get constitutional carry by default. As Kurt Hofmann reports, at this point, Why should gun rights advocates in Illinois support ANY concealed carry bill?

  5. beatbox says:

    I’m guessing Bloomberg has already made a call to Madigan telling her she better NOT f’ing appeal to the Supremes.

  6. rd says:

    WHEN, not if, CC passes in IL, Chicago will probably still be difficult. After all, the laws only apply to us peasants, not our lords and masters like Rahm and the Chicago gang.

    I hope the SAF is planning for contesting more unlawful impediments and outright harassment of legal citizens. After all, they have spent millions losing lawsuits after their police unlawfully abused citizens every year.

  7. SPQR says:

    Wow, I didn’t expect that.

  8. Harry Schell says:

    Madigan has until next Thursday to seek indicate she is going for cert to SCOTUS. If the passes on that, IL will have to adopt (probably shall issue) a carry bill.

    The anti’s have figured out that ignoring the court will not work, and an intrusive may-issue bill may be struck down, particularly if it tries to allow local discretion.

    Methinks they will go for the most intrusive and expensive shall issue law they can concoct with a lot of places where one cannot carry. Anything to minimize “guns on the street”.

    There is danger in that, as that goal was part of the reason the MD may-issue scheme was overturned.

    • HSR47 says:

      My understanding is that the Illinois legislature is largely split on the issue of guns/carry, with the representatives from the Chicago area being fairly unified against the RKBA, and the representatives from the rest of the state being largely in favor of the RKBA.

      From what I’ve gathered, it seems that the pro-RKBA legislators are in a slight minority (thus why there is presently no provision for lawful carry of loaded firearms in the state), and that they don’t have enough votes to pass a carry bill on their own (that is, without the support of representatives from Chicago), but that they have enough votes to prevent the passage of bad legislation.

      Basically, in the past the Chicago legislators have utterly prevented a carry law from passing, but now they have no choice, and thus they’ll largely have to do it on the terms of the more pro-RKBA legislators.

top