Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Would the concealed carry bill render Moore moot?

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Would the concealed carry bill render Moore moot?

    Simple question, I think. From what I know of the law, a lawsuit against the State under 42 USC 1983 can be rendered moot if the State changes the law or whatever situation is being challenged, so that the Plaintiff's original complaint no longer applies. Basically, the Plaintiffs only have standing as long as their rights are still infringed. This is why a lot of 2A cases get class-action status; the State or local jurisdiction could otherwise make the whole thing go away by giving the specific named Plaintiffs a permit to do as they're asking for, while still barring everyone else from doing the same.

    With the Illinois Concealed Carry statute on Gov. Quinn's desk, and the ball in the State's court for an appeal to SCOTUS on Moore v. Madigan, the question is, can he do both? does Quinn, or Madigan, or the ISP, still have standing to appeal to SCOTUS if Quinn signs the bill into law? For that matter, does the SAF or any other Plaintiff/Petitioner still have the right to appeal if Quinn signs the bill into law, and if not, does the case still stand as presenting divided Circuit Court opinions on the matter of self-defense outside the home?

  2. #2
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    IMO once Quinn signs the bill, and the court accepts it, he has no grounds for appeal.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I think it makes a 42 USC 1983 claim even stronger ... after all, you were deprived for a long long time

    if the relief being sought was not a $$$ seeking suit (which ALL suits should be/include) then yes, it would be moot.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ILLINOIS
    Posts
    57
    Lisa Madigan has until the 24th of this month to file for appeal. If Quinn signs the bill, or if he vetoes, and then is overridden by the legislature. The appeal would be moot. the court will not review the new law. If there are any possible constitutional problems it will require a new lawsuit to be filed. Which I believe will be filed as soon as the bill becomes law.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    Lisa Madigan has until the 24th of this month to file for appeal. If Quinn signs the bill, or if he vetoes, and then is overridden by the legislature. The appeal would be moot. the court will not review the new law. If there are any possible constitutional problems it will require a new lawsuit to be filed. Which I believe will be filed as soon as the bill becomes law.
    thanks for the info !

    Keep the faith!

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    ... If there are any possible constitutional problems it will require a new lawsuit to be filed. Which I believe will be filed as soon as the bill becomes law.
    (my emphasis)

    I certainly hope so, since even with the pile of poo that is the bill, IL residents STILL would have no RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

  7. #7
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Yes it would moot the Moore case.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    364
    The carry bill has passed, it allows the Illinois State Police 6 months to get the training requirements in place and 3 months to issue a license to carry after the application is submitted. The plaintiffs are now seeking relief from the court on the grounds that the state did not restore their second amendment rights in a timely fashion. They waited to the last day, which included a 30 day extension they court gave to pass the law.

  9. #9
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Would the concealed carry bill render Moore moot?

    The case would be moot if not for the fact it has not remedied the issue before the court until a date many months into the future. Moore/Sheppard won their case, a mandate was issued, the stay has expired and the victors still have no relief they are entitled to. The state had the opportunity to remedy this at many levels but refused to do so. Until the relief is a reality the case should not be dismissed.

    But, this is Illinois, who knows.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •